User talk:Onel5969/Archive 65

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 60

←

Archive 63

→

Archive 53: April 2019

why deleted my page

why you dleted page here created by me https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%DD%A2&action=history i also provided reliable source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rana Zubair Punjabi (talk • contribs) 14:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I've replied at User_talk:Uanfala#why_deleted_my_page. – Uanfala (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know Uanfala. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

BBC Radio 1's Live Lounge 2016

I'm wondering why you removed this article and cited "no indication of notability". To date there have been 12 releases in this series and a Google search for BBC Radio 1 Live Lounge cd returns over 3 million results. None of the other articles have been flagged and it's a useful reference to have online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RosettaTape (talk • contribs) 21:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi RosettaTape - As I said in the edit summary, please read WP:NALBUM as to what constitutes notability for an album. Google hits certainly isn't one of them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, then it meets #2: http://www.itunescharts.net/uk/artists/music/various-artists/albums/bbc-radio-1s-live-lounge-2016/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by RosettaTape (talk • contribs) 15:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

A question

I just wanted to ask you something. Can a wikipeida page name get changed. I wanted to name the wikipedia page "Perica-Pero Pavlović" to "Stadium Perica-Pero Pavlović" and things like that. And also, how do I put up reliable images ok wikipeida pages, for example the wikipedia page "Amar Osim"? Thanks in advance. Bakir123 (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bakir123 - First, yes page's titles can get changed through a process called "moving", but you have to meet certain requirements to do that, see Wikipedia:Page mover. I did that move for you just now. Regarding uploading images, see Wikipedia:Uploading images. Any pictures uploaded have to have copyright permission for use. Here are some other links you might find useful:

Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

One more thing

Sorry if I'm annoying. I won't be able to update things on wikipedia for a few days, so if you could just put an image of Amar Osim on his page. I was trying to put it and I couldn't. Once I did, it got removed, so if you could somehow put an image only on that, I would be greatful, if it isn't the trouble. Thanks :) Bakir123 (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

d

	d
	it will be longer when the next billboard award ceremony happens Cadetrain (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to, Cadetrain. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

i'm referring to the top rap artist articles that you suggested — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadetrain (talk • contribs) 15:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh... you should really leave a link to what you're discussing on an editor's talk page. I review quite a few articles. Regarding those, I understand they will grow, but even now the lead should have info regarding that 2018 was the first year for the award. It could also, if you have the info, include a discussion on why the new categories were created. Without that, folks might think that the list is incomplete (which it isn't). That's what I was thinking when I tagged them.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Fetal resorption

Hi Onel. I'm contacting you because I dissagree on this page being redirected to Vanishing twin. It's a topic in itself and I think it would do best to be expanded on instead. Sorry if I'm missing something but it seems disadvantageous to just have it as a redirect.★Trekker (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi *Treker - I don't disagree on your rationale, simply that a Wikipedia article should be something more than simply a dictionary definition, see WP:DICDEF. And keep up your good work on the project.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a lot of coverage of the phenomenon in rodents 1 2 3 4, canines 1 2 and felines, horses and many other animals. I'm going to be expanding it soon. I just need to figure out how to make it any good.★Trekker (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Reverting Bagwis

Why did you revert the article Bagwis? I provided three independent reliable sources about the subject. Thus, it is notable. --Jojit (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Cédric O

Greetings. Could you please take a look at the article and check if the sourcing and the inline citation are now adequate? Thanks. -The Gnome (talk) 11:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Nice job, The Gnome - keep up the good work!Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Requesting tag removal

Hi Onel5969,

This is regarding the page of Girish Jhunjhnuwala. I sincerely request you to please remove the tag - The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. (August 2017) - as I have provided new citations for verification. Citations such as Entrepreneur, Forbes, The Standard are significantly detailed stories about him. He meets the notability guidelines for living people. Looking forward to a positive response. Thank you.--At My Unicorn Party (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

No worries, At My Unicorn Party - definitely passes gng now, removed that tag. Could still use a couple of more sources where the cn tags are, after which the blp citation tag can be removed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Leila George

