User talk:Onel5969/Archive 67

Archive 60

←

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 55: June 2019

My 5 new pages gone

Are you the administrator or not and what have you done to my 5 new pages that I created is that something wrong? Oon835 (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Onel5969: This user here is new and not best-familiar with our guidelines yet. It appears that you redirect five of the pages they wrote on notability concerns, and the user is seeking clarity. Could you help them out? Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 09:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding two draft articles

Good evening. Last night you moved 5 stub articles that I've created in the past few days to Draft space.

Of those, I believe that Draft:Nils Gustaf Lagerheim and Draft:Pyrenomonadaceae have been sufficiently expanded and sourced for publication in Article space (the later especially so). I have published the former as Gustaf Lagerheim, though I am not fully sure whether this is the appropriate course of action on my part, as I moved it from Draftspace to Articlespace without review from another editor. Can you confirm whether or not this is an appropriate course of action and/or review the later draft?

Thereppy (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Thereppy - perfectly appropriate. The only issue with the articles was that they were totally unsourced, so I moved them to draft so you could work on them. You don't have the autopatrolled right yet, so even if you move them back to the mainspace, like you did with Lagerheim, another editor will need to review them (which I did for that article). But you could also wait for the draft to be reviewed, like you did with the Pyrenomonadeceae article, which I approved and moved to mainspace. The only thing you should have done was move Draft:Nils Gustaf Lagerheim into mainspace, and then do a further move to Gustaf Lagerheim. That would not have left the draft of the earlier title hanging out in draftspace. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Principal Medical Officer

Disambiguation pages dont have references. Rathfelder (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

You didn't create a dab page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Give me a bit of time. I think this probably merits an article. Rathfelder (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Rathfelder - Please read WP:DAB to understand when to and how to create a dab page. Dabs must point to viable targets. Rather than simply pointing to the pages of the services where you claim it is used, you have to target specific usages within those pages. The current redirect is a prime example of how to target. Are there similar targets on the other three pages? If so, the dab would look something like this:

Primcipal Medical Officer may refer to:

A rank in the Royal Army Medical Corps

A rank in the Royal Canadian Navy

And then the other two. Turning it into an article is most likely the way you probably should go, but then that requires references. You might want to work on it in Draft Space, or put an "under construction" banner on it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I doubt if there are in the other services equivalent pages. But at present as a redirect I think its misleading.Rathfelder (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Anyone for Everyone

Anyone for Everyone

Good morning,

How has it been collaboratively contributing to Wikipedia and its sister projects?

I would really appreciate your views on the Anyone for Everyone program.

Anyone for Everyone is a campaign to encourage and guide internet users to contribute more to Wikimedia projects. The campaign aims to encourage 19 actions/activities that anyone could do on Wikimedia projects (Commons, Wikidata, Wikibooks etc.) for the benefit of everyone. Can you help expand the list by adding bullet points?

Thanks for weaving the lines and letters that make information neutrally open to the world.

Danidamiobi (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of One Night (2009 film) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article One Night (2009 film) 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/One Night (2009 film) 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. Viztor (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I have added this notice to your talk page as you have edited the article in the past and may want to contribute to the discussion. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Cause and Effect Tour deletion

So, is there a reason for the deletion of this article? You just deleted an article that took me a whole morning to create, is that easy for you, I believe it took you less than a minute, that's easy. --Marcetw (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The reason was given in the edit summary. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NTOUR. A single primary source is hardly enough to show that the tour is notable. You might also check out WP:CIVIL as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Government Railway Police nominated for deletion?

@Onel5969: This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... I went to the IR website, referred to laws, added my own IB and lead, put my own sections and bulletins. It took me time to write this article. If there is a mild resemblance to a page I never visited, it isn't my problem. The burden of proof is on you to prove that I allegedly copied from that page. I can add additional sources and change wording.✘ anonymousвهii 15:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not a "mild resemblance", it's a direct cut and paste job from an outside source. Such editing will get you blocked from editing on Wikipedia. You should have put it into your own words in the first place. Now, the page will have to be purged so that the copyvio doesn't even remain in history. On the CSD tag, there's a link you can click to show you how much of a copyvio it is.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Marceliano Coquillat

Re. your notability hatnote on Marceliano Coquillat - the article has been in existence for 7 minutes. Do you want to cut me some slack here? I am working on adding content. Cnbrb (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Cnbrb - Then perhaps you should develop in draftspace first, or at least put an {{under construction}} template on it. When we review, we don't know if that is all the editor is going to do, or it is still being worked on. And you might also want to check out WP:CIVIL.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh come off it, that's not uncivil! It's a light-hearted comment on your rather over-eager application of hatnotes. You can look at the page history, and see that it has only just been created, and make a rational judgement that it's very new content. Quality control is great, discretion is greater. Cnbrb (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm really sorry to interrupt, and also sorry for undoing Onel5969's edit. But I really want to make the point that what Onel5969 does is really helpful.

