User talk:Onel5969/Archive 106

This is an archive of past discussions about 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 100

←

Archive 104

Archive 105

Archive 106

Archive 107

Archive 108

→

Archive 110

Archive 106: September 2022

Hello @user:Onel5969, Thank you for reviweing the new page I am working on Linda Mitchell. I have added more links and wondering whether you could review and suggest if further improvements are required. Thanks, Tirutirutiru (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello @user:Onel5969,

I undid your tag after adding quite a lot of references - asking for review almost 10 days ago (I even left a note here…). But, instead of providing feedback, you have simply undid my action - the notability guidelines clearly says that we are not to be going through undo wars… Shouldn’t a neutral person review this?

Tirutirutiru (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I am neutral. I did review it after you asked me to, and so no reason to remove the tag. Please see WP:CITEBOMB. It's usually a sign of a person of questionable notability that an editor is attempting to overcompensate for. The vast majority of the refs you provided are either mentions or come from primary sources (e.g. this). Neither of which go towards notability. None of her exhibitions are major, and refs like this, are simply press releases passing as news stories, aka churnalism. In addition, interviews are also considered primary sources, such as this. What you need to do is focus on several in-depth articles from independent reliable sources to show notability. Use no more than 3 (two is preferable) for any assertion, and then wait for it to be reviewed. Or you can ask me to have another look. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Iam from ta Wiki. Sattai Duraimurugan is a very less famous Person. article in ta.wikipedia Deleted for less coverage. His fans Wrote it in too much Promotion way . Kindly Help to delete. 157.49.253.57 (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @user:Onel5969, I have been following you for a while and you have reviewed some of my page, this is me requesting for training for NPR. I hope to hear from you B.Korlah (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with the articles I create? A small article like this that has 5 sources is more than enough. Sakiv (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

This article Argentina–Palestine relations and more.--Sakiv (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sure you're familiar with WP:VERIFY, the history section is very undersourced. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of World Vaisnava Association, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Different from deleted version and hence ineligible for G4. Notability is yet to be determined. Thank you. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 14:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Just noticed you back up at the top of the NPP reviewers list. We might stand a chance of pulling the backlog down now. The Nov 2021 backlog drive nearly knocked it out of me. Mccapra (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mccapra - long time no talk. Hope all is well with you. Don't know if I'm "back" or not. But I saw that there are about 5000 articles beyond the dastardly 90 day limit, so thought I'd take a look at some of them. We'll see how it goes. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Paulcell Place, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of a populated place; appears to be a former ranch.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 05:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I had moved Battle of Narnaul to a separate page then simply redirecting it to the district as i wanted to expand the details about the battle, but till the time i collected the data you again redirected it stating it as duplication. I just want to discuss if we could expand the article spearately? Harman Paul (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. There's no problem with splitting out the battle, as long as there are valid refs to back up the information. To do that, simply cut and paste the info from the city article, but when you do that, you must provide attribution in the edit summary, something like, "Info taken from Narnaul, please see that page's history for attribution". This is required as per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Then summarize the battle on the city page, and put a link to the battle page by adding: {{Main|Battle of Narnaul}} at the top of the section on the city page. Then, if you are working on developing the page, you can put {{construction}} at the top of the page you are working on. I hope that isn't too confusing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Onel5969

I removed the orphan message from Saturday Night (2022 film) as I linked two articles to it. Adding more. Please check. Thank you for guiding me. Ameer al safar (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

		Redirect Ninja Award
		For over 20,000 redirect reviews during 2018. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Here is an award to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2018. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We have just caught up with giving out deserved awards. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Point of Rocks, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of a populated place or community to mee GEOLAND; no significant coverage to meet GNG. Not to be confused with a the place of the same name on the Salt River in Tempe.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Big Horn, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This appears to have been a service station and nothing more. No significant coverage to meet GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Lone Mountain Ranch, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable subdivision with no significant coverage beyond real estate advertisements. Not to be confused with Lone Mountain Ranches in Montana and Patagonia which seem to have received more coverage in the local Arizona papers.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 05:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I made the page Sur (San José de las Lajas) and I’m wondering if I can make a draft of it? Thank you have a nice day CubanoBoi (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi CubanoBoi - absolutely. Done. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! CubanoBoi (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mk.gee, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article is considerably more fleshed out that it was last time it was listed, including a large number of new sources. Clearly passes A7 too. Take to AfD if required. . Thank you. GedUK  15:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Atsme. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed or created, Demon Queen, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

