User talk:Onel5969/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

Archive 32: July 2017

AfD for Amos Lim and Zong Zijie

Hi Onel5969! Thank you for so sporting in providing your input for the two AfDs (Damien Teo & Regene Lim) that I have created previously. I have created another AfD for another two non-notable child/teen actors in Singapore, Amos Lim and Zong Zijie. Please kindly proceed to the AfD to voice out your input on whether Lim and Zong's page should be deleted. Thanks! DerricktanJCW (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi DerricktanJCW. Please be aware that per WP:CANVASS, I will now have to refrain from participating in the AfD discussion. Canvassing is pretty frowned upon and can actually be used as a means of invalidating your arguments. I don't know how active you are in AfD, but canvassing is not a good idea. That said, I agree with your nominations, but you may not be aware that you didn't even have to take them to AfD. You could simply have requested that they be deleted as per WP:G4. If they were deleted in a prior AfD discussion. I see that is the case with Lim, but I am not seeing that for Zijie. Also, I think your combo nomination is malformed, as it is not clear that both are being nominated. Anyway, good luck. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Sunuwar people

Sorry, I messed that move up. The article is back at Sunwar people, awaiting a proper technical move. I've listed a request for it. My apologies. Yintan  13:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries Yintan - actually, I missed that you cut and paste the move as well, which is why I marked the article as reviewed. But thanks for self-correcting your mistake. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

academic stubs

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy MacLeod it was decided to try to rescue as many as possible, not delete them--and to delete those not notable via afd, not speedy. DGG ( talk ) 15:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi DGG - Thanks for the heads up. I've reviewed quite a few of that editor's articles recently. I've hit a time frame on NPP where he was active apparently. I didn't read Winged Blades of Godric's closing comment as a direction to take them to AfD, but simply review the merits of each one on their own. Which is what I did. I had requested direction from another admin on a tangential matter, and apparently I misunderstood their direction. I've marked quite a few as reviewed if they meet either gng or nscholar, and then if they didn't appear to meet those, I tagged them with G5, rather than clog up AfD. But in the future I'll AfD them. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Regretably, I dare say none of the articles are suitable for WP:CSD#G5.He created the article in an area where there is high systemic bias and where we tend to be fairly inclusive.So, yeah WP:AFD will be the way to go!Anyway, DGG got my closure absolutely right!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Can you patrol these articles?

Hi, I saw that you were the second most common patroller this year. I hope this is not too much bother to ask you. Would it be possible for you to patrol these articles that I've recently created and which still haven't been patrolled (a week later)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Zak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neta_Alchimister

Thanks! Avaya1 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm PRehse. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, On the Day Productions, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Did that because your change was reverted and the article was recreated. I think the Redirect is correct but it might have to go to AfD.PRehse (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

PRehse (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi PRehse - Yeah, I kinda figured that's what happened. Also agree with your assessment... have an edit warrior who really wants to keep the article. If it's still unreviewed later, I'll send it to AfD. But thanks for the personal comment, appreciate that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

山椒

Hi, Onel5969! I'd like to know the reason you have reverted my edit on 山椒. (Please also see User talk:Mean as custard#山椒.) --Talitiainen (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Talitiainen - for exactly the same reason as Mean as custard. This is English Wikipedia. And your argument there is called other stuff exists, which is not applicable in this case.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

She%20Wore%20a%20Yellow%20Ribbon

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%20talk%3AOnel5969&action=edit&preview=yes&vanarticle=She%20Wore%20a%20Yellow%20Ribbon&vanarticlerevid=789001399&vanarticlegoodrevid=788991133&type=vand&count=1
• this section describes that jpeg, thus the reference

Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Xb2u7Zjzc32 - picture files are not valid references. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Rear Window

Just FYI, I asked for this article to be semi-protected, and an admin did so, for two weeks. Our "neighbour" from India" won't be able to violate WP:ENGVAR for a while. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken - Thanks for the heads up. I had asked for it to be protected last week as well. Hopefully the ip will tire of it and move on. We'll see. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Pro-democracy camp in Hong Kong to pro-democracy camp (Hong Kong)

