User talk:Onel5969/Archive 36

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Onel5969. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

→

Archive 36: November 2016

Thank you

I went looking for an Arizona barnstar, but no luck. Thank you for all the articles you've been adding. These places would be long forgotten if not for Wikipedia. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Magnolia677 - I was down the list of places in Arizona, and any that had a GNIS # I was adding. A bunch got deleted through AfD, so I've cut down a lot. And thank you for all the work you've done. I see your moniker all the time, and can't think of an instance where I've disagreed with your action. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hedley Mitchell

Thanks for considering the notability of Hedley Mitchell. I created the page as there was a dead link on the Erith page, and the connection to Wendy Cope is interesting. Department stores like this were major landmarks in towns, and there are a number of other examples in Wikipedia of them being included. Best wishes. Sjoh0050 (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sjoh0050 - Wasn't saying it should be deleted for lack of notability (although nothing in the article shows how it is notable). This is simply a duplicate of another recently submitted article Hedley Mitchells. The other article is slightly more fleshed out, which is why I selected this one to be deleted as a duplicate entry. If you created both, focus on one, and you need several in-depth articles from reliable, independent sources to show notability. And since this is a business, they also need to come, at least one or two, from non-local sources. Hope that helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Help

Pachisu124 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Peanutize Me (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can you help me with Draft:Peanutize Me? I don't know what else to put in there to make it more "notable" and get accepted. How?

And do you know when they removed the Peanutize Me site? When i click the site's link, it redirects to Foxmovies.com

I first noticed it yesterday but i don't know exactly when they removed it. On last halloween maybe?

--Pachisu124 (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pachisu124 - You can't make something more notable. It is either notable, or it isn't. You show a subject's notability by using in-depth references from reliable, secondary sources. Currently, the references aren't really in-depth enough to show that as a stand-alone article, it has the depth of coverage. As part of the marketing phenomenon, it definitely deserves a mention, but I don't know if it is notable enough on its own. The fact that the website no longer exists, doesn't really help it's notability. But no, I don't know when or why the website no longer exists. Bottom line is to show notability you have to have at least 3 in-depth articles on the subject, from reliable independent sources. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I meant to say show instead of make. And why do you think that they removed it? I know you don't know the real answers, i want to know your guess. Why? --Pachisu124 (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Domains cost $$. While they still own the domain, since it redirects to the Fox site, they don't have to have the upkeep of maintaining a separate site. That would be my guess, anyway. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Onel5969, I was patrolling all Draft DJs article on wikipedia to improve actually this draft Draft:DJ Kentalky was submitted by a sock. I have resubmitted the article due to it meets the criteria WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I also found on your user page that today is your Wikipedia birthdays, Happy Birth Day to you --Music Boy50 (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Music Boy50 - thanks for the BD wish... didn't even realize it. Regarding the article, I stopped reviewing DJ articles quite a while ago. I don't feel competent in that area, especially when the references are from foreign sources. Sorry. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem about that thanks. Happy day --Music Boy ^(talk) 20:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

18:33:05, 10 November 2016 review of submission by Pamignite

Pamignite (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Geoff Weigand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

HI Onel5969, I have made some significant modifications, and simplifications to the draft and have posed some questions in the Teahouse forum as you suggested. Could you please review what I've changed and provide any insights, recommendations to further make the article inline for a positive submission? I inserted the links to "thecrag" and "themountainproject" to provide online resources as the published mountain guide books which document his routes are not available online. Should I just remove them and use only the published books as resources?Pamignite (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pamignite - nice job. Moved it to the mainspace. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello Onel5969. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

A7 on Mon Line

Hello Onel5969. I've declined this speedy because rail lines are not eligible under the A7 criterion. Please re-read the criteria before patrolling. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Espresso Addict - Being a rail line, I was construing it as "A railway route constructed by an organization, usually one formed for that purpose", and then using the organization clause as the rationale behind the A7. I can see your point, however. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and sometimes the lines can be blurred between a single-product company and its product. However in this case it seems clear as the company is not specific to the rail line. I'd also guess that any railway line that was actually built would survive AfD. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Nutayla bint Janab

Hi, I have merged that article into Natila bint Janab, as per your suggestion. How is it now? Leo1pard (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Leo1pard - Looks fine. Thanks for taking the time. I've put the merge tags on both articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

SD of Crevise - details?

Hi, I can't recall what I put in this article (maybe just a redirect to "Crevice")?