Yes, nobody likes horrible hatnotes on an article you're working on, of course.

But that is nothing compared to the damage to Wikipedia if people like Onel5969 didn't do such amazing work. Do you really think a little hatnote, which can be easily removed, is not a small price to pay for the reassurance of having people like Onel5969 picking up on articles that should be deleted? I think Onel5969 is doing excellent work, and he definitely didn't mean to offend you. He's just tagging the article just in case it's problematic. False negatives are far more dangerous than false positives. And your article is probably just a false positive, so no problem.

Seriously, please don't be offended by a hatnote - think of what would happen if nobody was doing this massive amount of reviewing.

Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks, Dr. Vogel for your kind words. I try to be patient with other editor, but I simply cannot abide incivility. Despite the other editor's incivility, I tried to answer politely, explaining why their request wasn't looking at all sides of reviewing, and even offering alternatives for them to do (drafts or under construction template) in the future. What I received was more incivility. Regardless, I appreciate all you do for WP, and again, thanks for the kind words. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

No problem at all - you and I have worked together quite a few times, and it's always been a positive experience, so I felt that the least I could do was point out how hard you work on our common project. I'm glad it's all sorted :) Dr. Vogel (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For review good pages and redirects!!! You are good editor not for this I was wathing your contributions ჯეოMan (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks ჯეო - keep up the good work. WP needs more editors with a clue working on articles from eastern Europe.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

John McHugh Sr.

Received your deletion proposal. I started the article a few hours ago. It seems rather quick to tag for deletion. Was hoping that WP:IMPERFECT would apply. And other editors could help improve the article. User:Lightburst 13:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lightburst - the problem isn't that the article is imperfect, in fact it's quite well written. The issue is the notability of the subject. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand your concern. Will get on the work. I removed the tag with an edit summary. My best User:Lightburst 14:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Oninaki

Hello! So through Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article alerts, I have noticed Oninaki was PRODed. While I absolutely agree the article (nor notability) is not there yet, I think there were 2 things that could have been done before that. The first is drafting the article, as the game is supposed to release in 2 months, and is very likely it will be notable upon the release being published by Square Enix and developed from people who made a notable game I Am Setsuna. And the second would be per WP:ATD to redirect to List of Square Enix video games where it is mentioned. It could fail WP:RFD#DELETE criteria 10 whereas "target article contains virtually no information on the subject", but it would be an useful search term until the game comes out. Just my two cents on all this. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jovanmilic97 - first, thanks for all you do on WP. Second, you're right, it could be either draftified or redirected to the company. When I reviewed it (about an hour after the article's creation, neither the fact of its upcoming release, nor the company name were mentioned in the body of the article. I did however miss both of those facts in the infobox. Feel free to remove the prod, and take either of those other approaches.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the great work on WP as well! Just saw it was redirected, which I find the best way of this to go. If this gets restored again with the same thing, I will WP:BOLDly move it to draft. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Sony Imagesoft

Hey, can I ask you a question; can you fix up the games list on the Sony Imagesoft article, please? Because some of the info on certain games are missing for what system their on (examples include 3 Ninjas Kick Back being not just on the SNES but also on the Sega Genesis and Sega CD, Bram Stoker's Dracula being not just on the SNES but also the NES, Sega Genesis and Sega CD, Cliffhanger being not just on the SNES but also the NES, Game Boy, Sega Genesis, Game Gear and Sega CD, Mary Shelly's Frankenstein being not just on the SNES and Sega CD but also on the Sega Genesis and Mickey Mania being not just on the SNES but also the Sega Genesis and Sega CD.) ArthurRead1976 (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Pink BH

Hello. Why are you constantly redicting Pink BH to Pink Media BH when that name is not in use. — HoneymoonAve27 (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Because, as you've been told on numerous occasions, what you are doing is called a WP:CUTPASTE move, and is not allowed, since historical attribution is lost. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you think the title needs to be changed, please leave a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Dr. Gangaram Nirvan

