User talk:Onel5969: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:05, 16 February 2022

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47

Edit Count

edit count

Wiki mark-up link

Hi! You might find these handy:

Simple guide to Wikipedia mark-up
- Advanced guide to Wiki mark-up

Cheers! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 22:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links for new editors

If you're leaving a question regarding an article you're attempting to get onto Wikipedia, here are some links you might find helpful:

Breckinridge Family in the American Civil War

Hello, Onel. I noted your new tag on this article, created by me, and recently approved and posted up.

I have no objection to your post, but I'm just a little puzzled as to why six different sources is considered too few for such a short article. There are much longer articles which quote only one source, or even none. Is there any reference-point in the Wiki guidelines as to how many sources one should aim at? Valetude (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Valetude - first, when you leave a comment asking about an article, please leave a link to that article. Second, regarding your question, the # of citations is irrelevant, but that everything in the article be cited. There are quite a few things in that article which have no citations. This also helps protect your hard work, since uncited material may be removed at any time. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes The World Ain't Enough

Hi, I saw you reverted Sometimes The World Ain't Enough back to a redirect. I read the revision history and the reason you gave was that it was 'per afd' as in Articles For Deletion, I suppose. Could you explain the reason? Is it not notable enough? Thanks! BornGabe (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BornGabe - as per AfD means as per Articles for Deletion. In other words a discussion was had amongst editors and it was decided that the subject was not notable enough for an article. In addition, looking at the sources you provided, there is only 1 in-depth article about the album from an independent reliable source (the Blabbermouth review), so would not pass another discussion. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Indian Ports Association

Hi Onel5969. Thanks for your time and efforts in reviewing this article. However, I observe that speedy deletion tag had been placed on this articele. As its a statutory organisation under Government of India, its written for informational use of wider public. Request you to kindly guide if its not following Wikipedia policy but if it meets requirements kindly remove the tag so that it can be used for wider public. Thanking you. Gardenkur (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gardenkur - Even if the article was about something of unquestionable notability, say, The New York Times, if all the article did was simply promote the newspaper, then it would be subject to deletion. You have to write the article about the subject, not promoting it. Get rid of any "objectives", and then I would re-write the "initiatives" section into prose, rather than list, and simply make sure the citations back up the statements. I started the process of transitioning the second portion to give you an idea. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Onel5969. I thank you for your suggestions and see that I follow your suggestions in future in all my articles. With vast experience you have I respect your guidance. Thanks a lot again for this favour and will get back to you soon after recommended changes. Gardenkur (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC) Dear Onel5969. I made improvements in article as suggested by you and resubmiited. Kindly have a look and let me know for any changes. Thanking you. Gardenkur (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kearis Jackson

I have gone back in and I have tried to fix my Kearis Jackson article by adding better references and removing the ESPN references etc. Please respond asap so I can fix the article based on how much more you think I should do. I want to work to come to a satisfying conclusion. Thanks! BullDawg2021 (talk)

Hi BullDawg2021 - First, you do not need anyone's permission to remove a prod tag. Since you are disputing the prod here, I've gone ahead and removed it on your behalf. Second, the only coverage about this player is what I deem as WP:ROUTINE. And as such, he does not qualify as per WP:GNG. In addition, there is nothing in the article to indicate he satisfies any of the conditions of WP:COLLATH. I prodded it due to the fact that it was tagged for improvement for a month, without anything being done to attempt to fix the article. Unless better, in-depth sourcing is added to the article, it will probably end up at AfD. Third, there is nothing wrong with the ESPN references, other than their lack of depth of coverage. It wasn't your sources, but the lack of in-depth coverage about the subject. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Repeated recreation of Lovejoy (band) despite consensus. Thank you. wizzito | say hello! 01:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Bolian

Hello, you reverted my edit with adding an article and changing Ed Bolian back to a redirect. I was aware of the previous AFD, but at this point, I thought he passed Wikipedia:ONEEVENT due to the popularity of his YouTube channel, and the RS's that have wrote about it. Can you please explain how "nothing new since it occoured" is true in the case of the overwhelming popularity of his channel? Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The AfD occurred in 2016, and nothing new has happened since then. The popularity of a channel might indicate notability for the channel, not necessarily for the man. In addition, other than the BIO1E, your version was mostly sourced by primary sources or unreliable sources (e.g. twitter, instagram, youtube, linked in). Hope this explains it better. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to bring this back to my sandbox, and try and put in more RS's in order to fulfill notability guidelines better. Cheers! Sea Cow (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smerinthus astarte reversion

