User talk:John B123/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

'Please comply with WP:BRD'

You may consider an edit summary stating 'Please comply with WP:BRD' [1] entirely unaccompanied by any attempt to address what I would hope are obvious concerns over the sourcing of an article to be appropriate. I don't. Accordingly, I suggest you follow your own advice, and discuss the material, rather than blindly restoring it. Free free to do so either on the talk page, or at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Flirty_Fishing_references. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: You are missing the point. The basic concept WP:BRD is that when an edit is reverted then it should be discussed not simply changed back to how you think it should be as you did. It is not a case of change it to how you think it should be and then discuss it, but gain consensus before restoring how you think it should be. Restoring to content to before the disputed changes is entirely appropriate, your edit warring is not. --John B123 (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

No, I am not missing any point whatsoever. There is nothing in WP:BRD that states that policy-violating material cannot be removed from an article because people cite 'WP:BRD' while refusing to engage in any discussion. I suggest you either do so, or revert your own edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: If you're not missing the point then why start edit warring? I haven't refused to do anything by the way. --John B123 (talk) 10:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I haven't 'started edit warring'. I have made a single edit, removing what seems self-evidently inappropriately-sourced material from an article, and at the same time requested that other people discuss the matter. Pleas comply with WP:BRD, and explain (either on the talk page, or at WP:RSN) why you think the citation of xfamily.org is justifiiable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Whatever. Although it 'seems' to be inappropriate to you, this view is not shared by others as witnessed by the page's recent history. I have simply restored the original content until the discussion about it is complete, which is accepted practice. I don't see what the problem with that is? --John B123 (talk) 10:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that you have restored material that violates WP:RS sourcing policy in multiple ways, while failing to explain why you are doing so in an appropriate place. There will be no 'discussion' unless those supporting the inclusion are prepared to explain why they think it is justified. WP:BRD is not a stonewalling licence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

If those supporting the inclusion do not join in the discussion then it will be a short discussion and the consensus will be to remove the content. At that point the content should be removed. Until consensus is agreed, the principle is that the disputed content remains. I don't see why you are getting so aggressive with me for simply trying to ensure the correct procedures are followed. --John B123 (talk) 10:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

If your only reason for reverting my edit was to 'ensure the correct procedures are followed', it was done in direct contradiction to what WP:BRD actually says: "BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle". There is a 'D' in 'BRD' for a reason, and people citing it are expected to comply, by discussing the disputed matter in an appropriate place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

You can cherry pick excerpts from WP:BRD all you want, but that doesn't change the base principle that contentious material should remain if the changes have been challenged, which they have in this case, until consensus is obtained. --John B123 (talk) 11:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

How exactly is consensus supposed to be obtained if people refuse to engage in discussion? You have made an edit. You have cited WP:BRD to do so. Now discuss the matter in one of the places available, explaining why you think the citations are valid. Or if you aren't prepared to do that, self-revert, and leave the matter for people who actually understand what WP:BRD is for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Let me put this simply. An IP removed the references[2] which was reverted by Thorwald[3]. At this point Bold and Revert of WP:BRD had happened, therefore Discuss was called for, and your further revert[4] was totally inappropriate, hence my restoration of the stable version. Because you have strong views on the subject is no reason to have the page as you think it should be whilst the matter is discussed. People do have lives outside Wikipedia, to get upset that people have not responded within hours to a discussion you started is unreasonable. --John B123 (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

What is 'unreasonable' is citing WP:BRD in an edit summary, and then refusing to provide any justification whatsoever for restoring material so clearly inappropriately cited. You are responsible for your own edits, you chose to make them. Why aren't you prepared to discuss your own edits? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Further to this, as I noted in my edit summary [5], there may well be a copyright issue involved here. As I would hope should be obvious, it is never appropriate to restore material in breach of Wikipedia copyright policy, and failing to even discuss this while restoring the disputed content is inadvisable, to say the least. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I thought this whole section was discussing it. Once again, I haven't refused anything, but I am now refusing to be bullied by you into anything. The discussion about the refs is now taking place. At some stage it will conclude the refs should be removed, or that the refs are appropriate so should remain. Either way the issue will be resolved. --John B123 (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