However looking around in Google I found a cached version of the page (which I definitely didn't write):

"Crevise Technologies is an Indian startup based out of a city Pune. Crevise provides expert-level custom solutions for complex technology problems. Their expertise lies in niche software technologies like DevOps, Cloud Computing, TestOps, Intelligent Data Processing using Machine Learning, Offshore software R&D and Offshore Product Development."

Could you please let me know what was there prior to delete and prior to the Indian startup if possible?

Thanks! Facts707 (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Facts707 - As I recall, what you wrote above was about it. I think there was also a fluff list of clients. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I most definitely did not write that (I would never write "based out of a city Pune". I noticed though that back in 2011 I created a redirect for "Crevis" to go to "Crevice" and I most likely did that same for "Crevise" (middle English spelling and common modern misspelling of "Crevice". I will redirect Crevise back to Crevice. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

A Doak Barnett

Hi -- thanks for reviewing A. Doak Barnett so quickly. Is it OK for me to remove the "unreviewed" template?

Hope the weather is cooling off in Scottsdale. I know, I know, "it's a dry heat," but 110 is still 110! ch (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi CWH - Hi. Yes, I should have done it. In fact, let me do it, so it looks like I know what I'm doing.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again for the quick work! ch (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Arizona Barnstar
		Thanks for your creations of Arizona places. MB298 (talk) 06:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Let me second that. I came across, and commented at, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dreamland Villa, Arizona about that being a worthwhile article to have started. And I see you have done more on the Arizona places recently (like moving one to "X, Arizona", as is proper). Keep up the good work! --do ncr am 16:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

MB298 and Doncram - Thank you both very much. Just trying to expand the project. Hope at some point to start going back through the articles and doing a bit more research and expanding them. Take care, and if in the U.S. — have a very Happy Thanksgiving. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

+1. Great work on the many AZ stubs! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Valluvangad, Onel5969.

Unfortunately PamD has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Please provide more sources for this article. Thanks.

To reply, leave a comment on PamD's talk page.

(Replying here to message on my talk page...)

I'm confused too! It was appearing as an article which hadn't been curated, so I planned on curating it, not "uncurating" it. And I thought I was leaving a message for the original page creator. I think there has been some complicated page history about this article - I couldn't see why such an old article was appearing in the New Pages Feed anyway, and the page history is extraordinarily complicated. I think it does need more references (it's not "unreferenced", but "under-referenced"): the census link didn't work for me, and the 2nd ref is very general and not about the place itself.

I've just tried patrolling it again, and this time my message does seem to have arrived on the page creator's page correctly. I;m sorry for the confusion - I don't know how the system thought I was uncurating your curation. All very odd. PamD 16:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi PamD - No worries. As I said, I don't do too much NPP, but am helping out because of the backlog. I think I pass on about as many as I mark "reviewed", so wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Something

Please assist me in properly completing the article for submission — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100C:B214:DA34:40C9:938C:5F07:268A (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello O. I've moved this to the bottom of your talk page so it doesn't get lost. I've no idea what it is about but maybe you do :-) Cheers and have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 18:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that MarnetteD. And ip editor, I have no clue as to what you are referring to. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

About the 50,000 challenge

As in the talk page, your entries (and other's) about Ariziona places with very little content are being bared from the challenge. If you have a article other than this, feel free to add it to the list. Thank you for complying!—JJBers|talk 03:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

JJBers -- No worries. Was doing this prior to the challenge, and will continue to do it after the challenge. Will remove all my entries from the challenge. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Onel5969, I appreciate your many contributions to Wikipedia, whether or not you participate in the WPUS50 challenge. I'm less interested in the rules being discussed, and I've pulled back from participating a bit because the rules discussions and many sub-campaigns have made the reconciliation process less fun and too time-consuming. If you feel like your contributions aren't being appreciated, you shouldn't. Keep on truckin'! :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words and encouragement, Another Believer - As I said on the project's talk page, I was working on these prior to the beginning of the project, but always try to support the efforts of other editors if they have something going on, so, according to the rules posted for the contest, began adding the articles I was creating to the list. And I don't think it would have taken any skin off my nose if someone had said there was a discussion going on. Instead, I get the above message that my future articles are to be "bared (sic)" from the project in the future. I'm adding one last comment on the project's talk page in response to Knope. It's interesting to note that the threshold is 350 words, when about 60% of my articles are more than that, and when I go back (as I find new sources, like I just did with Barne's book on Arizona names), they'll most likely all be over that threshold. Regardless, take care and happy editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Politically Re-Active

Hi, thanks for reviewing the Politically Re-Active page I started. I see you feel not all points of view are represented: I'd be happy to add whatever you feel is missing. Could you please link me to any RS you might have for what's missing from the entry? When I searched, I was only able to find favorable reviews, but of course if there's criticism it should be included. Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Innisfree987 - Believe me, I've seen much more biased articles