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

Atsme 💬 📧 16:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Lone Butte Ranch, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is literally just a ranch with no evidence of a community. Fails GEOLAND and GNG due to lack of significant coverage.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 18:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Granite Dells, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Maps and newspaper coverage show both a geologic feature and a subdivision of the same name, neither of which are notable under GEOLAND or GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 18:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Flower Pot, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is the location of the Flower Pot Ranch, not a community or otherwise notable place.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Mangum Springs, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Aside from the actual spring, there's a group of buildings labelled as "Magnum Spring" or "Magnum Camp", but I'm not finding any coverage to establish notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Diamond Bell Ranch, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable subdivision; could not locate significant coverage beyond real estate notices and advertisements.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted to ask if I can move a draft page to an article or its not fine? I have 2 other Draft Pages. Ahmedadeljaff (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I would submit them through the AfC process. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I would like to address that this page I made is NOT a plagiarised from any website (that you claimed). The page contains only the ff:

• titles of each episodes — official episode titles taken from the streaming service iWantTFC (owned by the one who distributed the show — ABS-CBN)

• Social Media hashtag — official hashtag posted every day on weekdays by JRB Creative Production (the one who produced the show).

• The date it first aired and TV ratings of each episodes. — each of the TV ratings are all sourced (from the official account of GMA Public Affairs — one of the leading news outlets in the Philippines).

If you checked the history of the times the page was edited, you can see the page is updated every day, specifically every after each of the episode is aired on TV (except for the previous episodes that were moved from its main page). This page is designed after every single Philippine television show pages that has separate pages for the list of the shows episodes. There is nothing plagiarised from my work and they are all actively updated everyday. Loibird90 (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear 5969, Could I ask you to read one more article? Thank you in advance, as they say. Joan arden murray (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. Nice job. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!.Joan arden murray (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Please don't apply the orphan template to articles that are less than three minutes old. Abductive (reasoning) 10:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Abductive. AWB doesn't show how new the article is, nor who created it, so that's a bit problematic. When I'm creating a new article, I always (well, almost always) put {{construction}} on the page, AWB does show that or {{inuse}}, so it's easy to skip over those. And thanks for all your contributions to the project.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I see. But the construction tag doesn't really apply to the task of adding incoming links. So a stub could be completely finished (I often do them in one or two edits), but still momentarily be an orphan. Abductive (reasoning) 10:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Abductive - Let me check something out in a bit. AWB queues up in creation order, apparently beginning with the newest articles. After I finish the queue this morning, I'll check to see if it will queue in reverse order, and doesn't keep adding new stuff to the queue, that way, I won't be looking at just created articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Groovy. Abductive (reasoning) 10:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Abductive - okay, while I can't reverse sort by time, I can put them in alpha order, that should alleviate any issues about newness for the most part. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

It looks like you reverted my recent changes to the Bath_interferometer_(common_path) page.

My changes were to remove mention of "on axis" Bath as I was mistaken when I originally discussed that - someone pointed out that a "on axis bath" is something completely different and not found in any published literature so I wanted to remove that term. Maybe I should explain this on the talk page? Is that the issue? Or in the edit summary? I may have forgotten to mention anything in the edit summary. Is that the issue? Gr5555 (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why you think that Gr5555, I've never edited the page, simply reviewed it. You can figure out who did the edit by looking at the page history. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh! Hmm. Okay. I'm now thinking I never finished my edits and hit the publish button. It's just that I got an email from wikipedia saying the page "had been changed" by you and when I looked there were no changes for months. Even though I was pretty sure I changed it a few days ago. I'll do my edits again. Gr5555 (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I want to make a page about the town of Sagua la Chica but it redirects to Camajuaní, the person who made it is inactive and in wondering if I should/could make the page? Thank you!CubanoBoi (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

