User talk:Onel5969/Archive 101

Archive 95

←

Archive 99

Archive 100

Archive 101

Archive 102

Archive 103

→

Archive 105

Archive 101: April 2022

Short descriptions of musicals

Hi. Unlike films, which can be identified by the date of release, a musical's date of premiere is less important. It should be identified by the composer/book writer. Often the premiere production is a mere tryout and the real major-market premiere comes in a later year. Also, sometimes the date of publication is different from the date of the premiere, and sometimes the most famous production of the work comes years later. So, one could say something like, for Phantom of the Opera, for example, "musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber premiered in 1986". All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

I do not believe there is an editor who has received so many barnstars, and so many of the same kind. So as it's difficult to know which one to give you you'll have to do with this generic one. One thing is for sure, your retirement from NPP (which I totally understand), and the lack of any structured coordination there has already caused NPP to fall apart at the seams. So thank you, just thank you so much for holding it together so much and for so long. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Kudpung - high praise coming from you. Shame that some admins don't think that willfully breaking WP policies, over and over again, isn't an obvious form of vandalism. I just checked the NPP queue, and all the work I helped due from Dec though March is gone in a single month. Regardless, thanks for your kind words. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Hardly surprising. It's got as much to do also with the total lack of coordination. Nobody wants the job. It was ok for a while until Barkeep49 reached for higher office, but that's understandable - what he's doing now is equally important if not more so. It doesn't change the fact that NPP is the most important non-admin task on en.Wiki. I give up - back to retirement 😉 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Iegor Reznikoff

Dear Onel5969,

I've seen that you've moved the article Iegor Reznikoff to the Draft section. I've written the article Nicolas Schöffer in the English and Hungarian Wikipedia. The Hungarian page is more complex because I've written about Shöffer's music related research and there I mention Iegor Reznikoff. Since it does not exist in the Hungarian Wikipedia I've temporarily linked the English page until it is written in Hungarian. It was not a draft at the time but a normal article. I wanted to add this section to the English version as well and I would be happy if the Iegor Reznikoff article would exist. May I ask what was wrong with that article? Why was it moved to the Draft section? Can it be corrected? It seems that it is now a draft with many references. Thanks for your help in advance! Mirabella (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, my apologies in that I didn't correctly leave the message on your talk page when I moved it to draft. It appears that you have a connection with the subject. Please take a look WP:COI and WP:UPE to find out what steps you need to take. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969,

it must be some misunderstanding. I do not have any connection with the subject. I've never even edited the article. The thing is that I've written about an other topic where I mention Iegor Reznikoff and I would be happy if the link wouldn't be red. It would be nice if every reader of my article could look up who on earth this guy is. There are several other articles where Iegor Reznikoff is mentioned. Could you please check whether it can already been moved to the main page. It seems that in the meantime someone has already worked on it. Thank you for your help! Mirabella (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know what to do. I've tried to read the draft. These family relations are too complicated and it is not clear to me why are they relevant. Anyway his practises with human voice and his music experiments would be interesting. Mirabella (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

NPP school

I don't think I've been installing the script right. Is there something obvious that I'm doing wrong in my recent contributions? [1] Clovermoss (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC) I should likely link to the actual diffs instead, because recent contributions can change. [2] [3] [4]. I assumed that I was just suppossed to copy and paste the code, is there something else I should be doing to get it to work? I manually cleared my browser's cache, as well. Clovermoss (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Your diff #1 worked when I tested it in my own common.js. Are you looking in the right spot? Here's a screenshot of where it should appear. Also, what skin are you using?

As for the other 2 diffs, those will not work for a couple reasons. 1) The page name needs to end in .js. 2) The page name needs to be loaded into your User:Clovermoss/common.js via adding importScript() type code to your common.js. I can teach you this method if you want, but to keep it simple, diff #1 should work by itself without any need to do diff 2 or 3. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: Thank you for trying to help me. I see the CSD log on my screen, but it just shows the CSDs that I did through Twinkle. I vaguely remember doing some manually years ago, but I'm not sure if there's any way to see a record of that because those pages were deleted. Is the script meant to show what I've done through Twinkle? I was already able to access that before. Clovermoss (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey there. So the code you added just adds a link to your Twinkle CSD log page. I don't think there's an easy way to check old CSDs since the revisions are likely deleted. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I"m late to respond, Clovermoss, thankfully Novem Linguae is on the ball. He's absolutely spot on his replies to you. And he's also correct that if you don't use twinkle to CSD or PROD, they don't show up on your logs. And NL, it's so nice to see the student become the teacher. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