If there are copyvios then follow the appropriate procedure, but don't try to use it as a justification to push through the changes you want to make. --John B123 (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The issue isn't 'copyvios'. It is what appears to be a clear violation of Wikipedia:Copyrights ("a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations"). Specifically, the article is repeatedly citing Children of God/Family International primary-source material uploaded to the xfamily.org website, under circumstances where it would be entirely reasonable to assume that the website could be in breach of the original creator's copyright. WP:LINKVIO is unambiguous on this: "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work... Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States... Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." As for changes I want, I haven't formed any opinion of consequence on this yet, since I prefer to base such opinions on what legitimate independent sources have to say on a subject. I only got involved as a result of seeing the IP's comments at WP:RSN, and on checking agreed with their conclusions. 13:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Please kindly put me through, I need more knowledge

Hello, I have created a article but it has an issue on it. Can you kindly help me understand it well so that I can correct my mistake? Here's the article Benjamin Sokomba Dazhi. Also it has not been reviewed yet. Kind regards sir and do have a lovely day. Moshswacide (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Moshswacide, I've removed the {{lead missing}} tag which shouldn't have been added in the first place. I'm no longer involved in new page reviewing so can't help you there. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 22:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the help, I really appreciate. However, can you kindly assist me by recommending any new page reviewer? Sorry for the inconveniences. Regards. Moshswacide (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Moshswacide, there are numerous reviewers, I'm sure one of them will look at the article soon. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Chaumont Volley-Ball 52

Good evening, could you withdraw the "Draft" [6] of the Chaumont Volley-Ball 52, in order to link them to the 18 other pages (interlanguage), please. There are a lot of sources now.

Hi Durante Inferno, it's looking a lot better now but still needs references in the History section. I've tidied up the lead section and will have a look at tidying up the rest of it tomorrow when I have more time. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello John B123, I made the last modifications requested, thus adding more sources and references to complete the article. From my side everything is ok. Regards. --Durante Inferno (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Durante Inferno, all done. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello

John, Sir, Hi! How are you doing? Greetings. I've missed your reviews. Please have a look on these pages Cross section (fiber), and Malimo. Guide me how can i review them myself or there is no need. Thanks and regards RV (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi RV, nice to hear from you. I'm good thanks, hope you are too. I see you have autopatrolled rights now so the articles you create are automatically marked as reviewed, there's nothing else that needs to be done. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. Will continue to disturb you. Regards RV (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Please Help ME!

@John B123: I Had Request The Right Of IP Block Exmeption From LongHair Just Few Hours Ago They Have Given Me This Right For 1 Month Asked To Reviwew After 1 Month But I Still Dont Understand Which One He Will Review What Happened Will They Block Me Please Help me ,Please see my talkpage.Best Regards. Maniik ^{🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me.} 14:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Manikk. IP blocks are made after troublesome editing from that IP. Unfortunately, IPs are not static so some genuine editors get blocked because of their IPs. (It happened to me recently - see above). Provided your edits are constructive over the next month I don't see why the IP block exemption should be made permanent. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@John B123: I think I have not made any wrong edits to Wikipedia so far yes there may be some problem in my contribution please see if you want my contribution and then tell me I have asked for IP Block Exemption only because I do not want to make any other mistake I get punishment, I have seen your unblock request, please ask for IP Block Exemption like me, I use public networks like mobile broadband, coffee shops, airports and wifi to edit on Wikipedia. But will they really block me?Best Regards. Maniik ^{🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me.} 01:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

WARNINGs and Civility

Please, refrain from hastily putting "warnings" on people's talk pages like you did today on my page at [09:08, October 11, 2021] without due necessity; especially for minor reasons; this may amount to false accusations i.e. violation of WP:CIVIL#ACCUSATIONS/WP:IUC; assume good WP:FAITH first; all the best (you are safe to revert this). AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Alexander Davronov: When a user disregards WP:BRD then a warning on their talk page is entirely appropriate. --John B123 (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I sent you thanks for suggested page improvements

A belated and quick message to thank you for your review of a page I did during a summer editathon. I'm grateful for the work of committed Wikipedian volunteers! I'm very behind with messages like these. Dawnbazely (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Dawnbazely, thanks for your kind words. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:ROLLBACKUSE

This revert is out of line. If you have objections to the edit, you must state them clearly in the edit summary and not just use the default message from rollback, as that is abuse of the tool: "editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I also left a comment on the talk page 10 minutes ago, to which you haven't replied. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: I have left the reasons for reverting you changes on the talk page. --John B123 (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