CubanoBoi - If you think there is enough sourcing to show that it meets notability criteria, it's perfectly fine to change the redirect into a regular page, as long as the Sagua la Chica you're creating is the same one as the one in Camajuani. If it isn't let me know and I'll turn the redirect into a dab page, and you can create a wholly new article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

thank you!!!!! CubanoBoi (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, friends, and thank you for your thoughts on the subject at hand. I saw your comment, which stated that the "article contains content that is written like an advertisement." Please keep in mind that I contributed to that article solely on the basis of my knowledge of the subject and nothing else. As a result, I recommend that you make any changes you deem necessary and remove the template message. You can, however, highlight to me the areas you believe are advertising him. You should understand that everyone has their own style of writing articles, which may be perceived as advertising by some. Thank you. Safercontent (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Quinlin, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to be the former site of a ranch; no evidence of a populated place.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 02:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Tartron, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Railroad siding mislabeled as a populated place.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 02:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Beardsley, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to be nothing more than a former rail siding and depot, no evidence of a populated place.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 02:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Raso, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable railroad stop

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 02:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Midway, Maricopa County, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable railroad siding

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 02:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

–dlthewave ☎ 03:08, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Saddle, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable rail siding.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 03:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Smurr, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of a populated place at this location; name appears to refer to a railroad junction/depot area

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 03:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Serape, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of a populated place; name appears to refer to a depot/junction area

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 03:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Dixie, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Rail depot mislabeled as a populated place

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 03:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Camel, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable rail siding.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 03:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Griffith, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Railroad junction mislabeled as a populated place

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 03:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Greetings and courtesy. Please convert draft:Hossein Kamalabadi to article. Ostad10 (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Greetings and courtesy. Please convert draft to article. Ostad10 (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the subject page. Please note that two pages were introduced to it and I linked them to the page. Safercontent (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Pls my article Bawdie on Draft has been improved. Kindly review for me. Boadu Emma (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969, do you think that Freak Alley Gallery that you recently reviewed should be merged into Freak Alley which has already existed for some years?

Altho I am not a new user, the procedure for doing mergers totally confuses me for some reason; I just can't seem to wrap my head around the instructions. Would you happen to know if there is a tool I can install to help with the process? I noticed that you a member of WikiProject:Merge, so thought you would be a good person to ask. Thanks in advance! Netherzone (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Netherzone - Nice catch. I'd be happy to merge, but since there is really nothing to merge (except pics, which I would not merge as per NOTGALLERY), I've simply redirected it. And I agree, some of the processes can be daunting if you don't do them regularly. Personally, I used to always have to bring up the WP page on merging anytime I did one, until I merged 100 or so articles. Even now, it's still tricky for me. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for such a quick response! I saw that you simply did a redirect, which in this case makes a lot of sense. Glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks the merger procedure is daunting! All best, Netherzone (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear Onel5969^{TT me}, Could you look at this article for me? Thank you, Joan arden murray (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi there... you need to flesh out the lead. At the very least it should say what the subject is. Other than that, it's fine. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Will do and thank you for advice, Joan arden murray (talk) 11:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Title. I made a page called Draft:Fusté but I don’t know what the template for drafts are, thank you CubanoBoi (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Not sure what you're asking for here. You've created it in draft, there is no "template" for drafts. Are you trying to move it into mainspace? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I think you're looking for {{AfC submission|t}}. Press "Submit" in order to submit it. I added it here. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Burns, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of a community here.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 12:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Bledsoe, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of a distinct community here.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 12:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Berry, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable railroad siding.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 12:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lita Tresierra, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not substantially identical to the deleted version. Thank you. Salvio 19:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

–dlthewave ☎ 02:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Bradberry, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of a populated place at this location.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Sawmill, Gila County, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of a community; appears to be a ranch with a tank/pond named Sawmill

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Hunter Creek Ranch, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable subdivision.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

As you suggested recently in Ananya Raj, I have cleared the issues please take a look Ameer al safar (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, all you have there are press and promotional interviews, which don't go to notability. And only her upcoming role is potentially significant, so at best, a redirect to the film article if and when it is written would be appropriate. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe there should have been an AfD for the 139 yr old school's article with consensus before blanking and redirecting it? User4edits (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Or maybe you could take the time to find 3 in-depth refs from independent reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yes I would have had if you had WP:PROD or WP:AFD the article or even left a message on my Talk page before blanking and redirecting. User4edits (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The article was there for months without improvement. Exactly when did you plan on doing what you should have done in the first place? You do understand that redirection is deletion. If you want to add the necessary sourcing to show GNG, simply revert and add the citations. PROD or AFD simply wastes other editors' time. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

–dlthewave ☎ 03:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Archae (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi! My new friend, can you please review Shantikunj. There were too many issues like written like advertisement, may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject. So I have fixed that issues like removed uncited sentences and added reliable sources whose point of view is neutral so can you remove that template and mark it as reviewed? Contributor008 (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

–dlthewave ☎ 16:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

–dlthewave ☎ 19:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Why did you revert/remove the split article of Mall at the World Trade Center ?

