User talk:Onel5969/Archive 81

Archive 75

←

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

→

Archive 85

Archive 69:August 2020

Smosh articles

There are currently discussions on splitting the Smosh article into different articles for Anthony Padilla and Ian Hecox. Seeing as you redirected the Anthony article back to Smosh, I’d recommend you check out the discussions and give your honest opinion. Thanks. Sekyaw (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Trowbridge Castle

Thank you for your work in new page patrolling and protecting Wikipedia against copyright violations. On investigation, I found that the text you removed from the article Trowbridge Castle was not a copyvio, but was moved (without attribution or suitable edit summary) from the article Trowbridge. In this instance, the outside source had copied Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

All smiles

I am so glad to see your name on my watchlist again O. Be it full or part time - or even a rare occasion the 'pedia is always better off when you are editing. Best regards and have a nice week. MarnetteD|Talk 22:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

What MarnetteD said! Welcome back. Even if it's Welcome back-ish. JSFarman (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

+1 Happy to see you around, Onel5969. – bradv🍁 15:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Learning you were back brought a smile to my face. With whatever you decide to do, we're a better off place when you're around than when you're not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you MarnetteD, Bradv, and Barkeep49 - Didn't want to respond to anyone until I made up my mind if I was going to come back. Appreciate your thoughts.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Shaikh Siddiqui

If you don't have any Idea about something.. then you are changing that.. Rizvistudent1 (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

"TLC Travel" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect TLC Travel. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 18#TLC Travel until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. YTRK (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Templates

Are you trying to be funny? Please (1) read the essay WP:DTTR and try to understand why it's inappropriate to twice "Welcome to Wikipedia" an editor who's been here more than 12 years, (2) try checking the article history before templating the admin who merely refunded a deleted article, (3) realise that you're responsible for the edits you make, including those made via the "Page Curation tool".

If the tool isn't doing the job you need, then don't use it. --RexxS (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, in Onel's defense, the page was inexplicably restored without its history, so it shows you as the author. The tool appears to be working correctly. – bradv🍁 18:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv: I know it shows me as the first editor. That's pretty normal for a deleted article restored directly into draft space. The problem is not that it identified me as the author, it's that it assumes that any author of an article needs to be welcomed to Wikipedia, and that they need have the AfD process explained to them, and that they need to be reminded to sign their posts. I find that templating experienced editors makes the templater look ridiculous. Perhaps they should be reminded to preview their additions to other users' talk pages. And if you're no going to tell me that the tool doesn't allow that, then I'm going to emphatically tell you that it isn't working correctly. --RexxS (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, yeah there's unfortunately no way around it using the Page Curation tool, unless you count rushing to the editor's page and removing the template as a way around it. We've been recommending that editors use WP:TWINKLE instead for everything except marking the page as reviewed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi RexxS, first, it's usually polite to provide a link to what you are referring to. Second, the NPP curation tool does not give one the option of not sending the template to the editor who is identified as the article's creator. This is different from the Twinkle tool, which does give one that option. You are correct, templating veteran editors with a "Welcome" is ridiculous, and you have my apologies for that. Since you've brought it to my attention, in the future, if I am reviewing an article at NPP, and I choose to CSD, Prod, or AfD it, I'll switch to the Twinkle tool so I can avoid that issue in the future. Thank you for your civility. And thanks for your input, Bradv.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