I see you CSD-G4'd that one. Actually the previous AfD was a pretty clear redirect, not delete - not sure why the closing admin did the latter. Redirect also seems to make more sense, as her name is connected with Mortal Engines (and only with that). Hence my redirect rather than speedying. YMMV. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

That's cool, Elmidae - feel free to remove the CSD. I tend to be more literal in some circumstances, and even though I may feel that the redirect is warranted, since it was closed as delete, that was what I based my G4 on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Year in Radio

Hi, the links you keep reverting, like this one, are a Year in Radio link. Year, of course, being the actual year not the word year. There isn't a link to an actual year page, (ie: 1996 linking to the year 1996), this is to the 1996 in radio page which has been shortened to just show "1996". Now, if you would be so kind to revert your changes, I'd appreciate it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:45 on April 6, 2019 (UTC)

Hi, and per WP:DATELINK, "... should not be linked unless the linked date or year has a significant connection to the subject of the linking article, beyond that of the date itself, so that the linking enhances the reader's understanding of the subject". Other than that is the year they were first aired, there is no significance. If you click on that link, you get no relevant info about that radio station, in fact, you get nothing to add to your knowledge of that radio station. The example you give is perfect, for if you click on it, the radio station isn't even mentioned on the link. Consensus has been that when it is simply just the year, film and radio articles should not be linked to the "xxxx in yyyy" articles. That's why in articles where there is an actual date, rather than just the simple year, they are not linked to that year. This is why when you use the WP tool (which I used in all of these changes), it automatically delinks those links. That in and of itself should show you that they should not be linked like that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's not the way we do things. Because a tool delinks things it should go away, isn't a good reason. Discussions on this (BURDEN on you to find them) has consensus in favor of Year in Radio links being left as is in radio station and television station pages. Radio and TV station pages operate in a special "realm" in many rules and consensus discussions (see BURDEN) for all their odds and ends. If you are just going to revert these 18, I'm gonna have to ask you to get consensus on the 30-or-so-thousand articles (probably more, I'm guessing). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:46 on April 6, 2019 (UTC)

And of course you didn't address the crux of the matter. As per WP:LINKING, "Appropriate links provide instant pathways to locations within and outside the project that are likely to increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand." What does a link which doesn't even mention the subject of the article do to increase the readers' understanding of the topic. In other words, in the example you provided, how does linking to 1975 in radio increase the understanding of WVSP-FM, which isn't even mentioned in the link? And no, BURDEN isn't on me. I've quoted guidelines. Plus, if you've actually read BURDEN, that doesn't apply in this instance. BURDEN is about cited material, as the title of that section, "Responsibility for providing citations" clearly states. And just because there are a few articles (out of the millions) which do this incorrectly, doesn't make it correct. However, the guideline is pretty clear. As per WP:BRD, it is encumbent on you to show that your position is the correct one. The first thing I did was go to the Radio wikiproject, and there is nothing there to suggest this is an anomaly to WP guidelines. I am going to revert all of these, and if you wish to discuss it, might I suggest you either provide actual examples supporting your position, as I have, or take it to dispute resolution. And let me say, if you do have those examples, I'll be more than happy to self-revert. But, no harm intended, please realize I am not going to simply take your word for it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

And might I suggest, that as per WP:BRD, until you provide examples which support your position which is contrary to guidelines, you leave the articles as is and stop your edit warring? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, first, you are on tittering on a WP:3RR violation (consider that your warning). Second, here's a link to an ANI discussion on this whole thing. I'm not dealing with a "it's in violation of this" "no, it's in violation of this" crap. So, I'm letting the admins handle it. Enjoy. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:04 on April 6, 2019 (UTC)

WP:WPRS definitely does not have any project-specific consensus that dates in radio station articles always have to link to "Year in radio". Some editors do have a tendency to do that, yes, but many others don't, and the radio stations project does not have any rule mandating that it's required. There was a project-specific policy to do that for a while ten years ago, but that's long since been deprecated because it's not necessarily a genuinely useful link (e.g. a radio station getting CRTC or FCC permission to change its transmitter power is not necessarily an important event within the overall concept of "Year in radio", so linking to "Year in radio" in that context doesn't serve a useful purpose.) There hasn't been any active project undertaken to comprehensively delink all the articles where that was added in the past, so some people might think it's standard practice if they're more familiar with the articles that still have such links than they are with the ones that don't, but it stopped being standard practice many years ago. So no, people really should not be editwarring you over this, because it's definitely not considered standard practice anymore. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comprehensive answer. Although, part of me was hoping I was wrong so I could simply close the ANI and be done with it. Again, thanks. Sorry to bug you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Reversal of article Acadêmicos do Cubango

