User talk:S0091

This is S0091's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Scam Watch Warning: There is an on-going scam targeting people who would like Wikipedia to have an article about them. See this scam warning for detailed information. If you've been scammed please send details to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org to help others who could be future victims of this scam.

Just letting you know that I made some edits to the draft and resubmitted, making it longer, with more citations, to distinguish it from the comparable info on Pettit's main biographical page. I think the current revisions are enough to distinguish it, but if more are needed, I can add them. Thanks for the feedback and being kind about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gspinty1 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @S0091,

I added information to the article based on the information requested. Would you be able to take a look? Draft:Robert W. Amler Jrodriguezrentas (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also added all the reference in wiki’s format as well. Jrodriguezrentas (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jrodriguezrentas, I have added a template which allows you to resubmit it again for another review. S0091 (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, you seem to have reverted a merge in this diff [1]. As far as I can tell, this merge gained consensus three years ago, and none of the editors in the merge discussion are blocked for "UPE/sock", as your username suggests. Neither is the editor who performed the merge. Could you please explain this revert? Toadspike [Talk] 19:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike thanks for catching my oversight. I have reverted myself. Let me know if there's anything else I need to do. S0091 (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for fixing that so quickly! Toadspike [Talk] 19:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike as my edit summary indicates, I am going through some UPE/sock edits. If you happen to come across any others where I missed something, please feel free to revert me. Actually, you can do that anytime. If I have a concern, I'll let you know but most likely I will trust your reasoning and let it be. S0091 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you! Accidents happen, I appreciate the quick and polite response. Toadspike [Talk] 19:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, S0091. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Tabitha Holton".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi S0091, you put the template like resume in the article I created about Anabel Gonzalez. I changed the article to remove the template, but you put it back. This is an executive with an extensive career in economic development.  What part of the article looks like this?  Positions held? It is a simple overview of her career so that those who need to know what she has done can access that information. What other changes do you think he should make to the article? Thanks. Martinhusni (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Martinhusni it is still written like a resume, with things like years of experience, the Positions held section, things like "where she implemented solutions to boost private initiative, foster dynamic economies, and enable governments to expand market opportunities" is entirely promotional and much of it is still unsourced. Part, if not most of this, is because the sources used are non-independent primary sources filled with promotional fluff. Primary sources should only be used sparingly and only for very basic facts. The article should largely summarize what reliable independent secondary sources have written about her, if any exist. If such sources do not exist, then she does not meet the notability criteria. S0091 (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback! I'm going to make changes to the article. Let's try. Thanks again Martinhusni (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello S0091, hope you having a good day? I see nothing wrong with Draft:DJ Dimple Nipple you declined, I mean reliable sources are there and if you take your time to read the references it will be fine to me and also she has also won an award which is one criteria of notable person https://w.wiki/Evv