There was a move from "pro-democracy camp" to "pro-democracy camp in Hong Kong" even though Hong Kong's pro-democracy camp is the only one to bear its name. Furthermore, even if there should be a disambiguation label it should be "pro-democracy camp (Hong Kong)". However before we even fixed the error, you already edit few dozens articles and added "pro-democracy camp in Hong Kong" and that makes me concern. Since the correct title should be "pro-democracy camp (Hong Kong)", the articles which were edited by you to ""pro-democracy camp in Hong Kong" should be changed into the correct "pro-democracy camp (Hong Kong)". Secondly, I noticed you also change "pan-democracy camp"/"pan-democrats" to "pro-democracy camp in Hong Kong" but pan-democracy camp, different from pro-democracy camp, is the only unique term in Hong Kong therefore it should be further disambiguation. Lmmnhn (talk) 06:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

My concern that the page was moved, with total disregard to the number of links it left hanging. I had no view on the name change, other than to check out that two pages were warranted. It probably could be merged into a single article, and the (dab) removed entirely, since the two are so inter-related. Hopefully, after you moved the page, you fixed what links to it, as is proper procedure. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The consensus has already reached to change the title from "pro-democracy camp in Hong Kong". Lmmnhn (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, than change it to the correct title, not back to the dab. Why make work for other editors? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Revised Harold Baquet page per your recommendation

Added additional citations, removed broken links and reformatted footnotes. Please review when you're able- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Harold_Baquet Dmj82 (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

A kitten just to say bye to you!

I am talking about what the trouble I've gotten is. I'm sorry , but is there a way to delete an account? I can't be dealing with this site. Thanks though

SAM191 (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Not broken

WP:NOTBROKEN is pretty clear that It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects. The number of links to a redirect page can be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page. You seem to have created undesirable piped links in hundreds of articles by replacing the simple redirect Volunteer with a piped link to its target, [[Volunteering|volunteer]]. Perhaps your automated script is not working properly. Would you be kind enough to revert your actions, please? --RexxS (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Since the redirect was to a different version of the same concept (volunteer vs. volunteerism), the argument of regarding spinning off to its own page appears to be irrelevant. Piped links, which bypass a redirect page, as per MOS:DABPIPE, seems to be the most effective means. Especially since about 5-10% of the links linked to the wrong target. Not sure why, in this particular instance, leaving a link to a redirect which then moves the reader to the target is a good thing. While I was unaware of the guidance you cite, looking at it, 4 of the 6 points cited have no applicability in this instance (1, 4, 5, & 6). #2 is a bit nebulous, not even sure what it means. Which leaves #3. That could be a fundamental lack of understanding on my part on how redirects work. I've been actively editing for about 3 years... in all that time I can't tell you how many times editors (and many admins) have done exactly what I did, piping directly to the page. So, no. I won't revert, unless a much better explanation of why this is deemed detrimental is given. In the future, however, I will abide by the notbroken rule. That being said, if you can explain to me why it's better to leave a link to a redirect which takes the reader to a page, rather than making that link take the reader directly to the page, I'll be more than happy to go back and take care of it. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The same reason why we ask editors not avoid making whitespace or minor aesthetic changes—it uses time and resources. In this case, it makes the link longer for editors to parse. Alone is it a big deal? No, but death by a thousand cuts... Whether it's worth the energy of a mass revert is a separate issue.  czar 06:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Czar, although how making an edit go to a redirect page to go to the intended target makes parsing longer I don't get. But I'm sure there's data to back that up. As I said, about 5-10% of the redirects were to the wrong target (they simply went to volunteer rather than military volunteer), which is why I started on the whole piping thing, based on what other editors and admins had told me about being as specific with the wikilink as possible. I had been pointed to H:L, and had used the section on piped link, including H:L#Using a redirect as alternative as the standard operating procedure. Again, as I said, now that I've been alerted to the guideline regarding notbroken, I'll keep that in mind during future edits. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I meant parsing by the editor reading the wikicode (reading "volunteering|volunteer" instead of just "volunteer"), not machine-parsing—sorry, poor choice of words. It's fine to fix the instances that are wrong, but I think the point is to refrain whenever there isn't material good to the content of the article. czar 14:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries, Czar - just to reiterate, moving forward, now that I'm aware of the nobroken guideline, I will use that in making any corrections to redirects. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Blue stain fungus ≠ Grosmannia clavigera