Onel5969 please do not reverse this article, since it is already in the rules of the wiki. then there is no reason to redirect and reverse. Bianteco 05:40 on 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. You need to provide in-depth references from independent, reliable sources, which currently this article has zero of. The one in-depth article, is from the club itself, and therefore worthless in terms of showing notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice

Hello! I have noticed you haven't nominated New Market Mall properly on AfD. It lists the previous AfD on logs, and the 2nd nomination has not been created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 8. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jovanmilic97 - yeah, noticed the same thing myself. Something went screw-if when I nominated it. I've asked an admin to format it correctly, since I didn't want to make the attempt and make things worse.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Greetings (came here by following links from WP:BADAFD). Not an admin, but I've seen this before--the curation script doesn't properly handle second and subsequent AfD nominations. I think you're safe to simply revert yourself on the article, the closed discussion page, and on the daily log. If you have Twinkle, it handles the situation just fine, so once you've set everything back to status quo ante, I'd use that (or do it by hand). --Finngall ^talk 16:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Beautiful, Finngall - Thanks for the instruction. Worked like a charm. I think.

.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

You My Girl

Hi, please understand that I am trying to make constructive edits to a formerly redirected article as you can see I have added more content and more sources on the article unlike the original creators so please give it a chance all I am trying to do is add improvements to articles related to music plus the article now has over 21 sources so you can see that the song is notable and does not deserve a redirect so if you want to redirect it again please hold a discussion on the talk page first. PantherCoulee (talk 17:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Onel5969! You created a thread called Linking to "Year in XXXX" articles when giving years at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Edits to article

Hi One15969,

First off, please excuse my lack of Wikipedia knowledge... I'm new. I see that you've made edits to the INRIX article. I'm on the marketing team at INRIX and would like to remedy the issues that have been flagged/noted. Since you've made edits to the current version, I'm hoping you might have a few minutes to read the new article I'm proposing to replace the current one. If this isn't the right platform to inquire additional help, please forgive me. Thanks in advance for you guidance. Mburfeind (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mburfeind - And welcome. However, you should not be making any edits to the article. Since you work for the company, and in their marketing department, you are a paid editor. WP really doesn't like paid editing, since WP is not a marketing tool. You need to read WP:PAID EDITING and WP:COI, and take the necessary steps suggested there, which include disclosing your paid editing status. Then, if you would like changes on the page, you can make the suggestion on the article's talk page, and if there is an interested editor, they may or may not make the change, depending on whether or not they feel it is appropriate. But I respect your honesty, so even though I'm really not interested in the company, I will take a look at your draft and see what I can do.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Just a quick note to say thank you for your recent reviewing work on all the stubs I have been creating. Much appreciated!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

No worries, ThatMontrealIP - It's nice to see someone working on something other than association football players.

. I've created quiet a few stubs myself. Some will never be more than a stub, simply because although they meet notability criteria, there is not enough cited material out there to expand them. But some I hope to go back to and expand into decent articles. You obviously have a passion for artists, I hope you go back and expand them, that would be simply amazing. I see that at least one of them has been slightly expanded by another editor, and that's what makes this project so interesting. Regardless, thank you for your efforts, and don't hesitate to ask questions if you need to. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I am not interested in football players either. Regarding expansion, it's not my strength. I leave it to others... as in Loretta Hines Howard, which is only a couple days old. Thanks again. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Villini delle Fate section on Coppedè district