75DD (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @75DD almost all the sources are interviews or what she says about herself which are primary and not independent and as per the guideline, the award must be well-known and significant which means like a Nobel Prize or a country's highest honor. You have resubmitted it so another reviewer will take look. S0091 (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the award is well known in Nigeria and also I've added more references 75DD (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. I just posted some questions in "Talk:Roy Knapp (musician)". Can you look those up and help me with them? Also, I'd like to place a reference in the "Retirement" section from a Chicago Tribune article about Roy placed after "1960" in the first sentence. I don't know how to include the entire 1978 Tribune article, entitled "Percussion's dean steps to a lively beat", since it appears on two different pages. Can you place the reference from newspapers.com for me? Finally, now that the Roy Knapp entry has been published, what can we do to get my John P. Noonan entry published? I'm still confused by the first citation (with "Conroy, Greg" in red). It's a duplicate entry of citation #13 and should be deleted. Otherwise, I'm ready to hit the "submit" button. Please advise, and thanks for your help. /s/ Jeff Neuhauser 6/18/24 Jeff Neuhauser (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff Neuhauser go ahead and add the citation with your clipping and I will add the additional page afterward. As for the Conroy, Greg source, it was way up on the page between the first and second review. Not sure how it got there but I removed it. If you are ready, click the resubmit button or you can bypass AfC and move to mainspace where it will be reviewed by New page patrol. See Help:How to move a page for instructions, select (Article). If you choose to move it, you will need to clean up the left-over template that will on the top (delete them). S0091 (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've submitted the Noonan article again. Not sure how to "..bypass AfC and move it to mainspace...sorry. Jeff Neuhauser (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff Neuhauser You do that by performing a Move (link to instructions above). S0091 (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried twice to take your advice, trying to move the article so as to "... bypass AfC and move to mainspace where it will be reviewed by New page patrol" to no avail. I've never done this before so your help will be appreciated. Again, my apologies. Jeff Neuhauser (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...not sure how to help. Maybe the issue is the screenshot at Help:How to move a page already has (Article) selected in the 1st drop down. A draft will be Draft so have to change it to (Article)...Article is 1st in the pick-list so scroll up. This also how you can change the title so if you wanted it be John P. Noonan instead of John Patrick Noonan, you update the second box which has the title. Does that help? S0091 (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff Neuhauser forgot ping. S0091 (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I successfully changed the title to John P. Noonan! The only questions in my mind that remain are, what do you mean by "forgot ping", and what else can I do to move final publication to a fast track? Jeff Neuhauser (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff Neuhauser you did successfully move the draft to a new title! If you want to publish it, you will need to do another Move and this time change the 1st box from Draft to (Article). To do that, after selecting Move, click the down arrow next to the word Draft, which will present a list of options. Scroll up and select (Article), which is the very first then click Move page. As far as the ping, that was an error I made which I was correcting. If you notice in my response I did not ping you (i.e. the "Hmm....not sure" one). Long story short, you can't go back and add a ping to previous comment; it doesn't work so requires a new comment. S0091 (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The move from draft to article was moved successfully! Thank you, again, for your all your many helps. Jeff Neuhauser (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff Neuhauser YES! I cleaned up the leftover cruft for you. Congrats! S0091 (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please block or permanently ban User:SS1934. Check his edit log, he's been vandalising FIFA ranking stats of the Bangladesh national football team along with ranking stats of other nations for about two years now. I have reverted it each time and asked him to stop removing sourced info but he wont stop. FNH004 (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @FNH004 I am not an admin. S0091 (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh my bad then thought you were FNH004 (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, you reverted Abeer Gulal and Antarpat (TV series) two articles, but why? Enough attachments are added also they are airing since few weeks back. Because of this behaviour, noone will try to create new articles. You guys simply restore the redirect and nothing tell detailed reason about reverting, atleast you should give chance to new pages for reviews. New page creators will get hope to create more and more new pages, and even if after giving one month span, if the page is not improved upto date then you should revert the page, please consider this reply and do necessary change ASAP. 49.33.251.21 (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps stop socking (see WP:LOUTSOCK). Anyway, an admin has now protected the redirects due to persistent sockpuppetry without me even asking so they saw the same as I did own their own. S0091 (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear moderator

added official sources from the company

Can you help. Thank you Arahi991 (talk) 06:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Arahi991, you have added a lot of content but only three sources, Crunchbase which is not reliable (see WP:CRUNCHBASE), ShaleXP which is a directory listing so does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH and a government document which is a primary source so does not help with establishing notability. Nothing suggests the company can meet Wikipedia's notability criteria and will not be considered. S0091 (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and good day! I see you've declined Draft:Junbo-Ritsugō, please let me know what you'd do to fix it! (Also it is mentioned in a sense on the pages that are on the list of the Junbo-Ritsugō, all the pages on the Junbo-Ritsugō list has "Honorary mother, or honorary empress" which as explained on the list is what Junbo-Ritsugō means! Camillz (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Camillz, I did not decline but did leave a comment. After my comment @Brachy0008 declined it. S0091 (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies! I'll leave the same comment on his page so Camillz (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Camillz no problem but I do agree with Brachy. As a reader who does not know anything about the topic, which is in part the article's audience, I find it confusing. There's a title but that title is not used on the any of the listed articles. S0091 (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, S0091,