And thanks for your comment, Rosguill, as you know, I've been off the NPP page for quite some time and was unaware of that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Onel5969: You hadn't guessed that I was talking about the two templates you dumped onto my talk page? Well, not linking to my own talk page must be almost as impolite as your patronising templates. I don't give a flying dingo's kidneys how badly designed the tool is. When you use it, you take responsibility for the edits made. I'm sick to the eye teeth of editors racking up huge numbers of semi-automated edits that have poor results, and then blaming the automated tools, instead of accepting the blame themselves. --RexxS (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, since I didn't know that the templates had been put on your page, no, I had no clue as to what you were talking about. I was unaware of the issue, but when I understood what you were talking about, I explained what happened, apologized for the inconvenience, and offered to use the alternative method (which I had not known about prior to this). But am so glad you so graciously accepted my apology. Your civility is outstanding. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it's my fault. I am normally assiduous about providing links, but I'd forgotten that if you're using an automated tool, you often only know that it's going to notify the "article creator", and of course it wouldn't be at all obvious to you that the templates ended up on my page. It's you who were gracious, so please accept my sincere apology for my thoughtlessness. At least you've had a useful tip about using Twinkle from Rosguill. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

RexxS - No worries, thank you for that. It is greatly appreciated. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, I would dispute your assertion that it's normal to restore an article without its history. That contravenes WP:CWW. – bradv🍁 18:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv: Try refunding directly into Draft: space and see how it goes. Perhaps I should delete the present article as a copyvio? --RexxS (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, what's wrong with restoring it in place and then moving it to draft so the history is preserved? That's how everyone else does it, as that is what is required by our copyright attribution policy. At any rate, I've restored the history of that draft, although I can't find the specific version you restored in the history. Where did it come from? – bradv🍁 20:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv: As it needed considerable more work to be viable, I thought it best to avoid putting it into mainspace even for a short time, so I restored it directly into Draft. I'll make sure that I restore to mainspace in future to avoid what went wrong this time. Thanks for restoring the rest of the edit history, but I think we're still missing some revisions between 2016 and 2020.

Okay, found it. I remember now I became involved because .karellian-24 asked RHaworth to refund Raul Catinas which RHaworth had deleted – see User talk:RHaworth #Raul Catinas – and I've been trying to help mop up those sort of requests as he's not editing much nowadays. There are two different articles with and without diacritics. --RexxS (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, okay, all fixed up. I deleted Raul Cătinaș, and then restored just the versions going back to the version you copy-and-pasted. Then I restored Raul Catinas and merged its entire history into Raul Cătinaș. Now the history is accurate, and attribution is preserved. Thank you! P.S. If there are other articles that you have refunded like this they should get the same treatment. – bradv🍁 20:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bradv: Excellent work – thank you! We even have a redirect now from Raul Catinas (useful if the article survives AfD). I've just checked my 'articles created' since April 2019 and there are no other refunds credited to me as author. --RexxS (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Onel

I expect some kindness from you if you are willing to offer it. Because:

The page was refunded by an administrator because this kickboxer is considered notable. He is a 2-time K-1 WGP Final 16 finalist. Please SEE THIS, Cătinaș was the only fighter on the card without a Wikipedia page until creation. He has also fought at the K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Tokyo Final 16. K-1 was an organisation that reunited the best heavyweights in the world. We had no rankings, but we can assume he could have been around the 10th rank so it should pass the rule "been ranked in the world top 10 by an independent publication". Liverkick ceased to exist, and Combat Press (Kickboxing) was created only some years ago. Kickboxing is covered less by media than is the UFC in the USA. I suggest some wisdom and indulgence, please. Thom Harinck, longest coach in the world and one of the best in the history of the sport, names him the "White Tyson" and "perhaps the hardest white hitter in heavyweight history". So being not just fighting in 2 K-1 finals, but also being considered an incredibly heavy hitter by Harinck could be notable.