Blue stain fungus ≠ Grosmannia clavigera that's why i'm creating a separate page Blue stain fungi for the general Blu stain fungi (many species, not just Grosmannia clavigera) while trying to clean the article about Grosmannia clavigera in order to contain ONLY info about that partiucular species which is NOT called THE "Blue stain fungus" it's just one of many Blue stain fungi... --Exonie 14:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Exonie - Okay, but I think you need to make that clear, using cited reliable sources, in the lead. And add a "not to be confused" tag, as well as tying into the existing article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:50, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I've cited sources that mention 150-200 blue stain fungi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exonie (talk • contribs) 14:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Airport Road (Ontario) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Airport Road (Ontario) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airport Road (Ontario) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

An explanation to this rollback

I had rollbacked the Lugburz page to a version when it was still a page itself, but you restored the redirect. I admit it, I'm mainly active in it.wiki, so I don't know if en.wiki has different rules regarding these articles. Since I don't know very well the rules here about it, can you explain to me the full reason of your rollback? Two more questions: if I've understood correctly, if Lugburz doesn't match the album criteria and it's considered as a collection of demos, it means that it should be put in the Demos section; second, if this page is considered a redirect, will Upon the Viking Stallion make the same end?
Since this is the first time I write to an English-speaking user, so forgive my English. Good editing. :)--Gybo 95 (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gybo 95 - First of all, bravo on your English. Now, about the article. If you take a look at WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM, this particular article fulfills neither. Regarding the other article, yes, it is possible that it will also end up as a redirect. On English wiki, we require better sourcing than on some of the other wikis. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

DN tags and disambiguation

Hi, I saw this edit and I though I'd just leave you a note that dablinks that are followed by the {{disambiguation needed}} tag are usually difficult to fix. The tag's presence means that somebody has already expended some effort at disambiguating them and has found out that they can't know for sure which is the intended target. It's not very likely you'll be able to properly fix these links unless you have knowledge in the relevant subject domain, or you're willing to put in the time to track down and check the sources. – Uanfala 21:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Which is what I did. The only logical target of the links on the dab page would be the mythological creatures. AGF the editor who made the original wl, I targeted the only possible target. If you disagree with that, then the wl should simply be removed. Linking a term to a dab page, where a link to the subject of the original term is useless, and wastes editor's time when they follow the link. Take care.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverting

Stop! reverting Normani Kordei as you can see I was in the middle of editing her article and you rudely reverted without having me finish it. I was going to come up with reliable sources and finish editing the article but you wouldn't let me finish and reverted it anyway. She is just if not more notable than the other members of the group who have stand alone articles. Talk to me first before you do something stupid like that without consulting a user! Welcometothenewmillennium 22:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Welcometothenewmillenium - Please stop your disruptive editing. The article was redirected as a result of an AfD discussion. Please stop trying to circumvent consensus. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, after your last uncivil and disruptive edit, you are no longer welcome to post on my talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

You wanted to talk this out let's talk this out then. Please, inform me you said if I wanted to make a safe or test edit do so in the sandbox. I would love to debate the topic of creating an article of a conscious AfD decision. Was the discussion finale and solid and her article may never ever be re created ever again? Why not talk this out like you asked and mentioned before? Why not have it be created and see if it will get nominated for AfD all over again. Her article is bound to be made at some point in time. Aside and other than the AfD closed decsion what other reason may there be for the article to be reverted. I've been giving you valid reasons on why that article needs to stay in tact. You won't even listen to me and talk you just re post and repeat what you mention all over again and that's not resolving anything. Furthermore you want to ban me from your page? Wow ... just wow how grown up ... is that how grown ups handle situations by banning people? What did I ever do to you? I was never rude or disrespectful to you. Welcometothenewmillennium 05:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It was deleted less than a year ago (in fact, I believe it was deleted less than a month ago. Because the result was redirect, that's where it will get reverted to, else it would qualify for a speedy deletion, but redirect makes more sense. If the article were sent to AfD again, it would most likely be closed as a speedy delete, and then most likely "salted", meaning it could never be recreated again, unless an appeal was made to an admin, who then approved it. In a year or so, if she's shown significant improvement to their notability, then an article might be attempted. But this is way too soon. And banning you is because of your uncivil rudeness, and seemingly lack of ability to understand. Having said that, there is no need for you to respond. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Zotezo

Hi @Onel5969! Your review on Zotezo is much appreciated. I am thankful to you for taking time. I would like to inform that Zotezo is a prominent eCommerce company in India, like Amazon, FlipKart, Nykaa, Paytm etc.It is in business since 2014 and has 1500+ brands & 100,000+ products listed with it along with 100s of Small & Medium Business, directly or indirectly promoting it. A couple of independent links/business listing sources are listed below for reference: CashKaro, TrickyTime.in, Keyursavaliya, FileShope, CouponRaja, CouponDunia, BeautyAndHealth etc.