How did you deduce this was a copyright violation? I checked the Earwig tool and it only reports 3.8% - do you have further evidence I can look at? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie333 - The same thing happened to me as well. However, when I was checking the references, I opened up the one footnote, which was the URL I referenced in my speedy nom, and the verbiage was virtually verbatim (obviously, I had to use a translate program), including even breaking it down into sections. If you look at that link, and check it versus what's on the now deleted page, you'll see what I'm talking about. Carbon dating put the creation of the source page back in November 2017, so it doesn't appear to be a mirror. Hope that helps.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Diannaa - you might want to take a look at this one. The page has been moved to Gangaram Nirvan, still gets 3% on earwig, not sure why, my only guess is due to the translation issue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The version at the time of the speedy deletion nomination is almost identical in most sections to a Google translation of the source web page. A lot has been changed, but there's still sections that need more work.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa and Ritchie333. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Joseph Rooney (priest)

He passes, that's not the problem--if the article had been written any better, you probably wouldn't have redirected it. It makes me wonder what the editor's other contributions are like. Notable but poorly written/verified are sometimes the hardest ones to deal with. Fortunately this one was somewhat interesting, to me at least. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Drmies - No worries, I think I reviewed a couple of other articles by them yesterday. Both of those were in about the same shape, but met notability requirements, so marked them "reviewed". When I'm reviewing articles, I use the flowchart. The issue I had with this is the 3 citations which existed, as they existed, did not show that there was significant coverage. Since they are simply to works, with no page numbers, I did a cursory inspection, but could not find a pertinent section dealing with Rooney. If there had been no sources, as per the flowchart, I would have A7'd it, since it did not appear to include a claim of significance/notability. Since it did have sources, poor as they were, I redirected to a viable target instead. My view is that when you simply list a lengthy document as a source, without page numbers, it's simply not a valid footnote. Regardless, always respect your opinion, and thanks for all you do on WP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey--I don't know what the flowchart is but I agree generally with what you say here. Yes, sloppy article writing. I looked at one or two other contributions and they aren't great. This guy wouldn't have been notable either, IMO, if it hadn't been for those schools. (Plus I take an interest in 19th century missionaries.) And the redirect was fine, though a purist would argue that the dude wasn't mentioned in the article; that's also something I was working on. I added him to a few other articles, but they were also in poor shape. I might get enough to put this up on the front page though. Thanks for the explanation, Drmies (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Again, no worries, Drmies. Just fyi, the flow chart can be found at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. You have to download it to be able to read it, but several editors over at NPP put a lot of work into it (I wasn't one of them), and while it looks complicated, when you follow it through, it's really just common sense. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Međimurje Horse Stud, Žabnik

Hello, Onel5969! Could you please explain me why did you do it? I've written a lot of articles so far, but none of them was moved to draftspace. The article is written like many ones concerning stud farms all over the world, and what's the difference? The article has now four sources, but if it is not enough, I can put some more. Why do you think they are not reliable? Unfortunately, the Stud itself is a new one (as you can see from the text and sources) and there are very few sources in English. I would be glad if you help to improve this article to be more acceptable. Thanks in advance. --Silverije 15:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Silverije - I think it's a matter of semantics. Technically, right now your article has zero references, and zero footnotes. What it does have is 4 external links. External links serve a different purpose than references. However, your "external links" are really references. So I've reorganized it a bit and moved it back. Can't make the gallery work, however. I don't do much with galleries, so you'll have to figure out how to format it correctly, the table format you were using wasn't working. Take care.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Elipongo/SmileyAward

In the interest of promoting good cheer and bonhomie, you are hereby granted the coveted: Random Smiley Award (Explanation and Disclaimer)

WildChild300^Talk 03:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Singapore Changi Airport

If Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 3 and Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 4 have Wikipedia articles, why Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 1 and Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 2 don’t have it? BamZ412 (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi BamZ412 - see WP:OSE. Just because an article exists on Wikipedia does not mean it is necessarily a good model to base a new article on. Wikipedia is monitored by volunteers, so it's not unusual for an inappropriate article to slip through the cracks.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 3

Please don’t redirect Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 3 because it was there before and Onel5969, it is notable. BamZ412 (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with notability criteria. Just because something exists does not make it notable. Read WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Singapore Changi Airport

Sorry for being like this. I’ve only realised this when 1.02 editor redirected Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 3 and Singapore Changi Airport Terminal 4. I thanked him for doing this. Please forgive me. BamZ412 (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

BamZ412, my story

I only joined on 7 June 2019. Before that, I was an anonymous user with different IP addresses and earlier today I accidentally logged out and edited as an anonymous user until my mom which she asked my dad on FaceTime before helping me to log in again. I joined Wikimedia Commons 13 days ago in Singapore time. BamZ412 (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You!