Hi, Onel5969. Why did it get reverted? Is it because I made it in a redirect page? Or is it because you don’t think it was valid? If it’s the former, then it’s because I was worried when I made it myself it was gonna make and error or link the redirect instead. If the latter, I’m sure it is valid. I am sure the Sphingidae Taxonomic Inventory is a trusted source, and there was even a study. If there is anyway I can resubmit this, please answer and thank you in advance. Mcatto (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Monarchatto Mcatto (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As was said in the edit summary, it was because it was a copyright violation (COPYVIO). WP takes copyright infringement very seriously, so please refrain from doing so, as it could get you blocked. See WP:COPYVIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Hello, I'm Hajoon0102. I noticed that you recently removed content from Samsung Galaxy A13 without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. --Hajoon0102 💬 14:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I explained completely why, there are not enough in-depth sources from independent sites to show it passes WP:GNG. Sorry if that is too difficult for you to comprehend. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Lorenzo

User:onel5969 Good day, thank you for your suggestion and feedback. Duly noted. There have been by myself and with other Wikipedia users/editors a total of 7 reliable and independent sourced citations submitted to the Brandon Lorenzo article. Please provide feedback as you've moved this article to drafts. Thank you kindly. WikiHuman2021 WikiHuman2021 (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all the uncited material to give you an idea of what it was lacking, virtually gutting the article, which is something I didn't want to do, which is why I moved it into draftspace for you to work on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society

I appreciate your diligence, but I would like to understand why there is (maybe not only from you but possibly other editors) constant effort to continuously revert the changes on creating this page, especially due to this journal being a critical part of American history, specifically the oldest and longest running journal covering intellectual property (and founded in 1918). Do you suggest creating it in that alternate test space first? I just want to understand what you and these other editors take issue with is all before proceeding, and would like to get your blessing to create this page.

There would be no issue with you creating it in draft space and working on it there. However, while there is not a question of notability regarding the journal, there is the question, why? Why does WP need a single line article about a journal, which is already covered in another very short article about the organization? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aynus Antony

User:onel5969 Why was this article moved to draft? All listed sources are top media houses in India. What more sources are expected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaisonAbeySabu (talk • contribs) 11:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was explained in the edit summary, you appear to have some connection with the article's subject, so you should take a look at WP:UPE and WP:COI to see how you can comply with WP guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my Wikipedia page I would like to know the reason why This is Alexander DeVoe I would like it restored and the redirect removed

You deleted/ redirected my Wikipedia page. Why did you do that. This is Alexander DeVoe I would like my page restored 2603:8001:7C3F:B632:64F7:7140:35F0:964E (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Hello Onel5969, I hope you doing great ? I see you review articles I created on the wikipedia platform. Just want to say thank you for your remark, I do appreciate and hoping to create more good articles in the future.--Gabriel601 (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loraine James

Hello again!

Could you assess this article and give me some feedback whenever you have the time? I thought it would be a better idea for me to focalize a bit when creating articles so as to learn the ins and outs a bit more efficiently. This week, I'm considering creating articles for a number of notable musicians slated to perform at this year's Coachella.

Loraine James is notable, that's for sure, and I like to think I did a pretty good job with the article. But I'm certain there's room for improvement and I have a few lingering questions.

What do you think of the "External Links" section, particularly for entertainer biographies? Should it be placed before or after the "References" section?
1. The placement of sections in an article is best gone over at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout, but to answer your specific question, after.
Would you have sectioned the article differently?
1. This is very subjective. Personally, I wouldn't have the Biography header, would have just broken the article into 3 sections. But the way you did it is fine.
Should I write more about the albums? I try to but it usually ends up sounding a bit subjective, or the tone just isn't very "encyclopedic". Still, I feel as if there is room for expansion.
1. Again, subjective, but most editors would agree that single sentence paragraphs are problematic. I would condense them into a single paragraph, or two short ones (one for the 2010s and one for the 2020s). For the 1st album and the 2 EPs, I would expand, especially since they don't have their own articles. The 2nd album, which has its own article is fine.
How should I proceed with categories? I feel like I often miss the important/pertinent ones while adding a few that are somewhat broad. For example, should I add the "Electronic music articles" category to Jame's article, a biography?
1. Categories are not my strong suit, I tend to hit the major ones, and let editors who scour WP about categories flesh them out. But if you know of a cat, than by all means add it.
Anything else I can improve?
1. Looks good to me as it is, other than the single sentence structure. One thing though, you mention she has an aka, whenever you do that, and bold it in the lead, create a redirect. In this case I did it for you.