And hundreds of more 3rd party sites are available on which Zotezo has no control. Zotezo is well known and trusted brand in India especially for beauty, personal care, and wellness segment. It has also launched a beauty box for Indian female audience, called Zobag. You can search on Goolge to know about it. Hence, you are requested to reconsider your tag for speedy deletion. Iwikihero (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iwikihero - Several things first. One, when leaving a message on a talk page (either of an article or a user), always "sign" it using four tildes (~~~~); two, always leave a link to the article you are talking about, even if it's been deleted. Now to your question, as Fuhghettaboutit has already responded to you on their talk page, there's nothing I can add to what they said. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969,

Thank you for your reply. Sorry for not providing the link. I am a new contributor to Wikipedia and I have to learn a lot from valuable contributors like you. The page I am talking about is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zotezo%7CZotezo I have replied to Fuhghettaboutit and waiting for a revert back. I would request your guidance in this regard.

Iwikihero (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Jacqueline Assaël

I noticed that you have proposed Jacqueline Assaël for deletion. Thank you for taking the time to review this article and suggest improvements. Could you please clarify for me the comments you wrote on the page? ("Thinly referenced currently, searches did not turn up enough to show they pass GNG, and with a high cite count of 30, and the credentials mentioned in the article, does not pass NSCHOLAR.") I'm not familiar with the terms "GNG," "high cite count," and "NSCHOLAR," and want to make sure I'm addressing the causes for concern in my edits/revisions. Any other clarification or elaboration is welcome, too. Thanks, --Think Fast (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Think Fast Since I'm familiar with these subjects, I'll note that none of the listed information showed she's considered a significant figure which would've best convinced WP:PROF, the applied notability standards. For any, it's always best to start articles on only the best significant people in the field. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

SwisterTwister Thanks for your message, but unfortunately, you actually didn't address any one of the terms I asked about. I'm also not sure what you mean by "would've best convinced WP:PROF" or by "For any" ("any" what?). It would be helpful if instead of using jargon you explained things in clear terms. That would help me in revising the article. --Think Fast (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Think Fast - GNG refers to WP:GNG, or general notability guidelines; NSCHOLAR refers to WP:NSCHOLAR, guidelines for academics or scholars which are supplemental to GNG; high citation count is exactly what that sounds like, the number of times her works have been cited. Usually, depending on the field, citation counts should be somewhere between 250 on the very low side, into the thousands. And the 250 would depend on how many works were cited. This individual's citation count is extremely low. Regarding GNG, what you would want would be at least 3 in-depth articles from non-niche publications about Assael. This is very rare for scholars, which is why the more specific parameters of NSCHOLAR were added. Take a look at NSCHOLAR and see if any of the several parameters apply. But remember, just because someone meets one or more of those parameters only means they may be notable. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Simon Shen

I kindly ask for your reconsideration of the page. Many of Shen's articles are pioneering and have high impact factors. I have already selected the more influential ones. These works are not "non-notable". Lelepat (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Lelepat

Hi Lelepat - his citation count is incredibly low, so they do not have high impact. Regardless, none of the articles have shown any notability by Wikipedia standards. Sorry. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. Do you mind telling me your sources? And what criteria are you based on? Lelepat (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)Lelepat

Simply do a Google Scholar search. His high citation count is in the 50s, I believe. Articles, particularly in such a large field as Shen's, would have citation counts in the high hundreds to show notability. Or at least above 200. He doesn't come close. Onel5``969 ^{TT me} 14:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

this is political science, not clinical medicine. Articles with citation in the 50s are pretty good. Even in biomedicine, one article with 100 citations has usually been good enough. Check some recent AfDs. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit War warning

You appear to have been around long enough to know about edit warring but it is exactly what you're doing on Simon Shen. Toddst1 (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

And you appear to have been around long enough to understand what edit warring is, which this isn't. I've engaged the editor in discussion, and reverted him twice. Hardly the qualities of an edit war. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Communication is not a personal attack

Look, you've removed a number of comments here where I've politely pointed out that I believe your edits are not conforming to what the community expects or you're violating policy (edit warring) saying they're uncivil. They're not. Calling someone's actions "idiocy" as you've done - is uncivil. If you can't engage in communication with folks here, then you have no place editing.