What is "WP:NSPLIT"?.. I can't find anything about NSPLIT. YitzhakNat (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, typo. WP:SPLIT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

May want to keep an eye on Legobro99. They took it upon themselves to begin mass-reverting the redirects for Family Guy episode articles. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

why? the Episodes are notable. Legobro99 (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

No, they're not. And if you think they are, then put the effort into providing the citations and references to show they are. If you continue to edit war, you may get yourself blocked. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, some folks are just not here to build an encyclopedia. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, apologies for some of the information that appears to have not been sufficiently referenced.

However, Prof Weerasooriya was a former Dean of the University of Ruhuna (Faculty of Medicine), and also a Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic) - Kotelawala Defence University.

Additionally, he pioneered in Sri Lanka, the first of many, including an Andrology Clinic, Sperm Bank, and National IVF Lab. As shown by his several published research papers and links (I cited 63 links as references, including news articles and publications). One of his colleagues was Susirith Mendis, and he worked with G. P. Samarawickrama.

Also, at the Kotelawala Defence University, the other Vice Chancellors are also included on Wikipedia, examples being ,Major General Milinda Peiris RWP RSP VSV,and Major General Sumith Balasuriya, USP, ndc, IG, SLA.

Regarding WP:COI or WP:UPE, please do further illustrate as to how I have violated that, I will then fix it or clarify it.

Kindly let me know, as to how this article continues to fall short of the notability guideline, thank you.

Any prominent physician or medical academic/professional in Sri Lanka can verify Prof Weerasooriya's credentials.

Looking forward to your reply.

Cheers. (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi. To handle the evident COI/UPE issue, follow the steps given at either WP:COI or WP:UPE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Mr. Fingers (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Dhiren Bhagat, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not substantially identical to the deleted version. Thank you. Salvio 17:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the reviews! X-750 List of articles that I have screwed over 00:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

please review Purangan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashanka Hazra (talk • contribs) 02:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Good day,

It is a great pleasure to meet you and I am excited to be actively part of the Wikipedia community.

To begin with, I realised my article was struck down because there were not enough information from notable sources to create a stub for the above mentioned personality.

However, I am of a contrary view as I have come across several notable sources and information on Alex Kofi Donkor. I am will be humbled if the page will be restored so that, I can continue with the work I started on the above mentioned personality.

Thank you and looking forward to your response.

Best Regards, Zekie The Geek Zekie The Geek (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Perhaps the best thing you can do is work on the article in the draft space, then when you think it's ready, I could review it for you. If you'd like to do that, I'll move your original into draft. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to appeal about the restoration of the page JL Toreliza because I believe I can improve the page to a better one. I am hoping for your consideration. Troy26Castillo (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

If you wish to develop an article, the best way to do it is in Draft space, that way you can take your time and flesh the article out. The issue with the article you created was that there were simply not enough in-depth sources about the individual musician himself. Virtually everything was about him in respect to the band. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Okey, I get it. Thank you for the tip. If in case that I can find sources about the said musician. I want to let you know and ask a permission, at the same time, if I can undone the last edit you did. Troy26Castillo (talk) 11:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

No worries. I've put it in draftspace for you, you can find it here: Draft:JL Toreliza, so that you can develop it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, inquiring about why the page for Best Ex was sent to draft after being published with no notes? Please advise. I have added additional information, and numerous sources are included, including links to related acts on Wiki. 2600:4041:54F1:1400:91B5:6FCA:6A32:F2FD (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The reason was explained on the article creator's talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey, seems like I definitely made an error. Thanks for your help! Newspapersky (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Hawkins, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable railroad siding.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Tapco, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of a community; just a TAPCO steam power plant.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