Thanks again for your time! If you'd rather I ping you on my own talk page next time, please let me know. Mooonswimmer 17:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arunmozhi

Thank you

The page 'Arunmozhi' was created by me as a music fan. Since Wikipedia remains an important source of information, I wanted to document the contributions of Arunmozhi to music in Wikipedia. There is absolutely no conflict of interest. As a new editor of Wikipedia, I couldnt connect this page with one page, which is already there in his name in Tamil language, which is very brief and short of information. Most of his songs are internally sources which were earlier found in his both names. Through this page, I organized them well and properly sourced.! I have also collected few more reliable sources, that I will add. Thank you so much.! Thirukannan (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry, but there is a clear indication that you have some relationship with the article's subject. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manbang Yi

You moved the article on Korean composer Manbang Yi to "drafts". Please note that: 1) it is much longer and has much more information than articles marked as "stubs" which nevertheless have been approved to function on en.wikipedia; 2) I have done extensive research to complete the sections on Yi's compositions, written works and performances of his works and included all this in the entry 3) due to a language barrier it is practically impossible for me to quote other sources 4) there is very very little on Yi in English, so the need to create an entry on him is even bigger. The only thing I can do (cf. 3) is actually shorten the biography so that it can be approved as a stub. I would be grateful if you tell me which information to ommit and how much is enough for it to be accepted as a stub. thank you Ivonna Nowicka (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It has nothing to do with lack of notability or sourcing, neither of which I looked at. It all comes down to the fact that there are clear indications you have some connection to the article's subject. Would you care to explain what that connection is? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable awards

A user Lillyput4455 is adding the nominations and awards of IPPA awards in articles such as Aisi Hai Tanhai and Sammi (TV series) without any reference, they are not notable awards and also there is no nay article linked to that awards, thus not satisfy the wiki criteria for awards. Please, guide the user about it. Qwef1234 (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NFL Scoring Leaders - One Source

Hello,

I saw that you added a tag to the page List of National Football League annual scoring leaders. Creating articles is new for me, so I wanted to ask someone, are two sources normally considered good enough when it comes to references for stats?

Original source: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/scoring_year_by_year.htm

Additional source: https://www.footballdb.com/leaders/yearly-scoring-points

Any feedback is appreciated, as I'm still learning. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hey man im josh - the number doesn't matter, but the quality does. But usually at least 2 quality sources are enough. You want to show that you are not synthesizing the stats, but are simply reporting them. And list articles are better if instead of simply providing the list, which many editors do, you also provide context. For instance, your list would be great if you explained why you have 3 tables (e.g. prior to the merger of the AFL and NFL...). But again, if you do, provide a source for what you right, so that it's not original research. Also, as a hint, when you leave a message, there are 3 real important things: first, be civil, which you were; second, sign your comment, which you did; and third, leave a link to the page you want to discuss, which you also did. So nice job. Keep up the good work, and don't be afraid to ask questions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ksenija Knežević's wiki page

Hi! can you tell me why you always move Ksenija's page to te Hurricane's. Her page have all that needs to be there? Slovena4ther (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. First, I'm not always moving the page. I did it once. And that was because there is simply not enough in-depth coverage about her, outside the band, to show that she meets notability by herself. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But she is definitely deserves her own page and she is notability a lot. Also think that this is not the reason to move her page to Hurricane's. She is definetly one of the most popular singers from Serbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slovena4ther (talk • contribs) 20:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Guthrie, Arizona for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Guthrie, Arizona is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guthrie, Arizona (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Mangoe (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Brewing Co - moved to draft

I have absolutely no idea why you made the Pioneer Brewing article a "draft" - maybe some sort of play on words given that they produce mainly packaged beers?

What would you have me do?

List the awards they have received over the past few years? Boring I reckon.
List the types of beers they produce - given that they seem to ring the changes in styles fairly regularly the article would soon be out of date.

When I created the article some time ago, I deliberately left it bare bones because there is not a lot of third party references around at the moment it being a family-run rural based start up and being in Australia is not PR conscious (or full of BS) like a lot of US businesses.

I don't know why some editors do this sort of thing to articles created in good faith. It's no wonder that the numbers of active editors is dropping away. Most people don't have the energy to deal with this sort of crap.

If you want an article to pick on look closer to home - the article on Flying Bison Brewing Company has lots of issues.