I really appreciate if you can remove the nomination. Thx!--.karellian-24 (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi. That's not why it was refunded. The note from the admin was that it was refunded "of deleted article into draft space - this MUST be worked upon to substantially improve it or it will be deleted again." While it has been changed, nothing about it has improved his notability since the last AfD discussion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It was wrongly deleted. He is a 2-time K-1 WGP Final 16 finalist. Please SEE THIS, Cătinaș was the only fighter on the card without a Wikipedia page until creation. He has also fought at the K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 in Tokyo Final 16. K-1 was an organisation that reunited the best heavyweights in the world. We had no rankings, but we can assume he could have been around the 10th rank so it should pass the rule "been ranked in the world top 10 by an independent publication". Liverkick ceased to exist, and Combat Press (Kickboxing) was created only some years ago. Kickboxing is covered less by media than is the UFC in the USA. I suggest some wisdom and indulgence, please. Thom Harinck, longest coach in the world and one of the best in the history of the sport, names him the "White Tyson" and "perhaps the hardest white hitter in heavyweight history". So being not just fighting in 2 K-1 finals, but also being considered an incredibly heavy hitter by Harinck could be notable. I really appreciate if you can remove the nomination. Thx!--.karellian-24 (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It was not wrongly deleted. It was deleted as the result of an AfD discussion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello

i would appreciated if you would please stop making reverts on PeteStrumentals 3. The album is not until next week. thank you Ceedub88 18:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Greetings

The revert on Short Films by Louis C.K. is unwarranted and disgusting vandalism, please stop!! Or I will report you!! IT HAS ENOUGH CREDIBILITY TO EXIST AND HAS ENOUGH SOURCES!! Thank you!!

Aonami Line

Hi,

Wanted to discuss the redirects of the Aonami Line stations. From my understanding & research (WP:RAILOUTCOMES, WP:STATION), heavy rail stations are generally considered notable, especially when the stations are in major metropolises, have large, multiple floor station buildings and serve thousands of people a day. We have tens of thousands of articles of less notable stations and we keep them. It's only generally stations that were/are just a sign on a post that get deleted/merged. If you have anything that disagrees with this, let me know. Jumpytoo Talk 04:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't disagree with anything you say above, but WP:RAILOUTCOMES and WP:STATION do not relieve the necessity of showing WP:GNG, they simply assume they are notable. Articles which may be notable, but do not show notability, should be redirected.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Jumpytoo: More importantly, "articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources" (WP:PSTS). If an article lacks reliable, published secondary sources, not only does it fail GNG, it has insufficient proper sources to write any content from. --RexxS (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The general consensus disagrees on that viewpoint though [1] [2]. As long we can establish with sources that the station exists it meets notability guidelines, as we have to consider that these stations likely have Japanese offline or historical sources. The state of these articles could definitely need improvement, but not to the point where we should replace them with redirects. Though, I've updated Arakogawa-kōen Station with an two additional sources from a TV channel website & government statistical website to further establish notability. IF you have objections, either AfD or revert & ping. Thanks. Jumpytoo Talk 20:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Deletion discussions are not "general consensus" – see WP:CONLOCAL. The necessity of basing articles on secondary sources is policy, while WP:SNGs are guidelines. WP:RAILOUTCOMES has not been vetted by the community, and WP:STATION is an essay. It is useless establishing that an article passes a SNG if there are no secondary sources to create the article content. --RexxS (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	I've been away for a few days, and just realised that you were back. This has made my day - glad to see you around again. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 15:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Girth Summit, didn't want to respond to anyone until I made the firm decision to actually come back.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Onel5969, I'm hoping that you've made that decision now? Hope you're well physically after that stuff at the end of last year (and everything else that's happened since then...). Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Girth Summit - my son and I were having a talk last night, and he brought up Ser Armentio, and how he felt this was a worthwhile project. He talked me into giving it another shot. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Review Please

Draft:Human Rights Protection Act Draft:Mahadevar Temple, Nelveli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasanth202 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Restoration of three re-directs