I saw you mention this study on another editor's talk page and went to go look at it. One factor you didn't collate is the number of participants in AFD discussions. There is a bit of a debate right now over whether or not there has been a decline in editor participation in AFD discussions over the past year. Fewer editors participating in discussions often means that it is more difficult to determine consensus and discussions get relisted more frequently which is one element I saw was true on your data page. But could you tally how many different editors participated in a day's deletion discussions in 2019 vs. 2023? It would be useful to know as well if there is a seasonal difference say, the difference between summer and winter. Thanks for considering my query. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also wondered whether some closers tend to only close discussion as "Delete" vs. other outcomes but you might not have enough data points to analyze that. And it might only be of interest of bureaucratic wonks like me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, first after I put this together I did some more digging around and found User:JPxG/Oracle so there is more comprehensive data available. At some point I am going to pull a couple full years or so together because the high-level summaries do not include the number of !votes but there is detail in sub-pages that contain it by month. It also does not include who the closer was but that would be waay too time consuming to manually look up.

As for the number of participants, the number of !votes is largely representative of the number of participants. There is the occasional comment by a non-!voter but based on my experience looking through AfDs it is occasional so I don't think it would change the numbers much and even it did it would increase both for 2019 and 2023 so would likely wash each other out. The vast majority were straight forward, meaning 4 !votes equals the number of total participants. Based on the analysis, the median is 3 for both 2019 and 2023 and that aligns with the pattern saw going through them. The average was slightly different because large AfD's skews it. For example, I think one of the 2019 AfDs had 38 !voters. One of things I have wondered is if the COVID years were an anomaly and is the reason I chose 2019. Meaning maybe it appears participation is historically down but that's because participation spiked for a couple years which would align with the spike in active editors overall and now it is normalizing.

I hesitated posting the closer's counts and I am uncomfortable posting analysis about closer's behaviors for a couple reasons, though as stated the raw data is available on the linked sub-page. First, four days is really is not enough to be meaningful when you get down to a granular level like 'who' (and may not be enough for the other analysis). For example, the analysis makes it appear Czar was not an active closer in 2023 but that's certainly not the case. The other reason is I do not want it to be weaponized. For example a closer being labeled a 'deletionist'/'inclusionist', bad closer, etc. My assumption is if there are persistent issues with a closer it will show up at DRV or AN/ANI. I am sure that is not your intent but I hope you understand.

Also, I extend my sincere condolences about you mom, Liz. You, your family and loved ones have been in my thoughts for a while now and remain so. S0091 (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for reviewing my entry. However I need clarification on why you believe the sources in the article are mostly primary sources, or they are not reliable.

3 of 12 references don't mention him directly but are about the people he was involved with for background/historical info purposes. And of the 9 references that mention him directly 4 is from a secondary source (published work by scholar Ludwig W. Adamec). Also all sources are reliable as the 19th century letters and government documents referenced are digitized from the National Archives of India.

As a comparison, looking at Sultan Ali Keshtmand it doesn't contain many useful sources, yet how did that particular entry got approved? Fezza21 (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Fezza21, first of all, there are multiple problems with the Draft, starting with the fact, as already mentioned in a comment by S0091 that "Large portions are unsourced". This is unacceptable, and regardless how good your sources are, this alone will likely guarantee another decline, if you leave those sections unsourced.

Secondly, to your point about the three sources that don't mention him, please read our WP:Verifiability policy. Those sources are inadmissible because they do not verify the content—as you appear to concede above.

I count a total of two independent, secondary sources: note 1 (Adamec) and note 2 (Trousdale). 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 11 are all to the Adamec Who's Who (and therefore should be consolidated with the use of named referenced) and counts as one, independent, secondary source. Notes 3, 5, 8, and 9 (Petition) should also all be consolidated, and they collectively count as one independent source, however it is a primary, hand-written, original document. I am unable to view note 12, but it appears to be a primary source.

Finally, your comment about the Sultan Ali Keshtmand article is completely irrelevant to whether your Draft gets approved or not. Mathglot (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've now cleaned up the references and updated the sourcings within the article, do you believe it's now suitable for resubmission for review?