Silent Billy (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it doesn't have nearly enough in-depth sources to show it passes WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Since I think it could be notable, I moved it to draft so you could work on it. And btw, then going to AfD and casting a !vote in retaliation is a pretty juvenile response. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't retaliation. It's a flippin' locality at best. A short para in the local county article would be sufficient. Silent Billy (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, when you haven't participated in AfD for years, then suddenly show up at a discussion right after you post on my talk page, whining about your article, which is just below the AfD discussion notice. Very few would not see the transparency of your above lie. Stay off my talk page. You are not worth anyone's time. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CAST-15 notability tag

I think I see your point about the question of notability of CAST-15. I will try to address the concerns as far as I can infer them. I will need some time (weeks) though as I have to manage other duties.

Well, technically, you, personally, gave no suggestion or explanation for the tag, but the following seems to state things sufficiently.

Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention.

Most of the citations at the time were references within the RTCA publication sphere. RTCA is not FAA, while the CASTs are FAA publications. So, the citations were in that sense, secondary to a degree; they were non-FAA documents referencing FAA documents that were crucially important in the development of the non-FAA documents. Particularly, the CASTs were effectively the reasons those documents came to be.

These CASTs are at once historic and useful; yes, on one hand they were technically obsoleted by the new releases of other documents, but on the other hand they have significant information in them that was not included in the new document, but is very helpful in understanding them, and secondary sources about the new documents also refer to the CASTs. I have found in them citations for words of advice that FAA-appointed auditors have given me over the decades.

The 2004 FAA Job Aid refers to a number of CASTs, directing reviewers to them for additional information and guidance. I am trying to find the current system of FAA Software Reviews as I presume there has been some shake up.

I was able to add some citations that are neither FAA orders or RTCA publications. Hopefully, these help.

IveGoneAway (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No, RTCA are primary sources. And I understand your contention that they help to understanding the newer regs. Perhaps you could add this information into a historical section on the article about the newer regs? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never the less, I think I provided secondary sources (Rierson and Mathworks are authoritative). These direct workers to a number of CASTs, not just -15; Mathworks in particular seeing it necessary to cite CAST-15, not DO-178C, to explain the distinctions between HLR/LLR. A frustration of Rev C is how little clarity was improved; EASA are presently banging us up against CAST-15 (through the CM) in a language development.

As a whole, the CASTs would be mentioned in the history, whereas the CASTs need to be sited in specific sections of DO-178C, et al, to explain some concepts particularly novel to the guidance.

The FAA Job Aid directs the users to the CASTs where they know the DOs are incomplete or unclear. I am not saying all CAST are notable. CAST-15 may seem an orphan now, but there would be a few articles on FAA Orders that would reference it when I get to it. The CASTs record a historic effort and so appear in the established technical literature where they are cited rather than the standards.

IveGoneAway (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You moved an article I created about Elio Villafranca

You said that it "appears" that the page was created by a paid editor or someone with COI? I am neither getting paid, nor do I have any COI. How does it appear this way? As far as the "independence" of the sources are concerned, can you please tell me which source is an issue? Most of the sources I used are sources that I saw being used in other approved pages. Please, if you are going to mark a page someone has worked on as a draft, do not do so with out explaining a bit more. I would like to follow guidelines. I think I did. If I did not do so, please elaborate how. A link to the page is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Elio_Villafranca. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arimaniacle (talk • contribs) 20:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There are clear indications that you have a relationship with the article's subject. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of indications? --Arimaniacle (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the info is all sourced. I do not have a COI with the subject. People of less noteworthiness have pages written on them. You are not being descript in the feedback. If you do not give me any real feedback, I can make a RfC. --Arimaniacle (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't give hints to folks to show them how to circumvent being COI/UPE. And your reaction tends to say that you're probably UPE, rather than simply COI. And "make a RFC"? About what? Simply submit your article for review through the AfC process. And follow the instructions on WP:COI or WP:UPE about how to deal with your conflict. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm paid?? If someone contributes only one article, are they automatically assumed COI or UPE? Even if the subject is Grammy nominated, all of their contemporaries have articles, and they consistently perform in the city I am in? If that is the case, it would be impossible for anyone to become a regular contributor. I am absolutely not UPE... I am an underemployed piano teacher with passion for music who took time out of my life to make what I thought was my first article. In fact I was somewhat proud of it...