Little bit confused by copyright violation. Is Domitilla Dardi, Capitolo "Piccola guida al quartiere Coppedè", pp. 35-36 copyright violation? Just wanted to check if it wasn't mistake since French, Italian and Spanish article has that same information without a problem. If it wasn't mistake it should be removed from those articles as well.Sourcerery (talk) 10:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes Sourcerery - that was it. And thanks for reminding me, I meant to alert an admin to take a look at it, since I wasn't sure it wasn't a mirror site. I don't do much work on other wikis, but if you do, you might want to alert an admin on those wikis to take a look. By the way, you should always provide a link to the page you're asking a question about, in this case Coppedè district. I'll ping a couple of admins who do yeomen's work on copyvio on this WP, as they might have better insight: Diannaa and Justlettersandnumbers. By the way, other than that potential copyvio, very good job on the article. 11:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

RD 1 request related to PT&T

Your RD 1 request related to PT&T started at:

this edit

I started two edits later. Let me know if you think I missed something.S Philbrick (Talk) 15:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick - long time no speak. Yes, I think that got it all. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Reversal of pool

Is there a reason you added back the fifteen-ball pool section in Pool (cue sports)? That section refers to an insignificant variant of Rotation (pool) while the main article for fifteen-ball pool is a historically significant game played quite differently. That minor variant is only backed up by a website that doesn't cite its own sources.--Countakeshi (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Countakeshi - Two reasons. First, even if there is a standalone article (nice job on that by the way), there still should be a section in the main article, pointing to the main article. Second, since the variant in the main article is actually a different variant, mention of it should definitely remain, and point out the difference between it and the other, more historically game. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Fifteen-ball pool is already mentioned in the history section that I created. Pool (cue sports) doesn't list every pool game nor does it need to as there are too many and the cue sports navbox does its job well. There's a problem with the minor variant, there are no reliable sources to prove that it exists. I think the website's author mistakenly gave the traditional Rotation (pool) game a new name.--Countakeshi (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

That's cool, and while it the main article doesn't necessarily need to list all variants, it definitely should list all those that have a separate article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

That may require categorizing them (at least the major ones) into rotation games, call-shot games, etc. I or another member of the cue sports project group will hopefully do it.--Countakeshi (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Better Call Saul (season 5)

− Hey there! Is it okay if you review this draft for me. Thanks. The Optimistic One (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey The Optimistic One - Nice job. I've requested the redirect be deleted to make room for the article from AfC. Once deleted, I'll move it to mainspace. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	Hey man, just wanted to thank you for your edits on my articles. I also really liked how your User page was set up so I stole your style, hope you don't mind. Kisses Spaicol (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Spaicol - keep up the good work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Please check edits

Hi there. I realize you do a lot, but I'm asking if you can double check your edits before you commit them. You made two edits to the article Helen Sophia O'Hara, both of which were incorrect (see here). She was born, lived and died before Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland ever existed, so using Northern Irish and Republic of Ireland was incorrect. I think you're using some automated tools here, so I would check those tools as they don't seem to be quite up to the task with the level of accuracy required. It's true this could be a one off, but it sets a bad precedence. Cheers. Canterbury Tail talk 12:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

No Canterbury Tail, that edit has nothin to do with the tools, I simply blew it. Your correction is the right call. I'm usually pretty good on calls that involve different historical entities (like United Kingdom vs. Kingdom of Great Britain when dabbing Britain, or Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem vs. Mandatory Palestine when dabbing Palestine. That second one is tricky, since there isn't a hard line between the two, so I use Palestine (region) for the years 1918 and 1919. But I'm definitely not perfect, so thanks for bringing it to my attention.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, we all make mistakes from time to time. I've done plenty worse myself truthfully. Anyway lets all carry on. Have a good one. Canterbury Tail talk 17:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Move from Steve Huffman to Steve Huffman (businessman)

Hey, I think you should undo this move. Looking at the traffic reports, the reddit founder is the primary topic, and it's not close. Could you make a move request instead please? Safrolic (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Safrolic - Don't disagree, have requested the unprimary dab to be deleted to move page back, and have moved dab to page with (disambiguation). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Review for Idah Nabayiga

Good day, I wrote this to say thanks for the review, plus I notice you suggested that I add categories. I will get to doing that - the only reason I did not do so is that I didn't know how to,that as well as adding an info box...but thanks alot AKibombo (talk) 03:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi AKibombo - Don't worry about it. If you can add them, great, but that tag is for others who specialize in doing that. Thanks for adding to the project. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello sir, @Onel5969:

Sir I would like to raise a friendly request to you to do the assessment about this articles which I recently created Boss – Baap of Special Services,Firrkie,I M 24,Sab Kushal Mangal,Section 375,Sridevi Bungalow. I can assure that they fulfill the policy and WP:N. But then also check whether this article comply with WP:N, if they do not fulfill the criteria and they should be in the article space then please move this articles to draft space so that I work on it otherwise they would be deleted by any Wikipedia administrator. It would be a great help sir if you accept my request and kindly do the assessment of the articles. It would build the confidence booster for new editor. AR.Dmg (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Wrong redirect

There are many other meanings of Interior solution "interior+solution"&source=bl&ots=8SRKQNlUOX&sig=ACfU3U0SMAz73xIfYPKJB_IoYMF12aMLmw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjylaeY8tXhAhXXyYsBHZdSAWg4ChDoATABegQIBBAB#v=onepage&q="interior solution"&f=false Local Effects in the Analysis of Structures

"interior+solution"&source=bl&ots=e1NecUqQuW&sig=ACfU3U16-4qo1VtloLQZpkZkUO1sgYh_XQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjylaeY8tXhAhXXyYsBHZdSAWg4ChDoATAAegQIBRAB#v=onepage&q="interior solution"&f=false Ocean Hydrodynamics of the Japan and East China Seas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2D8:E30F:EE5D:0:0:BA88:C600 (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding articles to WikiProject Sports Car Racing

Hello, I noticed you recently added a WikiProject Sports Car Racing template the talk pages of several articles on Grand Prix races I've recently created... why?! They aren't Sports car races! A7V2 (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Then why are there terms like this in the article: "Prizes were awarded for outright position, as well as three classes based on engine capacity: Class E for cars …" (added emphasis mine)? If you think it's incorrect, fix it.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Serious question: how was I being uncivil? I'm quite new to Wikipedia so I'm not familiar with how these things work, but it's been my impression that you should always assume good faith, and I know if I've done something wrong in whatever way, I'd want someone to tell me (like what I did wrong now), and I assumed others would feel the same way. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Snark and accusatory comments are usually deemed uncivil. As you point out in your above comment, AGF is a good basic WP concept. There was nothing wrong with your first question. However, when I answered it, and pointed out that the articles appear to be about cars, your next comment was to attack and accuse me. I simply have long ago stopped putting up with stuff like that. Your articles are very well structured, and I hope you continue to create them. If you feel that the project I added is incorrect, rather than arguing about it, fix it to the project you feel more appropriate, perhaps Motorsports? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to respond, and sorry about that. I'll definitely take this on board.A7V2 (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Bun Penny

Hello ! Why did you unmake my new article ? I am planning to write a full length article. Please see my previous articles such as Lombard coinage or Visigothic coinage. Thank you ! Almapple

Dexdexter

If no one ever calls Dex Dexter "Dexdexter" then how can that be the correct redirect? Especially when there is something else on another article that IS called Dexdexter all one word? 79.177.13.148 (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Port Moresby United / Star Mountain FC

Hi there. Thanks for the reviews of Port Moresby United and Star Mountain FC. However, I believe you have blanked the pages and redirected them in error. The clubs are currently playing at national level, and according to WP:FOOTYN, "Teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) generally meet WP:GNG criteria." As stated, both clubs are currently playing at the top level of football in the country. Please see other pages of clubs that entered the competition this season, for example Aporo Mai F.C., Greengold Liners and Tusbab Stallions to name just a few that I've created in the past couple months. I have reinstated the pages for now as I believe they pass notability criteria, but please let me know your thoughts. Thanks. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that wasn't clear in the article, so thanks for the correction. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi there again. I have also reverted your blankings of Blue Kumuls (Mount Hagen) and Lae F.C., as they conform to the guidelines stated above. Thanks. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Direct links or redirects?