Hello, I'm Blue Riband. I'm assuming you've come out of retirement given your recent activity. I noticed that you restored three re-directs: The Charade (D'Angelo song), Jonathan Galkin, and Heart of a Champion (song). Erprert had initially made them with edit summaries that they "didn't seem notable". However in cases where an article fails WP:GNG should we not nominate it for AfD? A unilateral re-direct effectively "blanks" the page as it hides the text from view to the casual user. You noted in your restoration of the re-directs that unsourced material can be removed anytime. I agree that there is a lot of unsourced stuff on Wikipedia that flies under the radar and languishes for years. This does seem to circumvent the AfD process where deletion decisions made by editorial consensus. Blue Riband► 23:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Read my response here. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 23:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Blue Riband - AfD is unnecessary in cases like this, for the most part. Removing all content in a problematic article and replacing it with a redirect is common practice. Reverting to a redirect, or simply creating a redirect out of an existing article is not bypassing AfD, it is simply not wasting the time of other editors. The moving to a redirect is not a judgement on notability, merely a judgement on the caliber, quantity, or quality of the citations currently in place in the article. Once uncited material is removed it is encumbent on the editor who wishes to restore it to provide references. In 2 of the 3 articles you mention, there was not a single source, and in the third only a single source to Amazon, hardly a source to go towards notability. Feel free to work on those articles if you feel that they are notable, and you can find sourcing to back that up. Hope this explains things. And by the way... still considering whether or not to come out of retirement, but I have some extra time now and thought I'd put my hand in for a bit.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response as I was wondering if there was a situation of an alternate account on the part of Erpert. (A "retired" editor reverting the same three articles did look a bit suspicious.) As for the re-directs, I agree that none of the three are worth keeping as stand alone articles. I'm just frustrated with the AfD process because an article that (to me) clearly fails GNG will end up being retained by default if there is no clear editorial consensus to delete it. Not that it might have multiple defenders (which sometimes does happen) but there are no comments other than that of the nominating editor. It only takes one editor to write a poorly sourced article but it takes about a dozen editors to get one deleted. Blue Riband► 00:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Achara Kirk Deletion

Sir/Madam... You made a claim that she hardly deserves notability.... https://www.instagram.com/acharakirk/ Just check the followers.... You will get your answer for notability Rahrumi (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry nope. That does not show notability. Please review WP:GNG to see what denotes notability, and how to show it in an article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

heads up

Heya, looks like Agnes Nandutu was a reverse copyvio. The source of the "copyvio" was published 7/24/2020 but the article hadn't even been edited since June. :) Praxidicae (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Praxidicae - missed that. BTW, I used to have a tool to check on the date of a webpage's creation, called Carbon Dating. That site no longer exists. Do you have a link to something similar? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Huh, I've never even heard of that. Would have been useful too! I don't know of any tool but the posted date on this site at least was more obvious than others. There is a way I think by looking at source code depending on the site too but it's often unreliable. Praxidicae (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The article "The Petersens" moved to draftspace

User:Onel5969, shalom. Thanks for telling me about your decision to move "The Petersens" article to draftspace. For your inforfamtion, prior to its move, the article "The Petersens", judging by the stats, had generated far more views than Allison Krauss's Wikipedia page, as you can see here:

• Page views for The Petersens

(The number of people viewing the page is shown on the left; dates on the bottom)

• Page views for Allison Krauss

People were, definitely, taking an interest in their group, and they see them as being quite talented. I will do my best to find other reliable sources that speak about the group.Davidbena (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Jonathan Galkin Wiki

This page is valid + accurate. I saw you had edited changed it and had it redirect to Hey Dude. I am actually the subject and would appreciate having my page available. Any way it can be reinstated and the redirect to Hey Dude removed? I am new to Wiki so bear with me. thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconcrest72 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hi. First, regarding restoring the page, sorry, no. Wikipedia has notability guidelines, which the article's subject simply doesn't meet. Second, if you are indeed the subject, then you shouldn't be editing it at all. That's a conflict of interest (see WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

PROD endorsements

As much as I appreciate the votes of confidence, I wonder if endorsing other reviewers' PROD tags is the best use of our time given the length of the backlog. It's equally easy for an editor to remove a PROD even after endorsement, and time spent reviewing a PRODed article could be spent reviewing an additional article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't disagree Rosguill - and normally I skip over articles which are already marked for deletion, but those two I simply hit, and agreed with your assessment. BTW, in the same batch, I saw one you marked for notabiity, but "reviewed" it anyway. I don't make a practice of it.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Node (singer)