It would be good if you could actually address the arguments I make instead of simply saying "give more time". At least, thanks for explaining yourself, but in the future, the explanation needs to be directly with the edit (especially if you are using rollback: there are plenty of tools which allow you to put in a custom summary) and should not require someone prompting you to give one. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I do normally give an exit summary, but am using a new tablet and for some reason I didn't get a preview (where you add an edit summary) when pressing 'undo' it simply posted the changes. Once this happened I posted the explanation on the talk page, presumably at the same time as you were posting here, so there was no question of being prompted. --John B123 (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thought I'd let you know

This IP[7] whom you had run-ins with several months ago, is in all likelihood operated by LTA Lagoo sab.[8] Thought you might be interested. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi LouisAragon, Apologies for not getting back to you sooner, I've been on holiday. Thanks for the info. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 10:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. No worries; hope you/yours enjoyed the holiday. Take care, - LouisAragon (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi John, Appreciation.

Hi John, hope you're doing good today, just wanted to check up on you since it has been long I dropped a message on your TP. I always remember that I took this collaborative project because of some persons including you who encouraged me unknowingly. You were always open to review pages I created, and you also make sure I put some of the pages in order. Just wanted to let you know that whatever seriousness I show today, or wherever I may attain in future of this collaborative project, it's because of you. You've been an awesome reviewer, infact I checked some statistics sometime ago and noticed that even though you're no longer reviewing, you're still topping the records. Thanks for your works so far and continue in your good works...Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Idoghor Melody, thanks for your kind words and all the best for the future. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 07:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts

I was having a productive discussion with SmokeyJoe on if or not sorting & categorizing were super important, even though truthfully I don’t always sort and categorize myself, my stance was that they were very important but SJ didn’t agree with me on this. I guess my question is in your opinion what can you say about this? Celestina007 (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Celestina007, hope all is well with you. Categorisation is in my opinion one of the basic parts of an article, so from that viewpoint super important. That said, once the most important categories have been added, then adding all the other possible categories is less important. For example if I came across an uncategorised biography when patrolling, I'd add categories for birth, death and occupation or an appropriate category for what they are notable for, but not education, ethnicity, place of birth etc. If the article was about something more obscure that I wasn't sure what categories it belongs to, I'd tag it with {{uncategorized}} but not mark it as reviewed.

Category sort is also important, but less so than categorisation. On articles I write I add DEFAULTSORT plus add sort to individual categories if needed. I have to confess that when I was reviewing I just added the categories without sort. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I needed another pair of experienced eyes looking & weighing in on this. Celestina007 (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

​ Where was the original conversation? --John B123 (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Ironically it was a (positive) digression from an AFC related conversation. see the full entry here. Celestina007 (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Almond

On my User Talk page, you commented on Draft:Almond yogurt, which i created. How much content should the draft contain before it is submitted for review? I firmly believe this is an article worth creating; it is an important subject; a very high portion of all non-dairy yogurts, at least in the United States and probably elsewhere, are almond-based.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Solomonfromfinland, there is no specified minimum but it probably needs more content as at the moment the article is more of a dictionary definition than an encyclopaedic entry. Don't disagree about notability, but it needs more content. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Norton pre-unit twins

Hello, John B123. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Norton pre-unit twins, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, since wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in your sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sportsfan 1234, no idea what suggestion you are referring to. With over 180,000 edits, I think I may be past needing Help:Getting started. Please see Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:PharmEasy

Dude, I am moving notable pages from draft to mainspace. I saw you added notability tag on Draft:Pharmeasy. I fixed the sources. Also, I need help to redirect all the drafts into one, I am not sure how to do that. 1друг (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC) Nomadicghumakkad You should also check it. As you also added notability tag 1друг (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

1друг, a bit of a refbomb but having research/analyst companies covering company is always a good sign. 01:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomadicghumakkad (talk • contribs)

Hi 1друг, apologies for not responding sooner, due to personal reasons I'm not on WP much at the moment. I would suggest you submit the article for AFC review. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

John B123 Thanks for replying. The whole point is, I am moving a lot pages to help faster and for that I need to avoid AFC. I believe I understand notability. 1друг (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Intellectual exchange

Coming from here, whilst I’ve definitely incorporated some of your philosophy in my personal approach, what can you say about sending articles to draft? would you consider draftifying as Triage as opposed to tagging? Also, when you tag articles do you manually uncheck the reviewed button or do you leave it as reviewed? Celestina007 (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Celestina007, hope all is well with you. I used to send articles to draft as part of NPP, generally if they were unreferenced. However after getting a lot of grief for this from a certain admin, I'd wait for 24 hours before doing this to ensure the "there is no evidence of active improvement" requirement of WP:DRAFTIFY was beyond question. If the unreferenced article was at the back of the queue and had been created over a redirect I'd restore the redirect rather than sending to draft.