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		For your intense work recently.★Trekker (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

DABnames

Per WP:DABNAME, "The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term". Kara Kara is a disambiguation page, while Kara Kara (disambiguation) is a redirect to Kara Kara. If you think that one of the topics listed on Kara Kara is the primary topic, and the rest of the topics listed there belong on Kara Kara (disambiguation), then you need to propose that at Talk:Kara Kara. - Donald Albury 01:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Donald Albury - not really sure what you're talking about. I made no assertion regarding a primary topic. What I did do was, as per WP:INTDAB, replace Caracara with Caracara (disambiguation). Those are the only changes I made to either of the pages you reference above. I think I also made changes on 2 or 3 other pages, replacing Kara Kara with Kara Kara (disambiguation), again as per WP:INTDAB. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

My mistake. I find some of the language in Wikipedia:Disambiguation less than clear. Sorry to have bothered you. - Donald Albury 12:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

No worries Donald Albury - I find some of that language, and the guidelines themselves, problematic myself.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Maniram Rajora, Onel5969.

Winged Blades of Godric has gone over this page again and marked it as unpatrolled. Their note is:

Fails NPOL.

Please contact Winged Blades of Godric for any further query. Thanks.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

∯WBG^converse 18:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Julian W. Lucas Deletion

Hello, the article created featuring Julian W. Lucas was deleted. If you could explain please why this was and how it can be rewritten so it does not get deleted that would be very helpful. I'm also curious if the original page can be recovered at least so it can be reworked rather then completely rewritten. Julian W. Lucas is clearly a legitimate professional, well known model and actor who has worked with massive companies and is very influential within the disabled community. He is one of the only disabled professional models in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenwexler (talk • contribs) 15:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Someone can be a "legitimate professional", "well-known" in certain circles, and still not be notable. I can't look at it, but I believe in this instance it was simply a piece of promotional fluff for the person, which also isn't allowed on WP. You can contact the admin who deleted the article, and they can restore it for you in draft, so that you can work on it. If they do, please take a look at WP:PEACOCK and WP:POV. Articles must be written in a neutral tone, with no promotional bent. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

QRG Health City

Hi Thanks for reviewing QRG Health City. QRG is a major hospital in Faridabad with a capacity of more than 450 beds and has all superspecialities with all the big name of doctors in the city. Gradually, more information about it need sto be updated. There are lot of controversies about this hospital which needs to be updated so it should remain in wikipedia for information of general public. The hospital was ready in 2013 but could not be started until late 2016 due to various issues related to minorities and environmental issues. Hope you will delete the speedy removal tag — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jainvaibhav1307 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Great Work and Thanks for reviewing pages :) Feroze Ahmad 2 (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Feroze Ahmad 2 - Keep up the good work yourself! Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Page Maniram Rajora

hi,

recently you have reviewed page Maniram Rajora but you did not removed deletion tag, please remove it, important pages should not be deleted, otherwise wiki will not be useful for people. Sunilbutolia (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)sunilbutolia

Hi Sunilbutolia - You can't just remove an AfD tag. There is a discussion going on regarding the article. I left my opinion there, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maniram Rajora. It's not looking good for the article however. You should look at those comments, and if you can fix their concerns, you should. But don't let this discourage you. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Bill Bayes

I declined the WP:G4 nomination as the current iteration of the article cites a source published after the previous AfD closed. I won't object to a second AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Ritchie333. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Page creation : Gobinda Chandra Khatik Road

Hi Dear friend Onel5969

I want to create a page named Gobinda Chandra Khatik Road which is also mentioned in three pages of wikipedia. Is it worth notable? please suggest me. Sunilbutolia (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)sunilbutolia

Hi Sunilbutolia - That's difficult to say without knowing much about the road. The SR (Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset) is WP:GEOROAD. But that SR is vague at best. There are a lot of roads/streets in New York City which meet the requirements, Broadway (Manhattan), Sixth Avenue, Dyckman Street, 116th Street (Manhattan); while there are others like 117th Street (Manhattan), 114th Street, which are not. You have to ask yourself, what makes this street stand out? Was it the first of anything? The best way to proceed is perhaps to create a draft article, and then ask a couple of other experienced editors if it'll fly. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)