User talk:John B123/Archive 15

Hi Pi, thanks, it most kind of you. Thank you for all your efforts in improving Wikipedia. Regards --John B123 (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, could you review my article here? Thanks in advance :)

NinjaWeeb (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi NinjaWeeb, article reviewed. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 06:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! NinjaWeeb (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, could you please review these 3 article?? The Code on Social Security, 2020 Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 Industrial Relations Code, 2020

Thanks! Agastya11 (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The Code On Social Security, 2020 Agastya11 (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Agastya11, by coincidence I was reviewing Industrial Relations Code, 2020 when your message came through. All three reviewed. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou! Agastya11 (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Juan de Bolas: Thanks most kind of you and thank you for creating those articles. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, you have already reviewed 5 in a series of 7 articles. Request you to review the other 2: List of Arjuna award recipients (1970–1979), List of Arjuna award recipients (1980–1989). Thanks. Roller26 (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Roller26. Both reviewed. Regards --John B123 (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks ShohagS, most kind of you. Regards --John B123 (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome. But don't forget to visit Virti Vaghani. ~ A. Shohag (ping_me or Talk) 13:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi ShohagS I'm sorry but I don't know much actors, actresses, films, singers or songs so don't review articles on those subjects. Regards --John B123 (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright. Anyway, thanks. Maybe It's going to be unexpectedly long this time. ~ A. Shohag (ping_me or Talk) 06:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Wilbur Soot requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://youtube.fandom.com/wiki/Wilbur_Soot. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick, I'm not the creator of the article. I moved the article to draft earlier today but the article has subsequently been created over the redirect that was left from the move. Regards --John B123 (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

John B123, OK thanks. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello John B123 - many thanks for reviewing my article. Regarding notability, I've been updating the page to make this clearer. As a prominent architect and urbanist in Porto and the north of Portugal, together with his architect wife, David Moreira da Silva made a huge contribution in his lifetime, with some large and high quality designs and building projects, several of which are mentioned in the article. I've also now been able to include a photo of one of the buildings, a large multi-purpose block in the city of Porto. As also mentioned, he was recognised in his lifetime with a state honour (Commander of the Order of the Infante D. Henrique), and he's included on the University of Porto's website under 'Famous Alumni'. I hope this now helps to clarify his notability. Many thanks for your interest and support. CourtauldGill (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi CourtauldGill. The article looks a lot better now. The problem was not so much he isn't notable, but that this wasn't demonstrated by the references. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi KRtau16. Thanks, that's most kind of you. Thank you for your recent creations. Regards --John B123 (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, hope you're doing well! I am a bit confused about this question. For example, i discovered a page on Page Curation log, but the page lacks notability. I want to tag this with "notability"; however there's an option titled "mark this page as reviewed" [1] which is confusing me. Should it be left unchecked or checked while tagging the page with notability? Thanks TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi TheBirdsShedTears, I'm good thanks hope you are too. Generally, if the page is ok but has minor issues I leave the "mark this page as reviewed" box checked, if the issues are more fundamental, such as being largely unreferenced, I uncheck the box. If I was adding the notability tag then I uncheck the box. If the article is obviously not notable I would consider nominating it for sppedy deletion instead. Regards --John B123 (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 11:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello I made some changes on the page please check if it still looks like an advertisement please let me know and help me to improve the page. Thanks --Plotterof (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Plotterof, that reads a lot better so I've removed the tag. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me improve the page and remove the deletion tag --Plotterof (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Can you help? You tagged a page I created, Pádraig Murphy, as uncategorised and someone later put in Categories. However, one is incorrect. He is not a politician. I can't edit it out as, mysteriously, it does not appear on the list when I go to Edit Aineireland (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Aineireland: The "Irish diplomat stub" template puts him into "European diplomat stubs" and "Irish politician stubs" (as there isn't a category for "Irish diplomat stubs"). A lot of stub categories are pretty approximate, so I don't think it's worth losing sleep over. The main "Diplomats" category, if you follow it upwards, leads to "Political people", rather than "Politicians", a subtle distinction. PamD 14:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@PamD Thanks. that explanation helped me to sort it another way Aineireland (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aineireland: (by the way, "pinging" needs to be done as a template) I'm not sure that's sensible: anyone looking for Irish biographical stubs now won't find him. We use the most precise stub tag that's available, and he ought to be labelled as "Irish diplomat stub". Or just expand the article to a state where someone will remove the stub tag. PamD 19:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I notice that you draftify pages a lot. Have you considered applying for page mover, so that you can draftify without leaving a redirect? Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jackmcbarn. That's probably a good idea to save somebody else the trouble of deleting the redirect. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for your contribution in Jawad Ziyat page. I have remarked that you added orphan tag. I have added links to the page in : Raja Club Athletic (Infobox) Jet4You (history) Rabat (notable people)

What do you think ?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MehdiKass (talk • contribs) 21:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi MehdiKass, that's good, I've removed the orphan tag. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello John B123. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of 10% Dis, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: MC Lyte has an article. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jackmcbarn, thanks for letting me know. My understanding from WP:NALBUMS was that notability wasn't inherited and the recording had to be notable in its own right? Regards. --John B123 (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

You're right about notability, and it's quite possible that you'd get that page deleted at AFD. But WP:A9 has a different standard; it explicitly requires that none of the contributing recording artists has an article. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