–dlthewave ☎ 04:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Feaster, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of a community at this location.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Tully, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability, appears to be a railroad siding.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Cork, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of a notable community.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 04:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Christian Ho, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article is more substantial and better sourced than last time, and he's racing in a better known championship now. Needs to go to AfD if required. Thank you. GedUK  15:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Since I can't see the deleted version, I do it out of routine so it can be checked. I had already marked it "reviewed" in case this was the outcome, but thanks for letting me know. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I am looking for the article about the writer José Baroja. I saw it yesterday, but now I can't find it. I was asked for an assignment at school. You can help me? How can I see it? Thank you very much. :) :) :) :) 45.232.254.50 (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry. I already found it in "Draft". 45.232.254.50 (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. Yesterday I split Minecraft Volume Alpha into its own article as per WP:BOLD and WP:SPLIT. The album is definitely considered notable as it has charted in the US, received substantial media coverage, and has received awards. Why was this new page then deleted again, without any update made to Music of Minecraft? Music of Minecraft is now left with broken links and almost no information for this album as the information I added in the new article was not pasted back into the original article. Thanks. Marcostev88 (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. Could you please provide a link? Looking at Minecraft Volume Alpha, that's only been a redirect since last November. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for not being too clear.

Yesterday I split Minecraft – Volume Alpha into its own article, originally it was only a section in the page Music of Minecraft. So on the Volume Alpha page, I removed the redirect and created a big article (revision as of 20 Sep 22:16). Then, I checked this morning and you had reverted the edits I made and it was a redirect again (revision as of 20 Sep 23:57). But after I posted the above message I undid your revision (as the article had no reason to be deleted; it was notable; and complied with WP:BOLD and WP:SPLIT) and now it's back to normal again (see most recent version), so I think it's all good from here. Sorry for the confusion! Marcostev88 (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

No worries... just couldn't figure out what you were talking about. There was an AfD back in 2011, which resulted in it being merged and redirected into the Minecraft article, which is why I reverted your changes. However, when I just looked at it again, there does seem to be new stuff which would go to notability. Looks good now and I've marked it as "reviewed". Thanks for your efforts. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks mate, appreciate it! Marcostev88 (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I notice you reverted the article creation back to a redir link any reason or reasons? Panama2005 (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, those stated in the edit summary. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

"Zero Sourcing" can you be more specific, I can add more external references.

Well -- zero as in none, nada, bupkus, nil; sourcing as in references. You need several in-depth sources from independent reliable sources in order to show it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

When you get time, could you review this article? Thanks! Joan arden murray (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

–dlthewave ☎ 03:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Can you review my this article Draft:Pranav Pandya (AWGP)? Is this person is notable or not? Contributor008 (talk) 08:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

		All-Around Amazing Barnstar
		The name of the barnstar says it all. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. You're doing excellent work as well. Keep it up. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi I am trying to create a page for Daniel Oates and the link keeps being restored to Dan Oates? 82.40.91.84 (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

–dlthewave ☎ 04:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Spicy. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed or created, Look DS Service, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

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

Spicy (talk) 05:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Any particular reason? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The sources are incredibly dubious. e.g. this has the byline "Brought to you by Look DS", this seems to be a site that allows anyone to submit articles, this is written by an anonymous "Guest Author", this does not appear to be a legitimate news site and the article doesn't even make sense - it mentions the company and then goes into talking about BBC, Instagram and Facebook Live. I don't understand why you've marked this as reviewed again. Spicy (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The West News, OLM Ottawa Life, and Times of Malta all have editorial oversight. While I agree there is an issue with The West News article (it ends by saying, "see below", but never continues on... not sure if there is a missing link or what). Techround is also an RS, but that is just a brief mention. Galway Daily could possibly be problematic, but requesting articles is not the same as allowing anyone to post articles, and does have editorial oversight, and it is not listed as an unreliable source, so I gave it the benefit of the doubt. I understand your concern, but disagree with it. Even with just the Times and OLM pieces barely put it over the GNG threshhold. The question becomes the byline of the Times article, which I agree with you is problematic, but not sure it is a press release or not. It could be. I marked it reviewed it again, since you did not explain why you had issues. Out of hundreds of times other editors have unreviewed articles I've reviewed, 99% of them are errors/misclicks while reviewing. The only two other times an editor has actually disagreed with my marking an article "reviewed", when they unreviewed it they explained why. So I thought you had simply misclicked, which is why I again marked it unreviewed. Feel free to unreview it again, but if you do, please tag it with your concerns (unreliable sources). And thanks for all your contributions on WP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