You don't want to give me hints? If any reference to an issue is a hint, and you can't give hints, how can anyone be made aware of issues? As far as the RfC, I was understanding the term literally. If it is just you I need to listen to, and you don't want to give "hints" I thought a "request for comment" may be a good way to get a comment from someone. That said, is there an issue with making an RFC? Is it not as innocuous as it sounds? I really am trying to abide by the guidelines. What else am I supposed to do? --Arimaniacle (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion about making changes to pages or procedures. You could certainly start one, but what would it be about? They usually have a very specific purpose, like "Should we change the SNG about Olympic athletes from the current one which says that anyone who participated in the Olympics should be considered notable, to limit it to only those who have won medals?". (That's a recent one). But feel free. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I won't make the RFC if it will be of no use. I was thinking to use it in context of it's use for pages. That is how I thought of incorporating it to this situation. The idea was to Request for Comment if anyone else thinks I am UPE or COI. To me, the fact that you said I'm likely UPE tells me that you really are a wrong in your assumptions. I have resubmitted the draft for review. Are you saying that there is nothing else for me to do? - Thanks--Arimaniacle (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nadja Petrovic

Hello. I was notified of the lack of independent sources for the article Nadja Petrovic, but I have referenced three sources outside her own website. is this not considered enough? I know that two of them are in Macedonian, but that's where the information is. is there a rule that they most be in English? Regards. B. Jankuloski (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi B. Jankuloski. Of the 3, 2 are primary, since they are related to the artist (because they are the places putting on her shows). That leaves only the single remaining one. I could not find anything additional in-depth about her. You'd need at least 2 more to show she passes GNG. Hope this helps.

I have added the required sources which I hope will satisfy GNG. Could you please have a look again and, if all is well, advise me if it's okay? I'd appreciate if you let me know if you have removed the deletion template, or if there is something else I need to do. Thank you! --B. Jankuloski (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job Bjankuloski06. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CKFF-FM Radio

Hi there, I saw that you tagged the CKFF-FM Wikipedia article with notability. I found a newsletter from June 2020 saying that the radio station signed on the air in April 2020. There's also a link to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) of when the new radio station in Kipawa, Quebec, Canada was approved in 2018 to operate at 104.1 FM. Hope this helps! 45.78.101.125 (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you need is 3 or more in-depth pieces from sources which are independent and reliable. Newsletters would not be reliable. And simple listings are not in-depth. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022 ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Problems including repeated XfD discussion interference. Thank you.

( The thread is about interference with your XfD !vote but also concerns other allegations about you. ) Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dudes (David Mead album)

Hello, Onel5969. Wikipedia says that you reviewed the page "Dudes (David Mead album)," but now it looks like it's vanished from Wikipedia. Did you delete it? If so, could you please explain why?

As was said in the edit summary, it did not meet WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Edward Williams

My only intention is to enhance Wikipedia. I do this by adding content and citations to articles that display a warning. I also edit articles to bring them up-to-date, for example, Olympic results. This gives me real buzz! As I go through this process I come across interesting and notable people and organisations who do not have a Wikipedia page. I then do extensive research and publish an article following Wikipedia strict guidelines. I do not know David Williams (I wish I did as he appears to be an extraordinary character!) nor am I paid. Therefore there is no WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict. The article has 18 reliable secondary and independent sources. Please move the page back to mainspace so that readers can view the accomplishments of a notable person who I think is a genius.FuBiuC (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there are clear indications that you have some type of relationship with the article's subject. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Edward Williams is one of several gay married people I am researching for a series of blogs and publications on notable members of the LGBTQ community. That's my only relationship with him.FuBiuC (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rinkball vs Rink bandy

The Rink bandy article was recently separated into two separate articles: one for Rink bandy and the other for Rinkball. They are separate organized sports. Several other pages have since been relinked to the new article page for rinkball. Is there any way to revert the last edit? So that the two pages remain separate? CheckersBoard (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rinkball is not rink bandy

Incorrect, rinkball is not rink bandy. They have separate rules and separate governing bodies and equipment. Please help revert back to where they were separated. The International Rinkball Federation is a separate body from the Federation of International Bandy. They are not the same sporting bodies. CheckersBoard (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted back to the target article due to the fact that their is not a single reference from an independent reliable source which states that they are different sports. In addition, there were large swaths of the article which were unreferenced. Since you've returned the article to mainspace, I've removed all the unsourced material. It still does not pass WP:GNG, however, since it still does not have a single in-depth reference from an independent reliable source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fecal immunochemical test

It's probably a thing that warrants at least a few words outside the 'blood in stools' article. You're right that it needs decent citing, so that's been added now. Chumpih ^t 20:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annelies Strba

Of course you're American so it's no surprise you don't know this. The diacritic mark in her surname Štrba is an essential part. In my country, for example, Štrba and Strba would be considered different surnames. Stop with this Anglocentrism and move the page properly. Shumkichi (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish help, be civil, else, stay the hell off my page. It would help if you understood WP policies and guidelines, but I guess that's asking too much. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Yacoub_Al-Atrash

hello hello

Hope that you are doing very well...

