Jump to content

User talk:S0091

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

pls ban this guy

[edit]

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]

Reverting new articles?

[edit]

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]

Del Mar Energy

[edit]

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]

Draft:Junbo-Ritsugō

[edit]

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]

User:S0091/AfD statistics

[edit]

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]

Draft:Sardar Abdul Wahab Khan

[edit]

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]

The Signpost: 4 July 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Vangelis Vlahos My article for submission

[edit]
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]

Draft:Honda K Engine

[edit]

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]

WP:CANVASS

[edit]

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]

Declined page: Renewvia

[edit]

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]

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Gustavo Vazquez Lozano

[edit]

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]

Research project on Wikipedia at the University of Technology, Sydney

[edit]

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]

Books & Bytes – Issue 63

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 63, May – June 2024

  • One new partner
  • 1Lib1Ref
  • Spotlight: References check

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Bret

[edit]

Hello @S0091,

A couple of months ago you rejected a draft for Tropical Storm Bret (2023). Since then, the article has been expanded greatly, and many other users from the Help Desk and one of the other reviewers of the article said a new review could be done. I was wondering if that was something that you could do. It doesn't seem possible to resubmit it without performing edits that I'm unable to do.

Regards, Shmego (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shmego, I am pinging @Drdpw and @Hurricane Noah who I think specialize in weather topics and who also previously reviewed the draft to get their opinions. S0091 (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shmego I added a template which will allow to resubmit it. S0091 (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think the storm is any more noteable now than it was when you declined the submission 7 months ago, and nothing substantive has been added to it since that time. Drdpw (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drdpw I went ahead and accepted it because this seems to be a dispute. You are welcome to take it to AfD. S0091 (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re Peggy Rajski

[edit]

You removed an item sourced to the New York Times with the assertion that IMDb is an unreliable source. Please be more careful, and please do not remove content cited to IMDb without first adding a {{citation needed}} tag and waiting an appropriate amount of time for alternative sources to be sought, usually a few weeks. BD2412 T 18:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BD2412 yes, I did remove the NYT piece but forgot to put it in my edit summary. The reason I removed it and the content is because NYT was about her first marriage, then IMDB was sourced for the divorce and subsequent marriage so thought it better to remove all of it. Otherwise the article would indicate she is still married to that person. But I understand your point about adding tags first and appreciate the note. S0091 (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting the article and adding the multiple issues?

[edit]

You recently retracted the article Franklin Obeng-Odoom and added multiple issues templates to their page, but why? There are enough attachments added, and they have been airing for a few weeks. You removed the citations of the books and added the same book " Reconstructing Urban Economics" when it's already been and placed the wrong books with reference "Ghana" is not his book it was mistakenly placed in the new line it was the part of the above book. I edited that few times but you reverted that every time. Because of this behavior, no one will attempt to write new articles. You simply restore the redirect without providing a detailed reason for reverting; at the very least, you should offer new pages a chance for reviews. New page producers will be encouraged to create more and more new pages, and if the page has not been improved within a month, you should revert it; please consider this response and make the necessary changes as soon as possible. @S0091 Thank you! Shariq Khan 1 (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Shariq Khan 1 adding maintenance templates (aka "tags") is part of the editing and new page review process and the general rule is to wait an hour after a new article is created, not a month and can occur any time during the life of an article (i.e. this is normal). As for my reverts and other edits, I did provide edit summaries so please read them (go to View History). I do not know what you mean by "restore the redirect" and the article was created on 20 July so has it not been a few weeks, only a couple days.
I did remove the citations used for the books a couple times for a couple reasons. First, there is no need to prove the books exist as the bibliographic details are sufficient, which I have now expanded. Second, as stated in part in my edit summary, Thrifty Books is an especially poor source because it is commercial site selling the books so not an independent reliable source and can be viewed as promotional, though I don't think that was the intent. What is needed to show notability are secondary sources that have written about him or his work. For books, reviews by scholarly journals is generally what is used. I found a few so have now cited them next to the book so removed the notability tag. If you want to improve the article, use those sources and summarize what they say in the body and find secondary sources to replace the primary ones if possible. S0091 (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @S0091 I got it! thanks for the clarification. Shariq Khan 1 (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shariq Khan 1 anytime. Also, I see you have not received a Welcome message that contains helpful information and links about editing Wikipedia so will do that now. S0091 (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revised Early life and Education of Franklin Obeng-Odoom

[edit]

I revised it so no need citation for that kindly remove tag thanks Naqqash6 (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Naqqash6 you have already removed the material and citation needed tags. If you are taking about the tags at the top of the article, those have not been resolved. Please also see my request for clarification on your talk page about your possible COI. S0091 (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Schneider's new marriage update

[edit]

Hello, I am the one who made the edit.

The source was his facebook (https://www.facebook.com/share/p/PbHSU6EaWhDTJ1VC/) plus this: https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/celebrity/john-schneider-marries-paul-sorvinos-widow-dee-dee-17-months-after-wife-alicias-death/ar-BB1qz7Fl?ocid=BingNewsSerp LadyRose2001 (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LadyRose2001, please update the Personal life section about the marriage but use the original source which is People https://people.com/john-schneider-marries-paul-sorvinos-widow-dee-dee-17-months-after-wifes-death-8683076 as stated by MSN you link to, then you can update the infobox. In the future, you need to always include a reliable source for any content you add. S0091 (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry I just didn’t know how to do that but i’ll try again soon. LadyRose2001 (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked and i dont see anywhere to add a source. LadyRose2001 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nvm i missread LadyRose2001 (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LadyRose2001 see WP:INTREFVE for how to cite sources using the Visual Editor. It's really easy for websites by using the Automatic function. S0091 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LadyRose2001 You first need to a sentence to the Personal life section with the source. After you do that, you can add it to infobox and no need to add the source there because you have already added it to the article with a source. The infobox should contain things that are already written about and sourced in the body of the article. S0091 (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I did it right. LadyRose2001 (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LadyRose2001 You did! I made a minor a copy edit. S0091 (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That fine. I only knew her as Dee Dee Sorvino and not the other name so i thank you for the correction. LadyRose2001 (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Hello, thank you again for your help the last few days. I am going to do some research and work to see what other research I can study to provide more References about jobswithdod.com. Introspective.Scholar4 (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Introspective.Scholar4 when you are ready click the blue resubmit button and another reviewer will take a look. S0091 (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i just attempted a resubmit but Wikipedia said it was not possible, that I have submitted too many times in too short a period. 2601:5CF:8001:4760:23A6:2DA3:3B39:28CA (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...never heard of that error but try again. If you still get the error, I suggest posting a note at WT:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk with a copy of the error message so it is documented. S0091 (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:S0091&oldid=1237230923"