I'm not trying to hassle you for the heck of it, but you're editing significantly outside the parameters of what is expected of a constructive editor. Toddst1 (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Your first comment was uncivil. Your second comment was uncivil (in addition to being incorrect), although you were correct in your third edit that calling your actions idiocy was less than civil, however I disagreed that it was a personal attack. Calling someone's editing style "aggressive" is definitely uncivil. I know exactly what edit-warring is, and the 3RR policy. For you to come back and make your comment about blocking was very uncivil. And your comment above is uncivil. And the fact that you consider your incivility as "politely pointed out", is a bit disconcerting. And if you can't engage civilly, you might be the one who should consider not interacting with other editors. I have no issue having communication with editors who behave civilly, as is widely evidenced in my talk page discussions. But I have no tolerance for incivility. It's completely unnecessary. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

But I'm willing to let bygones be bygones, so take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:PROF

h value and similar measures are totally invalid in the humanities or any field where publication is primarily by books--notability of the work is shown other ways, including who publishes the books and the reviews they get. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Film Companion

Alright, I admit it is not in good enough shape to be moved to the mainspace. But can it still be submitted for copy-editing? --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Incorrectly placed redirects

You have been redirecting the page for the 2017-18 season of the Dutch Hoofdklasse football league to the general page for the Hoofdklasse. You did the same for all teams participating in this league. This based on WP:NSEASONS.

However, did you read WP:FOOTYN?

Let me quote part of it:

"Club notability

All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria.

League notability

• All leagues whose members are eligible for national cups are assumed notable."

All teams in the Dutch Hoofdklasse are eligible to participate in KNVB Cup, which is a national cup. The winner of the KNVB Cup is even allowed to participate in the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup, an international cup.

The odds of a team from the Hoofdklasse ever winning the KNVB Cup are very small. However this is irrelevant.

The only thing which is relevant, is the fact that the Hoofdklasse is a league whose members are eligible for a national cup and thus meet the WP:FOOTYN and therefore the WP:NSEASONS criteria.

Conclusion: You incorrectly placed a lot of redirects.

I hope you take your responsibility and undo the damage you caused.

And what bothers me most is that someone from a country where they don't even know the proper name of the game, acts without any kind of prior communication.

Cobbler, stick to thy last.

--Sb008 (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sb008 - You prove my point: NFOOTY says, regarding clubs "All teams that have played in the national cup..." (emphasis added). You claim that "All teams in the Dutch Hoofdklasse are eligible to participate...". Those are two different concepts. If any of the teams in the amateur league have played in the KNVB Cup, then yes, they would qualify. However, not a single one of the articles I redirected showed any indication that was the case. Please, by all means, if you have a reliable citation showing that any of those teams have played in the KNVB cup, add the cite and revert the redirect. And thanks for the civility. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969 - This is how you operate? When provided with proof you're wrong, you just remove it as "uncivil discourse"?

--Sb008 (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

- No, when the discourse is uncivil it is removed as uncivil discourse. I didn't remove your first uncivil comments, even though they contained a personal attack, simply because I felt that your underlying question deserved an answer. However, when an editor continues to continue in uncivil discourse, any other comments will be removed. Also, when an editor doesn't want to put the work into an article to ensure it passes notability standards, as you evidenced by your quote, "I got better things to do than providing you with details for each and every team," than I certainly am not going to put any time into those articles. If a team meets notability standards, than those verifiable facts need to be included in the article, with citations. I could care less about some amateur team getting an article or not. Those articles which contained even a hint of passing notability were left alone. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

And since you seem incapable of holding a civil discussion, your comments are no longer welcome on my talk page. Any further comments will be deleted summarily without reading. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I am going to chime in here. If there is nothing to support these teams have played for a national cup, then they don't deserve stand-alone articles per notability criteria, without reliable sources discussing the teams. Also, NSEASONS states "Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created." ---These team-season articles don't seem to make the cut. Sorry --- Steve Quinn (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve Quinn. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Rassilon

Hello User:Onel5969, can you help by adding an image map of good quality images of all actors portraying Rassilon for the article's infobox please? Like the ones on The Master (Doctor Who) and Davros.--Theo Mandela (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Theo Mandela - I'll see if I can get to it over the weekend. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it.--Theo Mandela (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Onel5969, are you still up for doing this?--Theo Mandela (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Lost in South Carolina