When tagging, if the tag was minor I'd mark the article as reviewed, but if it was for a more major issue I'd uncheck the box. For example if the article was largely unreferenced I wouldn't mark as reviewed and tag {{refimprove}}. If it was just needed more categories I'd tag and mark as reviewed. With references you need to use your judgement. If the article is mostly referenced but a few small areas aren't I'd probably let that go. If say one section was unreferenced and the rest was ok, I'd probably mark the section as unreferenced and mark the article as reviewed - the logic being if that section was removed the rest of the article would be OK. Hope that all makes sense. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It actually does! Thanks for your time mate. Celestina007 (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Norton Z26

Hello, John B123. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Norton Z26, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello John B123, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, RV (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thanks RV, and my best wishes to you too. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas, John B123! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 22:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi onel5969, thanks and the best to you and yours. I haven't been so active of late as I have relocated from England to Spain, re-establishing my business in Spain, which has been made difficult due to Spanish bureaucratic red tape, but hopefully all will be resolved soon and I'll have more time available. All the best. --John B123 (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello John B123: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Concern regarding Draft:Amélie Élie

Hello, John B123. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Amélie Élie, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Big Four

Hi, you previously participated in the Big Four international beauty pageants Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Four international beauty pageants (2nd nomination) and I'm notifying all the previous participants since the article is currently nominated for deletion for the third time in this link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Four international beauty pageants (3rd nomination) in case you want to chime in.---Richie Campbell (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Tesfai Gebreab

Hi @John B123:, I see you reverted my move of the the page Tesfai Gebreab to Tesfaye Gebreab. Although I tried to do this via the "move" function, it didn't work, hence why I copy and pasted it manually. A quick Google reveals that the correct spelling is Tesfaye. None of the reliable sources online use the former. Can you please help me move it accordingly? Thanks! --Jkaharper (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jkaharper, moving by copy and pasting separates the page history from the page, and the history is part of the copyright requirements. I've now moved Tesfai Gebreab to Tesfaye Gebreab. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Noted, and thank you! --Jkaharper (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Khandoker Wasim Iqbal

Yo I saw that you reviewed the page I created (Khandoker Wasim Iqbal) and its been a few hours but it still doesn't appear in google search, it'll help a lot if you could tell me the reason for this (I'm kind of new to Wikipedia). Thanks. FNH004 (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi FNH004, it can sometimes take a few days before pages appear on Google after being reviewed. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know and it appears on google now.FNH004 (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Welcome back!

I just saw you reappear in the NPP stats. Great to have you back!

Hi Mccapra, thanks. Happy New Year. --John B123 (talk) 11:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

John B123,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

---

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Hi CAPTAIN RAJU, thanks, and a Happy New Year to you too. --John B123 (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, John B123!

Happy New Year!

John B123,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hi Abishe, thanks, and a Happy New Year to you too. --John B123 (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Improve articles of Nasrollah Radesh

Hi sir, i hope help me to improve the articles of Nasrollah Radesh. He is one of the famous actor in iran. Thanks my sir KohyarShahiam (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi KohyarShahiam, I don't know anything about Nasrollah Radesh so can't really help. You need to show he meets WP:NACTOR. Regards --John B123 (talk) 16:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Definitely sir Before it please check this sources about the Nasrollah Radesh: https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/نصرالله_رادش https://m.imdb.com/name/nm2548156/ https://www.hamshahrionline.ir/amp/646983/ https://www.khabaronline.ir/amp/1486666/ https://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news/1399/11/08/2441241/خاطره-بیوک-میرزایی-از-ترس-عجیب-نصرالله-رادش-از-عباس-آقا/amp https://www.borna.news/بخش-فرهنگ-هنر-6/938652-واکنش-نصرالله-رادش-بعد-از-انتشار-یک-پست-خبرساز Thanks for watching KohyarShahiam (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year John B123!

Happy New Year!