can you check the article now? I believe it should be ready now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yacoub_Al-Atrash Saher AlSous (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Yanga Chief

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Yanga Chief, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: In my opinion, the 2022 article is sufficiently different enough to the one deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yanga Chief in 2019 to avoid outright WP:G4 deletion. That said, the 2022 article would appear to be sourced from references that would not be considered reliable, and second WP:AFD might result in a similar outcome. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation Shirt58, since I can't see the deleted version, I was unsure, so I figured I'd have someone check it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review the draft

Hello hope you are doing well. I had created an article named Arham Abbasi which was deleted previous day and the reason was G4. And the admin User:Justlettersandnumbers, who deleted the page suggested me that the article is better then the previous one and he/she told me to expand and submit the existing draft (Draft:Arham Abbasi) which has been created already by an another edit. I have expanded the draft and now I have selected the draft for review. So I will be thankful if you check and review the draft. Thank you in advance. Trakinwiki (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The article needs to pass either WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG, hopefully both. At this point, there's nothing in the article to show that it passes either. Please read those guidelines and they'll help you understand. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Shubhra_Mohanty

Hello, trust you are doing fine. I am a bit confused why this article was moved to draft ... your rather short statement that "(the article) is not suitable as written to remain published" is not very helpful in understanding the reasons. The article is well sourced with extremely reliable and respected sources. It has been live and continuously being improved between 14th December and today.

IMHO, other articles with the same or less merit than this article are passed by WP to be "suitable to remain published", I can cite several dozen examples including Annelies_Strba

Can you please check the article and let me know why this should not remain published? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shubhra_Mohanty User_talk:Wadlin13 (talk)Wadlin13 (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, I didn't leave a rather short statement, but a full paragraph explaining why it was draftified, second, I did leave a short edit summary, although not what you state above, which very explicitly said the reason for the move. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yagya Bhasin

Kindly review this article. Thank You Decentuser (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy's World

I wish you could have consulted with me before deleting this page. I was not aware that there were copyvios. I thought the problem with the previous delete was lack of notability. I worked very hard to address that issue and now I find that the page is being again deleted but for a different reason. I searched and found one sentence that seems to be copied from HERE. Perhaps there are other copyvios I did not find. But could I at least have a chance to fix the problem before it is summarily deleted.Toploftical (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I didn't delete the page, I redirected it. After that, the offending copyvio was Revdel'd by an admin. Copyvios are an issue that you really can't "work on", per WP policy they have to be removed as quickly as possible. I don't have access to the original post, since it has been removed, but you might ask the admin who did the revdel. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Moon

Hi! I noticed that a page I made was deleted. (I think)

Talk:Tiffany Moon

I see you have good experience on here. Can you please tell me what the issue is or offer advice? You decide what articles are good on Wikipedia? You just wrote (no notability outside show). People have to be on multiple TV shows or...

I thought an interview in People was good enough. What about this one? Tiffany Hendra

Just trying to figure this out. How do you decide? Thank you

Table at dorsia (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reality show participants have to show notability outside of the show. If all of the press revolves around their participation in a show, then consensus has been to simply redirect them to the show. If they've developed notability outside a show, then there will be press coverage. A good example of this are are contestants on The Voice. If after the show, even though they finished 5th, they get a record contract and put out some albums, they'll be notable, otherwise they'll simply get redirected. And interviews are considered primary sources, and as such do not count towards notability. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That is pretty clear. That makes sense as to why the Tiffany Hendra page is ok. Sounds good to me. Thank you for helping me. Table at dorsia (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maris Vijay moved into Draft Thrice

Hi Onel5969, I just got the notification that you reviewed the article Maris Vijay but Praxidicae moved in into draft third time. Though i am not agree on his/her sole decision. Please look into it. StyleArt (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gotico Angioiano

Look https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Gotico_Angioiano&diff=1072103519&oldid=1072090302 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Gotico_Angioiano&diff=1072110734&oldid=1072110332

Best regards, --Ulamm (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And in the next case, begin a discussion with the author, please, before you withdraw an article from the public.--Ulamm (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC) + --Ulamm (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queensland Wood Reference Collection was

deleted, then restored and detagged. Per special:permalink/1072129380#Queensland Wood Reference Collection copyvio deletion Apparently, the whole source site is cc-by-4.0. Thanks --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is weird, I saw the copyright notice at the bottom of the source, which is why I tagged it. Thanks for letting me know. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ATHENA