I was informed of the deletion of Node article after I saw the article taken off as a copyright infringement. Didn't have a few hours to help save it. But did it occur to all these colleagues behind this decision (just a handful 2-3 colleagues) that the page that is pointed out https://krposts.com/block/ycqf5J44SWgTvMeO1lQ-2w is the one that copied from the Wikipedia article? I recognize the style of the text and it is my Wikipedia style. The page pinpointed is a message board https://krposts.com/ that is a relatively well known message board on Kurdish subjects and they are notorious for copying Wikipedia articles by "copy and paste"? No poster on that message board would have troubled himself or herself to do the necessary research for all that information. The earliest message in the comments section was just 3 months ago whereas our article has been there for quite a long time. You see, what happened is some poster likes the singer and rapper Node from Denmark of Kurdish origin, so he/she pasted what he/she readily found in Wikipedia being oh so happy Node is mentioned on our project. Now because of that copy paste he/she did out of his/her stupid innocent jubilation of seeing something by his name in Wikipedia, that specific copy paste post was used as proof of copyright infringement and resulted in the demise of the article altogether and speedily at that without giving me the chance to respond. So now with our trigger-happy superficial non-discussion of a few hours ago, Wikipedia loses the biography of a Kurdish Danish singer and rapper. So his/her action of copying our article backfired on him/her and he/she was deprived and the whole Wikipedia readership is deprived of any feedback on Node. I am not writing this to blame anybody. But I am so sad we have come to this level that whenever we see a foreign name, we suddenly are over-concerned. This singer rapper started in 2012 and has had tens of charted hits in Danish Hitlisten chart which you can find here https://danishcharts.dk/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Node from 2016 onwards to these days and Wikipedia readers are now deprived of any information on him based on a message board that copied from us and not the reverse. I am getting really tired of this project's obvious sloppiness time and time again when it comes to lesser known non-English language artists. They are already underrepresented in English Wikipedia and we are making it worse like here. But you know what? Let it stay cancelled. I mean what's that big deal. One artist more or one artist less. There are tens of thousands of artists. It's not the end of the world. werldwayd (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Werldwayd Yes, I thought it might be, since I rarely find issues with your articles. However the site in question says it owns the copyright. I have no way of checking for checking if a particular website is a WP:MIRROR of WP. I used to have a tool which helped in establishing which came first, but that tool is now a dead link. I'm pinging Jimfbleak who was the admin who actually deleted the article for their input.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The biggest proof ours is the original is that the comments are very recent on the krposts dot com page which means that their page is actually the culprit in taking our material. Message boards just live on copy paste particularly Wikipedia. It's the easiest thing to do, copyright or no copyright. Our page of this artist is some time back although I have no way of knowing it now as it is completely deleted. Thanks for pinging Jimfbleak to take a new look on the circumstances. If the page is reestablished solving this misunderstanding, I could at least add more references and updates on the charting discography of Node and remove copyrighted materials if any. I also don't like arguing too often in discussion pages. It's just not my type. But I appreciate your help. It's just that speedy deletions are so unfair as I can't be on my Wikipedia page all the time and we just get one day at best. I like more the AfD discussions. I know copyrighted materials are candidates for speedy deletion, but it seems I can't beat the system. LOL werldwayd (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for ping. Since the copyright status has been challenged, I'll restore for now to allow further discussion, ping GF SD nominator Onel5969 for info. This bio is problematic for other reasons, notably the extent of unreferenced text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for both colleagues, Onel5969 for following it up and for Jimfbleak for reinstating the Node singer page for reconsideration. I will work on the page to add more references within the next 2-3 days for sure. werldwayd (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)