John B123,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Idoghor Melody, thanks, and a Happy New Year to you too. --John B123 (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Original research

Although I do understand why you would think my recents edits involving the source "Redatam" could be original research, I hope you understand that this information is in fact on the website, and that it can take a little bit of a while to learn how to use the website. I am aware of a YouTube tutorial on "How to use Redatam". 123waawaaaa (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi 123waawaaaa. The links on the articles to Redatam are, as far as I can make out, to the home page of a database. The general principle of verifiability is that a reference needs to point to a page that contains the information. Where a site is complex to use, such as Redatam, a casual reader of the page cannot verify the information is correct. i.e. the link needs to point to a results page not a query page. When you have found the information on Redatam is there a link to download (possibly a pdf)? If so, a link to the PDF would would be OK. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, REDATAM data can be downloaded on a PDF, and I think the PDFs provide links, REDATAM also has graphs, which do in fact have links. 123waawaaaa (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Please Review My Page

Can you please review my page Nannamma Super Star please pleaseS260402 (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi S260402, the article needs some more references. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Every Breath

Does the disambiguation page Every Breath also need to be deleted or redirected per CSD G14?Resosuvinoin (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Resosuvinoin, yes it probably does. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:ESPN 3 (Latin American TV channel)

Just to let you know that barely five minutes after you moved this to draftspace due to having no sources at all, the creator moved it straight back into mainspace. Richard3120 (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Richard3120, thanks for the info. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Heather Conley

I would like to contest your deletion as you cited copyrighted material that in fact came primarily from State Department archives which are not copyrighted. Unfortunately, your flag had an inactive link to contest deletion so I do not know who to best escalate this to an independent dispute arbitration. Please add that link to the commentary you used to justify your deletion or, alternative, restore the Heather Conley page so that I can continue to contribute to this community.

Hi XhainXpert. Whilst US Gov material is in the public domain in the US, they reserve the right to copyright it for use outside the US. They also request attribution, although it's not an absolute requirement. EU law on copyright is complex. Although I'm far from an expert, as I understand it, the EU regards material from any government as copyrighted. The usual procedure when using US gov material is to add the attribution template {{US government sources}}, or more specific department templates in Category:United States government attribution templates.

The content from https://www.gmfus.org/news/heather-conley-named-next-gmf-president is copyrighted and cannot be copied to Wikipedia.

The article was deleted by admin JBW, who may consider reinstating the article per WP:REFUND if requested. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate this extremely constructive feedback. I live in Europe but edited it in Texas. The issue of the US State Department "reserving the right to copyright" and "European copyright laws are complex" seems to be an awfully broad enforcement standard. If this were actually the justification for the deletion of the Conley entry -- and were applied uniformly -- would have a massive chilling effect on the content of thousands, if not millions of articles . That said, if/once the article is restored, I am happy to rework and cite the two sources I provided in the original. I would, however, ask for more constructive flagging by users like JBW rather than deletions which do not seem consistent with the issue at hand.

@John B123: @XhainXpert: I agree with John's reasoning for the first source, but not for the second. I checked the copyright information at the bottom of the web page in question, and it says "Unless a copyright is indicated, information on the State Department’s main website is in the public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission. Citation of the U.S. State Department as source of the information is appreciated." ([9]) The page does not have anything to indicate otherwise, so it is in the public domain. Nevertheless, the first copyright violation gives Wikipedia no choice but to remove the offending article until the problem can be fixed.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your work. I only need the citation under Wikipedia rules that states a partial -- but not complete - use of copyright material necessitates the deletion of the entire article. It strikes me more that this would fall under the category of WP:ZEALOUS as it does not assume good faith on my part. I hope I am able to demonstrate it. If you can provide that, I will start a new article for Heather Conley. If, however, no such rule exists and removal of copyrighted material would be sufficient, I would be delighted if you and :::@John B123: could restore the accurate information and I can contribute to it accordingly. I would encourage a reading of the WP:BATHWATER section in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XhainXpert (talk • contribs) 08:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, John B123, for alerting me to this discussion. XhainXpert, your attempt to ping me didn't work, because you need to sign the post is which you make a ping. Since John B123 alerted me, it didn't matter, but I'm letting you know for future reference. For a ping to work you have to sign with ~~~~ in the same post as the ping.