Just a query... you made some changes on 2009 in British music charts which I mostly agree with: they were generally formatting issues. But you changed the direct links for the songs "Hallelujah" and "Barry Islands in the Stream" to the redirects instead – would that be the preferred option? I know they both link to the same thing, so nothing is broken, but I would have thought the preference would be to keep the direct link. Richard3120 (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Richard3120 - not sure what happened there. After I fix a dab problem, sometimes I'll use a dash fixer or date fixer semi-auto program, but that wasn't the case here. In this case I simply fixed the dab to Tik Tok (the Kesha song). Before I clicked save, the only change was to alter the target of the dab page. This is a bit disturbing to find that all these other changes were also incurred. And to answer your question, no, the preference is NEVER to dab pages over direct links. I'm going to play around on the page and see if I can't fix it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought... it seemed odd to remove the direct links. No objection at all to converting the text centering to the "style=text-align" format and other changes... but as you say, it's bizarre and a little worrying that all those changes should have been made just by trying to disambiguate one song title. Richard3120 (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, Richard3120 - I finally figured it out. I usually use Dabfix to fix dabs, but lately it's been down, so I've been using dabsolver. Dabsolver has a box that you check or leave unchecked, which says to also do common fixes. However, on the screen, it doesn't show you all your edits, only brings up the dab fixes. So when I clicked "save", it created all those changes. I've learned over the past couple of months, that the automated corrections aren't always, well, correct. For instance, when dealing with temperatures, the - is correct and should not be changed to an –. Also, it will sometimes make changes in file names. But file names are what the creator called it, and they can be incorrect. Another one is linking a year, 1996, to a year in film 1996 in film, which according to WP:DATELINK and WP:LINKING shouldn't be done unless accessing that link leads to increased understanding of the reader of the current article. So almost always, that link should be removed, and that's what the semi-auto tool does. However, sometimes it should remain. For instance there was an article which had a list of those articles for nav purposes, all those links were quite valid. Regardless, I'm glad you brought this to my attention, and in the future I'll uncheck the "common fixes" box so I don't run into this issue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

No problem, glad you got to the bottom of it - it just seemed odd to me to change a direct link to a redirect, so I just wanted to check if I was the one who was in the wrong.

I'm never sure about linking the dates - you'll see in this particular article (and in most other articles which are titled "xxxx in music") the dates for births, deaths and events are linked. I'm not bothered about it either way, but if anyone tries unlinking them the administrator Deb seems to be the person most keen on making sure that they remain linked. I have no idea if she is correct, and like I said, it's not a great concern to me, but I'm not sure what the interpretation of WP:DATELINK is here. Richard3120 (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hello there - thank you for reverting my cut-paste edit on Kotra tehsil and informing me about the correct way to do it. I appreciate it!Deccantrap (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

No worries Deccantrap. If you can't move it because it's blocked by the current redirect, ask for the redirect to be speedy deleted, under G6. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Atlantic306. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Night Leaf, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

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

Atlantic306 (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Atlantic306 - Any particular reason? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, the creator has been indeff blocked as a UPE and all of their articles apart from those with significant edits by other editors are going to be moved to draft as per admin decision, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Atlantic306 - Thanks for the info. That's going to be a bear. That editor's been pretty busy the last few months. 19:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I know ya are a little burned out with NPP at the moment and I've been meaning to stop by here for a while and leave this. Just wanted to thank you for all your hard work as a NPR. Very much respect and appreciation for your work . Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 15:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Alucard 16. Really appreciate it. Keep up your good work as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Alias Mrs. Jessop for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alias Mrs. Jessop 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/Alias Mrs. Jessop until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Grapesoda22 (✉) 19:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of The Adopted Son (1917 film) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Adopted Son (1917 film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Adopted Son (1917 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Grapesoda22 (✉) 20:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Page Review

So I created this page and noticed that it has been indexed yet unlike a page a created prior. It doesn't appear in Google search at all. I hope you can help with this. Maybe you can review it and stuff. Thank you. [1].

Hi Maxen Embry - First, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Second, yeah, after your article passed through AfD, it should automatically have been "reviewed", which an article has to be in order to get indexed so it can appear in internet searches. I've reviewed it, so there should be no further issue. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)