Hey friend, I tend to come to you when I reach a brick wall. I've been trying to figure out the edits of IP 208.104.229.197, and it has me dizzy. In doing that, I came across Indian Land, South Carolina. To the best of my research, the place doesn't exist. There's no GNIS listing, and much of what has been written about it involves the desire of various groups to bring the place to life. Your opinion is always welcome. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Wow, Magnolia677 - will take a look at it. Looks like it might be a neighborhood, but not sure of what locale. Will let you know what I find. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm leaving messages at User talk:208.104.229.197. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like it is an unincorporated area in Lancaster County, South Carolina, just east of Fort Mill, South Carolina. It's mentioned in Mick Mulvaney's bio on Politico, and this and this show it does exist. However, most of the stuff in the current article isn't cited (e.g. largest employers). I think it passes notability, but is very poorly sourced. It is interesting that GNIS doesn't have them listed as a populated place. Will contact them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Here GNIS lists Indian Land's fire department, schools and church in Lancaster County. But here Indian Land is listed as a variant name of Old Point Station, which on ACME Maps is Ebenezer, South Carolina. This is coincidentally one of the articles the IP editor was working on. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I have a feeling that Indian Land is a generic name dating back to South Carolina's settlement days. Or it could have referred to the entire area at one point. The current Indian Land article is clearly about the portion of Lancaster County (as opposed to Ebenezer in York County), which is currently attempting to incorporate. I shot off an email to the USGS, it usually take 2-3 days for them to respond. I'll ping you when they do. In the meantime, I've reverted a couple of the ip's uncited edits.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Great. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, GNIS somehow missed Indian Land, South Carolina. It's here on Google Maps, here on a proposed map, and here on a map from 1790 (north of the confluence of the Catawba River and Sugar Creek). Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Noticeboard

You may be interested in commenting here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Biographies of members of the Universal House of Justice. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 08:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Moving articles

I would have done it if that was an option. Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Most likely you're blocked from moving it because a redirect already exists there. You'll need to request the target page (current redirect) be deleted, after which you can move it. Use the G6 criteria (housekeeping), and ask for it to be deleted to make way for page move. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to "ping" you - Sk8erPrince. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Northamerica1000#Kaletez

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Northamerica1000#Kaletez. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Going backwards

Hello. I sent a number of the season-team articles to AfC-Draft space. Some of these were 2008–09 Hoofdklasse, 2006–07 Hoofdklasse, 2007–08 Hoofdklasse and so on. User:Gidonb has created redirects from the Draft articles to the mains space articles. Here are a few [1], [2], and [3]. You can see in his or her User contributions how many of these he or she created redirects from the draft space to the main space [4].

He or she also made a number of inaccurate statements at this discussion [5], and he or she is using this as a basis for recreating these articles and creating redirects from the Draft space. You can also see that User:Sb008 initiated the discussion, but I think that was a different matter. It had nothing to do with undeleting all these season articles which do not qualify per WP:SEASONS, WP:ORG, and WP:GNG.

So, it seems User:Gidonb is using an inapplicable rationale for creating, what might be considered a mess. Anyway, I am here so we can discuss this matter and maybe a solution can be found. Also, User:Gidonb seems to tout the "policy" WP:FOOTY as a rationale. But, WP:FOOTY is not a policy, it is a Wikipedia project. Do you have any ideas on what is the best way of dealing with this situation?

The reason for placing these in the Draft space is to give them a chance to demonstrate notability before being released into the main space. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. There's a couple of things. First, these season articles are for a league, not a team, so WP:NSEASONS doesn't apply. When I initially redirected them I incorrectly used SEASONS as a rationale, rather than just stating GNG. If any of the amateur teams has a season article, than SEASONS would apply to that. Many of the team articles clearly don't pass either GNG or NFOOTY, and several editors are misapplying the guideline at WP:FOOTYN, which while a project, has a section on notability, which is usually followed. They are claiming that if a team plays in a league eligible to play in the national cup, that makes the team notable, even though the guideline clearly states that the team has to have actually played for the cup. These soccer folks are rabid, and rarely care about Wikipedia policies. So my advice is to just let it go, and let the substandard, non-encyclopedic articles about subjects which don't meet notability standards go. You'll come across special interest groups like this from time to time. Focus on other things. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Northamerica1000#Kaletez

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Northamerica1000#Kaletez. Update there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)