In the light of the above comments, I have looked back at the deleted article, and decided there is a significant amount of content which doesn't infringe copyright, so I have restored the article, removing the content which does infringe copyright. When I saw John B123's speedy deletion nomination I checked that the article really did consist largely of material copied from the stated sources, but I didn't realise that the word "state" in the URL of one of the pages meant that it was published by the United States State Department. The article could benefit from further work, particularly in connection with better referencing, but it is back in existence, albeit in a reduced form. XhainXpert, working on Wikipedia can be a very confusing and frustrating experience for new editors. When I started I thought that some of the ways that Wikipedia works were arbitrary and pointless. With more experience I learnt more about why the established policies and procedures are as they are, and even though I don't always agree with ever aspect of how policies and guidelines are operated,, I came after a while to see that all of them are there for rational reasons. Amongst other policies is the policy that copyright infringing material be deleted immediately, which is essential, as knowingly keeping it in place would be illegal, and moreover since Wikipedia content is licensed for reuse under very free terms, the longer copyright infringing text is in existence the more opportunity there is for the infringement to be compounded. Bear in mind that the vast majority of Wikipedia editors are acting in good faith, and if you think someone has made a mistake then the best way to deal with that is usually to explain to them in a friendly way why you think so, to give them a chance to correct the mistake if it is one, or to explain to you why it isn't if it isn't. I fully understand that seeing work you have done removed can be frustrating, but if you come over as annoyed and angry with other editors, you are likely to antagonise them, and reduce the likelihood that they will listen and consider your point of view. It is therefore worth trying to avoid giving that impression, whether it accurately reflects your feelings at the time or not. JBW (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I very much appreciate this. Having read the community rules, primarily because of edits by you and two others, it seems that the bar for deletion is higher than the bar for contribution. It is frustrating and as I am new to this, I am trying to get a sense of the community. I would also encourage you and others to reach for the delete button as a last -- not first -- resort as that seems to be when it is called for. I will try to build the page into something of stronger quality XhainXpert (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Harold Lawrence Katcher

Are you sure you can actually nominate Harold Lawrence Katcher under BLP fast deletion. Per the article, he will not be alive for another 12 years. OK, this is either a huge typo or the article is a total hoax, I am not sure which. I think what you did should probably work, since this is clearly a non-notable individual, but he seems to not technically meet BLP guidelines, at least if that birth year is in standard year format.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi John Pack Lambert, I hadn't noticed that. A quick Google search indicates he exists and seems to be alive. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, true. On further looking I did see the article was created today, so it is not the worst case of totally bizarre information being included, even if it is the first case I have ever seen of both a future and a false birthdate being given (although I do know that at least one great-grandson of Queen Elizabeth II had an article before he was born, although it was then phrased as an article on his mother's pregnancy).John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Specific density

I was not finished revising said article, but as you can see by the edit timestamps I was too tired to finish reworking the material. I am a basic editor, not a professional copywriter— so imagine my surprise this morning finding the revert and the copyvio tag.

None the less, the revert is a tragic mockery of science to a foolish redirect that should never have been. I have edited what I presume will suffice as a basic stub for now.

Is there anything more to do? Or to be concerned with? WurmWoode^T 13:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@WurmWoode: The article was a copy of https://www.riccachemical.com/pages/tech-tips/density-and-specific-gravity. No matter how much you "reworked" the article, the copyright violation would still be accessible through the page history. A "tragic mockery of science" doesn't justify violating copyright.

The revised article needs to be added to some content categories. --John B123 (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You're too fast, again. Categories applied. Me thinks thou dost have a hairy trigger. Although, that could just be my misapprehension, edit timestamps aside.

I am not excusing the copyvio, but according to the tag you could have at least removed the violating text yourself, and left a sound stub, instead of the redirect mockery.

I merely copy/pasted, with full intention of reworking the material— would it have made any difference had I used my sandbox instead? WurmWoode^T 14:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@WurmWoode: You asked me to look at the revised article which I did and tagged it accordingly. If that's having a hair trigger then I'm sorry I tried to help.

If I had just removed the copyvio material then there would have been nothing of substance left. --John B123 (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I differ, nothing is not what is left over, as the current stub demonstrates. Heck, just the {{Distinguish}} would have been okay, as a disclaimer.

We are in different environments, perhaps, I am at work just now, and cannot devote continuous durations nor frequent slots to editing, except when running long compilations. WurmWoode^T 14:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@WurmWoode: See copyvio report at the time I redirected. Taking out the text in red leaves very little. You seem to think everybody else is at fault here, whereas the problem has been caused by yourself. --John B123 (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not placing fault— why/how am I coming across like that?

I saw the report. I have no problem with that.