It's unfortunately becoming more common for otherwise legitimate news sites to host poorly labelled sponsored content. Sorry for not explaining why I unreviewed it - I wasn't aware there was a way to do that through the page curation toolbar. I'll take the article to AfD, but it will have to wait until I'm not editing from mobile. Spicy (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

No worries. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Onel5969: In future, rather than spend time on asking others to do things, would you mind taking a first try? You are not the only Wikipedian to do this, but I'm try to foster better usage of time as occasion arise. In your case, for Christophe Julien, would you mind trying yourself to find "additional citations for verification"? Gratefully - Aboudaqn (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

In future, you might perhaps take your own advice and simply do the work to begin with, rather than expecting others to. And then further waste time by writing messages like this which take time to respond to. That would perhaps foster the best usage of everyone's time. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

How very unfortunate you should react this way. I thought the entry was sufficient; you did not...  :( - Aboudaqn (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Since the fictional character biography section was already removed, is it possible to remove the tag of the page? I'm gonna make a better biography for the fictional character. Also I hope this does not delete the page permanently. Loibird90 (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi. No. You removed the revdel tag prior to an admin performing the scrub. Please don't do that in the future. And then you added back the copyvio again. That way, the revdel would only cover up to the point it is requested. But nice job on improving the article after my first review. After the revdel is completed, you might want to reach out to the admin who does it, and ask regarding the history. And the revdel doesn't delete the page, just makes the history unviewable so that it adheres to copyright regulations. But please be careful, WP takes copyvios very seriously. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for responding. I'll be careful next time and do better. Im still a bit confuse, do I wait for the revdel tag to be removed eventually or do I do something for it to be removed? What do I do? Thank you. Loibird90 (talk)

Hi Loibird90 - There's nothing for you to do, an admin will take of the revdel, and then removed the tag. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh okay. Thank you so much. Loibird90 (talk)

The article East Fort, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of a populated place at this location.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 14:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Colcord Mountain Estates, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable subdivision.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 14:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Flores, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable railroad siding.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 14:44, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

–dlthewave ☎ 15:37, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Germann, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable rail siding.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 15:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The article Hollywood, Arizona has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Small subdivision with no evidence of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –dlthewave ☎ 15:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I have noticed in the past few months that you have been deleting the route section on articles. This rule that you have suddenly made up is affecting Wikipedia, by the article not making sense. The 'in a nutshell' section says:

Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations.

This isn't the first complaint about this subject, either. Only 5-6 days ago were you on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#Citing The "Route Section" on Road Articles. I am just going to warn you that if you do not stop now, it will a visit to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Then report me. I have not made up WP:VERIFY, it's a core of WP. My removing the information means it is challenged. Therefore, as the WP policy says, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material". Further, WP:OR states, "The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable in a reliable, published source, even if not already verified via an inline citation. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged". And finally, WP:BURDEN says, "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." and "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Again, WP policy. Failing to abide by WP policy might be construed as disruptive editing, see item #2 in WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, Roads4117 - I'll give you a chance to self-report, based on the above policies, or add the needed sourcing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

That is why I am here - to tell you that there is no information showing that each paragraph has to have a citation, although you are being overzealous regarding citations. I have told the team at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways, to see what they think about it, although I think they will say to stop, or else you're banned indefinitely... Roads 4117 (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969 From WP:V (specifically WP:BURDEN):

"When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable." (emphasis mine). WP:V states:

"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." (again, emphasis mine)

Note the clear differentiation between "verifiable" and "inline citation" (or "cited"). Also note "likely to be challenged". You are being overzealous with removal of easily verifiable information, please stop. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll keep following policy, thank you. But thanks for all you do on the roads project. Very worthwhile. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You aren't following policy, you're making up your own. Several editors (five, including myself) at WT:HWY#Citing The "Route Section" on Road Articles have commented against your actions, ranging from "what gives" to potentially disruptive editing. We have a {{citation needed}} tag for a reason, use it. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, please read the policies I've listed above. You simply stating over and over, I'm not following policy doesn't mean I'm not following policy. I've stated the 3 policies explicitly above. Cherry-picking them in attempt to make them say what you want them to say is simply a waste of time. And again, thanks for your efforts on WP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

First off, I don't see how quoting the majority of the only part of the intro of WP:V to mention citations is cherry-picking, but feel free to point out the part that says "all content must include a citation" or something remotely similar from the policy you claim to be following.