Hello please do not revert back the changes I made. These are in good faith and not vandalism. You can see why I made them in the comments in Talk:A Totally Hermetic Electron-Nucleus Apparatus. Note also the COI statement that I made in May 2021, and corresponding warning statement in the draft version of Draft:A Totally Hermetic Electron-Nucleus Apparatus. Draft article was approved with those in place. If you are worried about that, note that the page that you reverted to was written by me. Migue.arratia — Preceding undated comment added 06:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you should ask that changes be made on the article's talk page, not make them yourself. Yes, you wrote the original article, but then it was reviewed by an independent editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello OK. I will ask to make changes in the Talk page. Can you please address this as the editor who approved this? see: Talk:A Totally Hermetic Electron-Nucleus Apparatus. I think that you using the UPE tag on my recent, small edits (which were removing a small paragraph that I wrote but now realize is contentious) is totally unfair, apart from being false, given the COI statements and tags I used.

User:Migue.arratia  — Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final approval

Hello dear friend, thank you for your very high experience in preventing my transfer. I really have trouble transmitting. I really made the article with a lot of difficulty and discussion. I cleared the bad and bad sources. But I have a problem with the final registration and I need an experienced one for the final registration. Thank you for helping me gain more experience from you.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Zahra_Meygoli --Nazanin1376 (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Kwatra edits

Hi Onel5969, thank you for explaining everything around the Neal Kwatra article. It was very clarifying and I know how to make the appropriate changes.

Best, kkfinn1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkfinn1 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uganda Internet Exchange Point

Hi Onel,

You erroneously deleted our page for infringing copyright. A copyleft (Creative Commons) license notice is clearly visible on the website which you claim our page infringes and this notice *was* present prior to the time of speedy deletion.

Regarding content veracity: Our page's various statements make reference to other stable Wikipedia pages which make the same or similar statements (e.g. about Internet Exchange Points) as well as third party sources which are (1) credible globally and (2) credible in Uganda. Note that it can be difficult to include references to globally renown sources about Uganda's Internet infrastructure due to Uganda's relative obscurity in the global Internet ecosystem.

There are also numerous other pages related to Internet Exchange Points which make similar statements with a similar (or lesser) array of sources:

I hope it is now clear that (a) our page does not infringe anyone's copyright and that (b) its contents meet or exceed the standards Wikipedia has applied to other articles on the same subject matter.

Regards,
Kyle Spencer (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kylespencer: https://uixp.co.ug seems to be licenced under CC BY-SA 3.0. That does not mean that you can copy the content freely. Under the terms of that licence attribution is required. As you have not provided such an attribution then it's a copyright violation.

Your use of 'our' when referring to the article suggests you have connections to Uganda Internet Exchange Point, which would be a conflict of interest. This is confirmed at https://uixp.co.ug/about which lists you as chairman. --John B123 (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your page was not deleted. It was moved into draftspace. It was moved into draftspace because you have an obvious WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict, which was explained to you the first time it was moved. Do not move it back into mainspace again, it could lead to you getting blocked. You must submit it for review, and as a UPE/COI you should never edit the article directly if and when it is moved into mainspace, but should request changes you would like to see on the talkpage. Right now it's clear that you are only creating the article for advertising purposes, which is not what WP is for.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969:

You first deleted the page for a copyright infringement despite the obvious presence of a copyleft license and my valid formal objection. It was (and is) obvious that I control the copyright of the source material and that I am willing to adjust the license to make it available on Wikipedia.

You then reverted the restored page to a "draft" state claiming that it was insufficiently sourced until I pointed out (rightly) that it's equally or better sourced than most other pages related to individual Internet Exchange Points (IXPs).

You then reverted the restored page to a "draft" state again, claiming that I (the author) have a conflict of interest. This is irrelevant for multiple reasons:
- It is provable that the UIXP exists using the sources we provided;
- It is provable that the UIXP has been the sole provider of this particular type of critical national infrastructure since 2001 using the sources we provided;
- It is provable that the UIXP plays a notable role in Uganda's telecommunications ecosystem using the sources we provided;
- It is provable that the content of the page is similar or identical to other Wikipedia pages related to individual IXPs;
- It is provable that the content of the page is corroborated by the general article related to IXPs;
- Due to the relatively obscure nature of the IXP industry, it is likely (and possibly provable) that most (or all) other pages related to IXPs have been authored by the people who are directly involved in the organizations which those pages are about.

Unless you and/or Wikipedia intend to apply the same standards to all similar pages, it is hard to interpret your moderation as fair. This particular Wikipedia page was created as part of an effort to better document Uganda's telecommunications ecosystem and its history. If you have a specific complaint about specific verbiage within the page, feel free to suggest specific modifications. I also recommend that you educate yourself about Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) before taking any further action on pages related to this subject.