. Here's the thing, your article is very short, so when over half the article (the "Reception" section) is about praise for the subject, it comes across as biased. If the same Reception section sat in an article where the rest of the piece was four to five as long, it wouldn't appear as one-sided. But right now, for instance, you can remove one of the two Guardian quotes (I'd leave the shorter one in). You also have to watch how you use quotes. Your article has too many for it's size, take a look at WP:QUOTEFARM. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey, thanks so much for this advice--yes, it makes sense that expanding other sections of the entry is a good way to balance out an article when there's not much criticism to be found. (I'm actually a bit surprised that still seems to be the case, as they drew some criticism on social media around the election but it seems not to have made any RS, so, not much help.) The QUOTEFARM essay I have my quibbles with (particularly the suggestion of a tension between quotes and encyclopedic style) but in any case fewer quotes in a short article makes sense to me as a matter of due weight, so it shouldn't be hard to resolve to everyone's satisfaction. Thanks so much for your very helpful feedback! Innisfree987 (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Rusty Cooley (Album)

Hi, thank you for sending the message, but I don't know what is the problem with the page. If it needs more sources it's not a problem, but I would like you to tell me why it doesn't meet the criteria. Darkmatter17 (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Darkmatter17 - It does not appear to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC - I suggest you read both. In a nutshell, it doesn't meet GNG since there is not enough in-depth coverage from mainstream media to show it is notable. Albums, in particular, are not notable simply because their author is notable. They have to stand alone on their own notability. I found lots of press on Cooley, but couldn't find enough on the album to show notability. If there was an article from Rolling Stone, another from the Village Voice, and another from the LA Times, that would constitute notability. I use those 3 solely because they are the first three that pop into my head. Right now the article is wholly unsourced. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your advise, I've added sources which contain information that could backup it's notability. Feel free to check them and put the album on the deletion list if it's not enough. I wouldn't be happy about it, but rules are rules. Darkmatter17 (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Darkmatter17 - First, thanks for your effort on the article. Now, about the sourcing. The first 2 (AllMusic & Spotify) don't go towards notability. They can be used to verify the existence of an album, or to verify a fact about an album (e.g. release date, etc.) but not towards notability. Similarly, Rusty Cooley's own site is primary, and therefore no good towards notability. In fact, primary sources are good only for a very limited number of verification purposes. Metal Archives is a simple listing, again, not good for notability. Ultimate Guitar is not a reliable source (its content is user-generated). The final citation at MetalSucks, is okay for talking about him (but even it's not great), but doesn't speak about the album at all. All in all, they don't really amount to enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. My suggestion is that you merge this article into the section on Cooley's article about his solo career, then turn this page into a redirect. If you need help doing that, I can. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't know how to do that, but I think I've seen something similar on Scale the Summit discography Darkmatter17 (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries, I just did it. Nice job on the article, however. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Tatjana, Veiled Head, Tight View, Joshua Tree, 1988

Onel5969, Thank you for reviewing this page. I read your user page, that you have been met with support and mentorship on Wikipedia. I am new and learning. I welcome any advice, criticism and ways to improve my contributions. LaVicente (talk) 08:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi LaVicente - First, take a look at the edit summaries of what other editors say on your page (even if they were put there prior to your beginning work on an article). For example, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removed commentary from the article. That's huge. Articles are not essays, they should not included opinion, speculation or original research (read WP:OR. The use of quotes in the article is a bit overdone, particularly when they are highlighted as they are, makes the article look like a fanpage. Take a look WP:QUOTEFARM. There is an overuse of WP:PEACOCK terms and commentary throughout the article. Take for example this one line (and the article is chock full of stuff like this): "Settled in Malibu on a hillside home overlooking the ocean, Patitz continued to manage her demanding modeling career while studying acting in Los Angeles." That's a puff comment, even if it is cited. A single mom working as a receptionist during the day, and then going to her part-time waitressing job at night in order to make enough money to support her 3 kids has a demanding career. The line should simply read something like, "During this period, Patitz began studying acting, while continuing her modeling career." See the difference? This shouldn't be a pr piece. Another example in the lead is your description of Anna Wintour. Cut it. It is trying to build up Patitz by association. Don't get me wrong, there is much which is laudable about this woman, so after you get rid of the puffery, it's still going to be a positive article. I would try and research some negatives to put in there. Perhaps regarding her acting? Hope this helps. Regardless, in the future, it is always better to ask for specific help, rather than being nebulous. Here are some pieces on WP which were written to help new editors:

Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)