1. However, you did not answer— would I have been better off using my sandbox? Would that still have been a problem while reworking said copy/paste into a non-copyvio form?
2. My point is about saving science. Instead of a revert to a bad redirect, why couldn't you, as they say, be bold, delete all the text, leave the {{Distinguish}} plus a rewording of just the one-line definition, a stub? Not that I require you to actually have done that, I just want to know, what expediency prevented that more correct solution? Regards WurmWoode^T 15:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@WurmWoode: You can't introduce copyrighted material anywhere on Wikipedia, including sandboxes. You consider the redirect to be a bad one, the creator of the redirect clearly didn't. My only basic knowledge of physics precludes me from having an opinion either way hence not taking the action you suggest. --John B123 (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I was mis-informed, I thought as an alternative to this situation, user pages, and sandboxes were sort of private and sacrosanct. Not mainspace. Not public. Though for added insurance various tags are available to more specifically tag them as such.

I sympathize, thanks for a simple answer, I just needed to try to understand. All I can say is that I am sad that that implies perhaps you did not read or understand the edited article, nor any of the references which verified the article versus making a fallacious redirect. Which was the reason why I am passionate about science and science education and like fingernails on a chalkboard, I find it so irksome to see even simple verifiable science denied. Thanks for your patience and time WurmWoode^T 20:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Tahj Miles

Thank you for reviewing the new article on Tahj Miles. The BBC and Daily Telegraph references underline that he is a major BBC actor in long running series. The citations are strong. Can you tell me what makes his notability questionable. Thank you. Anna (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Anna. Although Death in Paradise is a long running series, Miles has only appeared in just over one series in a supporting role. As such he doesn't meet the guideline Wikipedia:NACTOR. Whilst I'm sure he will have a long and successful career, it's probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

"Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". He has had lead roles in West End muscials. Anna (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Onel5969 for a second opinion, if you don't mind --John B123 (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I never mind your pings, John B123 - the issue is that the theater work is not referenced by an independent, reliable source. It comes from most likely a self-written (or PR written) bio of the actor, and therefore is not a reliable source. If he did indeed play Simba on the West End for over a year, that with the series would definitely pass the notability criteria. If I had reviewed this article, I would have tagged it with notability concerns as well, although I probably would have added an unreliable sources tag to the second citation. If you can find reliable sourcing for his theater work, then by all means remove the tag. I've personally known too many actors/actresses who inflate their bios. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Buíte of Monasterboice

Hey, I notice you put a template message on the page above requesting inline citations. Do you think the references which I've now added are sufficient to remove the template from the article? Regards, Ficaia (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ficaia. Generally a minimum of a reference at the end of each paragraph is need. The section "Travels" has one reference on the last paragraph. Whilst that reference could refer to the whole section, it could also apply to that paragraph only. To avoid confusion it needs to be added to the other paragraphs (assuming it applies to the other paragraphs).

The use of ibid is discouraged. If somebody was to add another reference between references 2 and 3 in the article, the remaining references would be pointing to the wrong ref.

Hope this all makes sense. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I've tried to implement your advice. Hopefully the article is now sufficiently referenced. Ficaia (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ficaia, that looks fine now. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

2021 NFL All-Pro Team

With all due respect, the linked AP article of All-Pro selections has been considered enough of a citation in years past; it quite literally states only the teams as voted by the AP. I'm not sure the article needs the "additional verification needed" tag. The Kip (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi The Kip. As it stands, only the first part of the first sentence is referenced. Looking at that reference, nothing is mentioned about The Sporting News, first-team and second-teams etc. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Nafiu Bala Rabiu article

Hello @John B123, how are you and happy new year. Please I need your guidance and help with this article Nafiu Bala Rabiu. I feel the subject passes GNG as he is the main point of discussion in three reliable and independent sources (see references 2, 6 and 7, even 9 too). Regards Moshswacide (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Moshswacide, Happy New Year. I'm good thanks, hope you are too. Looking at the article, ref 2 is an interview with Rabiu so wouldn't count towards notability. Ref 9 contains a lot of what he says about himself so isn't really independent. 6 & 7 read as highly promotional rather than objective. Can you find any other sources? Regards. --John B123 (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Let me check. Thank you very much Moshswacide (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Chitmahal (film)

Hi, John B123, the film meet with notability guideline. Because it has 10 reliable sources. Thanks. Troyol (talk) 09:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Please explain. Troyol (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Troyol. The references verify the film exists, they don't show it is notable. Please see Wikipedia:NFILM. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi!