A little smarter and wiser every day, hopefully :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Monroe Grisman draft - another review

Hello Onel5969, I hope all is well. I responded to your note on my talk page, but you may have missed. Thank you for taking the time to review and provide feedback for Monroe Grisman. I cleaned it up and added more verifiable citations. I see in your other replies that you are no longer reviewing articles. Is there any chance you could please do a quick once-over and let me know how else I could improve it. I believed I have reliable citations that met the requirements, but always still learning. I would like to submit this draft for review once I clean it up enough to have the best chance of approval. Thanks again.Ddab (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Alex Thompson

Your edit comment here suggests this is UPE. If that is the case, can we speedy delete? --CNMall41 (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi CNMall41 - In a word, no. While discouraged, UPE editors can contribute to WP, just under stricter guidelines. While UPE can be grounds to have an editor blocked (if they continue to disregard the guidelines at WP:UPE), the fact that an article is created by a UPE is not a valid CSD criteria. They do however, have to pass through AfD to submit their articles, which is why I sent it there. If they do not own up to being a UPE, it should not be passed into mainspace. If they do admit they are a UPE, and follow the guidelines, then it can be passed to mainspace. If it meets notability and verify criteria, that is. Hope this makes sense. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Why are you delete the page of Super Dancer (Season 1), Super Dancer (Season 2), Super Dancer (Season 3) and Super Dancer (Season 4)

I have invested my lots of time create these page and added the suitable sources according to wikipedia policy some unknown ip ruined that page. But block that unknown ip you reverted the pages after I check and re-edit the page you again revert the pages. I want to why. If you have issues with some work you sould complain about unknown ip rather than delete the content. You should reverted the unknown ip edits. Rather I file a complain about you. Explain you deleted the content or re edit the pages back. Thank you Regard Vikas Sharma Vikassharmasafidon (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. I explained in the edit summary why I removed the material, which by the way, is what I did, I did not revert you. Please familiarize yourself with WP's policies and guidelines. In this case the two most pertinent are WP:VERIFY and WP:BURDEN. As the pages stand now, neither pass GNG and should be redirected, but that's up to a new page reviewer.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

You edited the wrong dude, thousands of reality show article are available at wikipedia they doesn't provide source for score or contestants. For what sources are required i updated that sources score and guest list doesn't need refrences. So edit back that page because i don't want to undo your edit.

Dude, if you undo my edit, you'll be violating WP policies, which I gave you links to above. Doing so is disruptive editing, and will most likely get you blocked from editing. EVERYTHING needs to pass WP:VERIFY, don't know where you came up with that erroneous concept above. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Dude, I am not that kind of person who create a war for satisfying the ego only. I understand the policy of wikipedia I think you are not understanding, article is still publish but without content and which content I have publish that was real and that content doesn't need sources because it's reality show and that contents show the score or episode details which is already mentioned. So understand the policy and rules of wikipedia and re-edit than articles or I have to complain about you to wikipedia you are miss-using your page receiver power. Thank you

Dude, you obviously don't understand WP policy. I strongly suggest you don't take this to ANI, as it will more than likely result in you being blocked in a WP:BOOMARANG. VERIFY is not optional. Period. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Having reviewed these pages, as a near two decade editor of WP, I would strongly suggest that all four articles be merged into a single article, with removal of redundant material. A simple test is this—if in a single article, is the content sufficient to create separate sections for the Season 1, 2, 3, 4 content? There is, I believe clearly, insufficient content for an article even with four sections, and so certainly not for four separate articles. I would look for consensus for this, and my voice can be included as one supporting the (a bit complicated) merge. 2601:246:C700:558:34EC:1C9C:D792:B879 (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Where to discuss reliability of sources

Hello! I hope you're doing well.

Where exactly is the best place to discuss the reliability of a source? I was wondering if I could cite J! Archive. Mooonswimmer 21:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mooonswimmer - the place to discuss reliable sources is over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Regarding your source, it's a risky connection so I would not reference it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)