Thanks. Fezza21 (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fezza21 if it is the same sources, I don't think it meets notability but you are welcome to resubmit it and get another opinion. S0091 (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. I think I did the necessary changes citing sources and removing external links. My sources are major international art magazines,major museum mages and international exhibitions pages. Are these considered reliable sources? If not what other sources do you propose for a contemporary Greek artist? Since Wikipedia does not list many contemporary Greek artists it would be helpful for me to know more and add more artists in the future. About the work section do you find the citations long? Would you prefer a shorter mention without putting quotes like "writer Stephanie Bailey" or "in an interview the artist has stated" etc? As for example in Wikipedia page for FYTA.

Thank you in advance

Melissa Hatzopoulou (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Melissa Hatzopoulou you have resubmitted it so another reviewer will take a look. S0091 (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @S0091!, there seems to have been a misunderstanding regarding my Draft about the Honda K Engine that has been reviewed, All of my info is sourced from the Wikipage of the Honda K Engine itself, I simply Re-formated the charts, and wanted to ask if that styling was fit for Wikipedia. MotoMottor (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MotoMottor, that's not really not the purpose of AfC. AfC is for new articles, not rewriting/reformatting existing articles. I suggest posting a note at WT:WikiProject Automobiles to get input. S0091 (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You! I will check that out.

-Best Regards MotoMottor (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that pinging in AfD is seen as canvassing. However, since @OwenX| suggested me that it’s permissible, I am reaching out to you and a few others. If you prefer that I don’t ping you in the future, please let me know, as it would be counterproductive to ping someone who then says they can’t comment because they were pinged. Please advice! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Saqib I think it would be different if you pinged a group of editors but when you only ping one or two editors it's problematic and does give the appearance of canvassing as noted by voorts. I also understand there's only a limited number of editors who have participated in AfDs in the topic area which makes it tough. I have never pinged a specific editor to an AfD but have left notices on at WikiProjects so you might try that as well. I see now a couple more editors have !voted so hopefully consensus will form. S0091 (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's only WikiProject Pakistan that is relevant, but it's pretty inactive. Next time, I'll make sure to ping you and a few others together instead of just you. Hope that works for you! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib I disagree. In that particular AfD, the claim to notability was in part NPOL so WP:WikiProject Politics is relevant. For entertainment, WP:WikiProject Television, WP:WikiProject Films and/or others are relevant. S0091 (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello S0091, thank you for taking the time to review my page draft on Renewvia Energy Corporation. From my reading of your notes, it looks like you took issue with some of the sources I used. Would you be willing to specify which sources you found unacceptable?

For context, I based my draft page off of Husk Power Systems' page, which seems to include a couple sources from the company itself as well as interviews with executives. In my draft of Renewvia's page, I excluded all sources from Renewvia. Some of the sources I referenced did include interviews, and I made sure to avoid taking information directly from the interview portions of those articles. Rupumped (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rupumped first, we do not base inclusion by comparing to existing articles because there are thousands that should not exist and criteria has changed over time so something written years ago may not meet today's standards. As for the draft, there are a few issues with Global Atlanta. One is they have a limited local audience (see WP:AUD) and the other is they not independent because they offer various partnerships and services. One of the cited articles is sponsored by a organization who had an event in which the CEO of Renewvia was a speaker so that one is certainly not independent. Other sources are press releases so authored by Renewvia as are other sources or the source is Renewvia which are all primary and also not independent. While they may be used for very basic facts, they do not help with notability. The Guardian Nigeria article has no by-line with a named author, is a promotional fluff piece and likely paid for as they are known to do. There's not a source in the draft that meet the WP:NCORP criteria. S0091 (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello S0091. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Gustavo Vazquez Lozano, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Page has substantial edits from a user not subject to any block/ban. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I missed it. Thanks for catching my error @Firefangledfeathers. S0091 (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm interviewing Wikipedians who contribute to articles about Australian places on Wikipedia for a research project on Wikipedia at University of Technology, Sydney. We're focusing on specific places, including Katoomba, NSW. I'd love to interview you about your work on that article if you were interested? Let me know if you're interested in more details. Thanks! FSidotiUTS (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]