Hello John, Sir, Kindly help me to move/redirect/merge Doriya to Dorea (cloth). I created "Doriya" in a wrong impression. Please help. Thanks and best regards RV (talk) 10:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi RV, hope all is well with you. All done. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the quick work. Warm regards RV (talk) 10:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Move page

Hi bro, I want know why you remove my edits? Malaysian language. I change the name to standard Malay because ISO change name to Standard Malay so I thinking Wikipedia also change the name to Standard Malay https://iso639-3.sil.org/code/zsm Malayan Law (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Malayan Law, changing article names needs to be done by moving the page not by copy and pasting, which separate the page from its history. The page history is part of the licencing requirements. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 11:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

So Malaysian language this article can't change name? Malayan Law (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It can be changed by moving the article, not by moving the contents. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

All the Little Guns Went Bang Bang

Recognizing that this article was indeed very short, and noting your stub (and please expand) tag, I've added two more (therefore doubled the) citations and expanded all sections. Is this enough to move it into Start class territory? CT55555 (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi CT55555, that looks fine now. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Notability tag on On the Floor (Perfume Genius song)

@John B123, Hi, hope u're doing well. I noticed u tagged this page with notability. How come? This song, as like the first single from the album Describe (also created by me), received significant coverage from media outlets, and the sources speak for themselves. Except Genius.com, all the other sources are non-controversial and establish notability. I humbly invite you to recheck the article, and reconsider tagging it. PS. More reliable sources exist which are not added on the article currently, which can strengthen, or establish its notability. Regards.-- Tame (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Tame. Most of the sources contain a large portion of was Hadreas has said in press releases so are not really independent coverage. Notability is at best marginal. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

thanks for the helpful review of our first page. we're still trying to understand how to categorize, any tips? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_B123#

Ecocharlie (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ecocharlie, thanks. What is the article? Regards. --John B123 (talk) 09:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I wrote an article on the "middle-out perspective (MOP)". I wrote the page offline and did not fully understand how to develop it in the sandbox first and then transfer. I added a lot of references (which were in citation software offline and didn't necessarily have the doi URL handy) yesterday and moved the external links out as requested. I wrote in the MOP talk that I was seeking guidance for the categorization element. another editor (Deb) moved the page back to my sandbox because I didn't add the categories you asked for. I am seeking information about how to add categories (literally) since not all pages have them. There are plenty of pages about published research and theories, but not all pages have one of those category tables at the bottom. Where they exist, some are better developed than others. A page I looked at for guidance, for example, is the one on "diffusion of innovations", which has only two categories attached (science and technology studies and public health), both of which the MOP page could easily be categorized with. I already put science and technology studies under the "see also" heading. I explained the above to Deb, and here response was essentially: adding categories is difficult, let an editor do it for you.

I'm new here, but it seems that a discussion on the MOP talk page would be more useful than on my user page or your user page or Deb's. But we cannot have that joint discussion unless the page is online. So the question is, is what I posted worth further discussion? It seemed from your review that the problems were fixable, except for the outstanding issue of categorization. Which I am still trying to understand how to do in html. Can you give me any further guidance on how to proceed? I am really trying to understand how to progress in keeping with Wikipedian's expectations, but I feel like I am being told to do something (make categories) and simultaneously told not to do it.

I am also confused about the issue of notability vs. self-promotion. I put a section on the site about recognition the MOP had received to respond to the notoriety issue that Wikipedia puts in its guidelines. (There are references there as well.) That section is only there to respond to the Wikipedia guidelines, so if it runs afoul of the intention of the guidelines I'm happy to delete.

Sigh. Let me know if you have any guidance on how to proceed. I am happy to ask the hive mind for advice, but it is hard to know what to do when I get what seems to be conflicting advice. And I hope you liked the kitten! It looks like a barn kitten I adopted in October.  : ) Ecocharlie (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ecocharlie Perhaps it would help if I explained that articles that are not yet in article space don't require categories - in fact, they should not have them. Only articles that are ready for the encyclopedia require them, and yours isn't ready, for a number of reasons. Deb (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ecocharlie, what's the url of the article now so I can have another look. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Review of my articles

Hi John. I thank you for your time and effort in reviewing my articles. Though I cannot express thanks for each of them, I always appreciate your efforts. Hope this association continues. Gardenkur (talk) 11:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gardenkur, thanks for your kind words and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Alan Smart9

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User talk:Alan Smart9, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
• It appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. (See section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Spiderone: Well spotted. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a quick note to say thanks for reviewing the new articles that I've been creating. CT55555 (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi CT55555, thanks, and thank you for all your contributions. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 07:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)