Second, even your quote of WP:OR above contains: "The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable in a reliable, published source, even if not already verified via an inline citation."

Third, WP:BURDEN is a subsection link to WP:V, so that's two policies. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 01:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

First off, when you only take part of a policy, while leaving out other parts, that's cherry picking.

Second, that's the very definition of cherry-picking, saying, even your quote of WP:OR above contains. The next sentence reads, "The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged." (emphasis mine). If material is removed, by definition, it is challenged. Period.

Third, okay, 2 policies, rather than 3, so, whatever. Bottom line is, these are policies. Two of them. Of which you are arguing against. You have stated zero policy positions. So unless you have something of substance to add, please desist. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Right... and you are not cherry picking and using circuitous logic? You aren't challenging the information, you're challenging the lack of a citation. You are also biting at a newcomer. I know you'll circle back to that single sentence of WP:V, so here's some more cherry picking, the very first sentence of WP:OR:

"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a]"

[a] reads: "By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source."

And even though you'll toss the following away as an essay, even though it's possibly the most referenced essay on Wikipedia and makes direct reference to the emphasis you just provided, Wikipedia:When_to_cite#Challenging_another_user's_edits states:

"Challenges should not be frivolous: Challenges should not be made frivolously or casually, and should never be made to be disruptive or to make a point. Editors making a challenge should have reason to believe the material is contentious, false, or otherwise inappropriate."

I'm not going to bother adding emphasis, every single word is relevant. And no, I will not desist. I am also a stubborn mule. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, since you do not seem to understand the difference between an essay and actual policy, that's pretty sad. And regarding cherry picking, I'm using the entirety of the policy, not picking sentence fragments out to distort what the policy says. And challenging huge blocks of uncited text is not frivolous. As two other editors on the Roads talk page have said, the citations should be there (while at the same time disagreeing with my removal of the uncited text). And even when quoting the essay, again you cherry pick. The second sentence of the very passage you quote says, "Editors making a challenge should have reason to believe the material is contentious, false, or otherwise inappropriate." Again, large blocks of uncited text are always inappropriate.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

So you're saying that it's a 6 vs 2, and two will win?? Roads4117 (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you stop? It has nothing to do with numbers... it has to do with policy. As I've said repeatedly to you, and for some reason, you seem unwilling or incapable of understanding. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Please see ANI notice below

I looked into them thoroughly, just not enough there - if you agree. Joan arden murray (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I did not do a WP:BEFORE, but I agree with the current sourcing, neither meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

This edit [1] misplaced the notability tag. It goes after the short description, per MOS:LAYOUT. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That's an automated process through the Curation tool. Hmmm... I wonder if that's a glitch. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Roads4117 (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for checking on this new page creation Onel5969! I see you've redirected it to the project this person is most linked to via citations. I've now found more on a separate SUNDANCE project they STUNT CHOREOGRAPHED for Hong Kong Master WONG KAR-WAI and am intersted in balancing out the musical film with that. A stunt man who also stars in musicals is pretty random and interesting, thoughts?

Thank you, Intomoviesplus (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Interesting no doubt, but does it pass WP:GNG? I didn't do a WP:BEFORE, but you would need 3 in-depth references about the individual himself from independent, reliable sources to show notability. They can't be just mentions, are associated with the person. So for example, an article about the artist from the Sundance Film Festival is not independent, but an article in the Denver Post which goes into detail about the artist (and not the film), would qualify. I hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Onel5969, a bunch of us from NPP have a Discord server where we talk about NPP and bounce ideas off each other. You should come by and say hi! [2] Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Seconded. It's good fun. Ovinus (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Thirded. Live chat is great for socializing and making NPP work more fun. Maybe someday I can convince @Kudpung and @MB to join too ;-) –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I doubt it, NL. 28 years ago I found Internet chat rooms slightly interesting because they were a novelty, but I was already too old for them and I had a very busy real social life in a European city which has some of the best food and wine in the world. But don't let me deter the rest of you from having fun. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

lol...bit of a luddite myself. I had to look up what Discord was... Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I feel you, the only reason I learned about it was because my college friends wanted to move off Facebook. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and effort reviewing the page. I understand and accept your comment about the lack of references, however I want to assure you that I created the page on my own initiative, and I receive no benefits for doing this. My motivation is the same as yours and many other editors: to enrich Wikipedia. I intend to add references where necessary. At least one reference will be in Hebrew but this is easily translatable to English by Google Translate. Thanks again. Motizin (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