In the near future I will implement an even more permissive copyleft license on our website and augment the Wikipedia page with additional sources that render the COI accusation even more irrelevant than it already is. If you delete the page again, revert it to draft, or block my account, I will escalate using Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms.

Kyle Spencer (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kyle. I'm Barkeep49, an editor and administrator on Wikipedia. I'm hoping I can help with this. From my look at the situation, I would agree that your website's license is compatible with Wikipedia. As @John B123 notes, the license still requires attribution. Often this is done through the edit summary. Ex: "Text copied from <url or urls of webpages> under CC BY-SA 3.0".

In terms of the article, there are a few reasons something can be moved to draft. One of them is because information is not verified. That does not seem to be the situation here. Another reason why an article might be moved to draft is because the article was heavily edited by someone who has a conflict of interest. That's what happened in this situation. You can learn more about how to edit with a conflict of interest here. If you feel the draft meets Wikipedia's standards, including around not using promotional language your next step is to click the blue button that says "Submit draft". This will submit it for review by an independent Wikipedia editor. I hope this helps. If not please let me know what other questions you might have. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Barkeep49. I appreciate your attempt to resolve this disagreement. As discussed, I have updated the article such that its language is now explicitly corroborated by 10 references from 7 independent sources including the Government of Uganda. This should reasonably render any potential conflict of interest irrelevant.

The updated draft article has been submitted for review as per your instruction. However, it is disappointing that we must wait months for feedback considering the amount of erroneous and unecessary moderations that led to this point. The only dispute which has any potential merit (COI) could have easily been resolved through a less onerous process.
Kyle Spencer (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kayako

I'm not sure if you and 2001:4455:364:A800:69ED:98AE:B3B4:FB90 are the same or different users, but it's confusing to me that Kayako Saeki has been summarily redirected twice. Kayako and Sadako Yamamura are the two biggest J-horror icons and are essentially Japan's Freddy and Jason. Redirecting those pages is at least going to require a deletion discussion.

The main reason given on the Kayako talk page for why it (and several other Ju-On / Ringu articles) were redirected is that they are currently poorly-written and sourced, and require rewrites. However, that line of reasoning has no barring on WP:GNG and fails deletion criteria.

A few of the other templated/redirected articles were also questionable, such as the original Ringu novel, the Ringu novel series (although I could easily see a merger with The Ring (franchise)), the original sequel to The Ring (Spiral), the original protagonist, and the Korean remake. Those are substantial enough topics to warrant a discussion imo. Dark knight 2149 18:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 463: / Line 463: @@
 ::Hi @[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]]. I appreciate your attempt to resolve this disagreement. As discussed, I have updated the article such that its language is now explicitly corroborated by 10 references from 7 independent sources including the Government of Uganda. This should reasonably render any potential conflict of interest irrelevant.<br><br> The updated draft article has been submitted for review as per your instruction. However, it is disappointing that we must wait months for feedback considering the amount of erroneous and unecessary moderations that led to this point. The only dispute which has any potential merit (COI) could have easily been resolved through a less onerous process.<br>[[User:Kylespencer|Kyle Spencer]] ([[User talk:Kylespencer|talk]]) 16:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
+== Kayako ==
+I'm not sure if you and {{u|2001:4455:364:A800:69ED:98AE:B3B4:FB90}} are the same or different users, but it's confusing to me that [[Kayako Saeki]] has been summarily redirected twice. Kayako and [[Sadako Yamamura]] are the two biggest J-horror icons and are essentially Japan's [[Freddy Krueger|Freddy]] and [[Jason Voorhees|Jason]]. Redirecting those pages is at least going to require a deletion discussion.
+The main reason given on the Kayako talk page for why it (and several other ''Ju-On'' / ''Ringu'' articles) were redirected is that they are currently poorly-written and sourced, and require rewrites. However, that line of reasoning has [[WP:NEXIST|no barring]] on [[WP:GNG]] and fails deletion criteria.
+A few of the other templated/redirected articles were also questionable, such as the original ''Ringu'' novel, the ''Ringu'' novel series (although I could easily see a merger with [[The Ring (franchise)]]), the original sequel to ''The Ring'' (''Spiral''), the original protagonist, and the Korean remake. Those are substantial enough topics to warrant a discussion imo. '''[[User:Darkknight2149|<span style="color:grey;">Dark</span>]][[User talk:Darkknight2149|<span style="color:black;">knight</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Darkknight2149|<span style="color:grey;">2149</span>]]''' 18:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)