In 2019 you participated in a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastique Tiara, which resulted in a consensus to redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 11). I have now taken the article to deletion review, at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 September 28#Plastique Tiara. I am informing everyone who participated in the deletion discussion, except two indef-blocked accounts and an IP address which last edited two years ago, in case they would like to contribute to the deletion review. JBW (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing all my outstanding articles. Appreciate your efforts. MaxnaCarta (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

No worries... thank you. Keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit. You have asked for "extra references" without specifying where you want them. This article has plenty of references, and I doubt there are more around online. Could you please indicate what you mean?

Evadeluge (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Please provide a link. Thank you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe he means this article which you reviewed and tagged. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Any assertion you make in an article should come from a source, as per WP:VERIFY. So for example, the opening sentence of the "Poems by Merv Lilley" section... where did you get that info from? Same with the section "Joint writing" and "Songs". And even though refs are not required in the lead, that goes on the assumption that the lead is summary of the article, and that they are referenced in the article. For instance, in the lead you state, "It was the first book-length publication of poetry by either poet." Yet you do not discuss that concept in the article, and nowhere is it referenced. You make at least four other assertions in the lead which are not referenced anywhere in the article. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Onel5969. Thank you for creating PeopleSound. User:Onel5969, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice job on the article. Keep up the good work.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I've been getting back into NPP and have noticed that some of the pages in the feed you've tagged with notability/some other maintenance template, but haven't marked as reviewed. Is there a reason you choose to do that without marking them as formally "reviewed"? I want to make sure I'm not screwing anything up by going back over them! ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 18:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I try not to, especially on the older articles, the ones on the back of the queue. On those, it's usually because I don't think they are notable, and I've either prodded or AfD'd them, and the prod has been challenged, or the AfD has resulted in no consensus. Or I turned them into a redirect, and someone has reversed the redirect. So I'll tag them as notability concerns, and let another reviewer take a whack at them. On the newer ones, it's one of two reasons. Either it's because I do not think they are notable, but am not quite sure enough to prod/AfD them, so I'll mark them to let others know I think there's an issue, but if someone else thinks they pass, that's great. Those will get notability tags. The other ones I'll tag for a deficiency (like they need more refs, etc.), and not mark them reviewed, so that if another reviewer comes along (or I come back to it on my next pass through the queue), and it hasn't been corrected, I'll draftify or nominate for deletion, depending. Hope what I've written makes sense. I know it does in my head. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello Onel5969. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Larry Dvoskin, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Hi Onel, I declined your G4 request because the new submission differed from the deleted page. You may have to go through AfD to remove this one. . Thank you. Modussiccandi (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969 Thank you for suggesting improving the article on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. The article requires some work. I disagree with your opinion, though, on notability. The organisation, which the article describes, is the largest of that kind in the archaeological community. It is not WP:CORP ("Company"), but rather WP:ORG. Its size and importance in the field are comparable to that of IEEE in computing. I would be grateful if you remove your suggestion Nbarchaeo (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Size has nothing to do with it. Quite honestly, I was a bit shocked at the dearth of coverage of this organization. The IEEE is heavily covered. What you need to do is find some non-primary sources which go in-depth about the organization. I couldn't find any. If you do that, I'll be happy to take another look. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969 The problem with finding sources is that many organizations named CAA exist. If someone is not an archaeologist, or at least not an old one or a person not interested in digital archaeology, he/she will not know what CAA is. But similarly to the geographic articles, you have written. Generally, if you write "Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology" in quotes google scholar you will 6970 search entries since 1973. The papers are not about CAA, of course, but they are references to papers and papers published within CAA. In my opinion, that proves that CAA is relevant. I have found 4 references mentioning the importance of the CAA in the history of the development of digital methods in archaeology, though. Nbarchaeo (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC). Do you think it would be enough?