​ Thank you for the explanation. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, John B123. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Thanks. --John B123 (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome!   --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 12:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Sir, I tried to add related articles to the subject page. Kindly see and advise. Thanks and regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi RAJIVVASUDEV. Are you trying to remove the orphan tag? If so, you need to add links to Swanskin cloth in other articles rather than links on the page. Regards --John B123 (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Sir, I was just trying what was mentioned in the template( to improve the page only). I did not link other articles to this one(new/ not assessed page ) because I was not sure of doing so. Thanks and regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

It is corrected as advised. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi RAJIVVASUDEV, that's fine, I've removed the orphan tag. Regards --John B123 (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Sir, Thanks for the same. Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Please explain why you reverted my change : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monero_(cryptocurrency)#Cryptojacking - -MartinThoma (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@MartinThoma: I'm not aware that I've reverted anything on that article --John B123 (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I was wondering whether you could please check this wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proxima_Centauri_c I edited it saying the exoplanet is still a candidate, but one user (SevenSpheresCelestia) keeps saying the exoplanet was confirmed. As you can see, he only provides 1 source (which is just a research note), and for an exoplanet to be confirmed, it has to be officially confirmed but at least 2 different peer-reviewed papers. I don't want to reverse his edit, because we haven't reached consensus in the Talk page. I think the page he did under a different name (ConnallES) should be kept, but I would say that it's better to call Proxima c a candidate or unconfirmed exoplanet because only 1 author says it's confirmed and all the other recent papers (from this year) still call it a candidate not confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertheditor (talk • contribs) 01:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Baseless accusations of sockpuppetry from User:Albertheditor. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Albertheditor and SevenSpheresCelestia: It looks like this is resolved now? Regards --John B123 (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@John B123: It’s not, Albertheditor is still accusing me of sockpuppetry. SevenSpheresCelestia (talk) 17:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@SevenSpheresCelestia: I meant about the article. Conduct of editors needs an administrator to review, which I'm not. --John B123 (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Deidonata. Thanks, and thank you for creating the articles. Regards --John B123 (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear John B123, if I am not mistaken you deleted the page I had just created on software with the name "Radicale" because it was "Undersourced". Does this mean there is any doubt as to the existence of this software, or is there another problem with the page? The page was just a few lines, but another wikipedia page (CalDAV) was already referencing this page, there was a link to the official website of the software, there was a link to the community that created the software, and there was a link to github, from which you can download the software for free. I would not know of a more convincing way so show that this software exists. Also, this software has been under development since 2008 and is currently in version 3.0. Please, explain the problem, Thanks! gerritg (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC).

@Gerrit C. Groenenboom: The page was moved to Draft:Radicale (CalDAV) as it had no references. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners for guidance on referencing and Wikipedia:Notability. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response and the explanation, I added references and a software infobox gerritg (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC).

Thanks for reviewing the subject article. Regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi RAJIVVASUDEV No problem. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Girth Summit, thanks. It's good to see the backlog reducing. Regards --John B123 (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I added some more contents into this article.So can I remove Phrangki Buam article from stub?? Thanks.(WhiteFalcon1 (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC))

Hi WhiteFalcon1, the article looks much better now so I've removed the tag. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks(WhiteFalcon1 (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC))

Hello John B123. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft talk:Ronaldo Campos, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This talk page was separated from its subject page due to incorrect page moving. Instead of deleting it, I reunited it with its subject page. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jackmcbarn, thanks for letting me know. Regards --John B123 (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm AleatoryPonderings. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Sarifuddin Hata, 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.)

AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi John B123. The reason I unreviewed this page was that this article—like many, many articles created by this user—included references that do not actually support the claims in the article. Some of this editor's pages do have statements supported by references, but most do not. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm AleatoryPonderings. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Norazlinah Arif, 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.)

AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Ugh, sorry—I thought this would go to the creator, not you. Same problem as above. Didn't mean to spam your talk! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi AleatoryPonderings, no problem. Thanks for the heads-up on this editor, I'll keep my eye on it in the future. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You added a citation needed banner to a new article, that I wrote from scratch. I did not write anything from my head(there's not much that I know to do it that way), I only referred to the few sources that I listed. Everything in the article is from those sources. You can check line by line.

Hi 16AdityaG09. In that case you need to add inline citations the that effect - a citation at the end of each paragraph so people know where the information came from. Regards --John B123 (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for reviewing this new page. Much appreciated. Love the eyebrows in the photos of him!--MerielGJones (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi MerielGJones, no problem. I see what you mean about the eyebrows. Regards --John B123 (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for reviewing another page (Herbert Gladstone McDavid). Your swiftness is amazing and I really appreciate it.--MerielGJones (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi MerielGJones, no problem. Thank you for the interesting articles you are producing. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello John B123 i am Cool a123 you were my reviewer for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%9321_Vegas_Golden_Knights_season and i want to know what ae the improvement's to that page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cool a123 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cool a123. The article needs references added to the first two paragraphs. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok and how would I do that Cool a123 (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cool a123 see Help:Referencing for beginners. Regards --John B123 (talk) 07:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Sir, kindly spare some time to comment on the subject page. You review will be appreciated. Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi RAJIVVASUDEV, all done. Regards --John B123 (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Please accept my sincere thanks. RegardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 10:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Thanks RAJIVVASUDEV, most kind of you. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

John, Please take another look at this article when you have a minute. I added six references and I'm searching for more content. Thanks. PhillyHarold (talk) 10:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi PhillyHarold, that's a lot better now. I've marked the page as reviewed. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I notice you recently draftified Draft:Danzer's configuration, recently created in article space by User:Tomo, who was and still is actively editing the article. Draftification of new articles is allowed under Wikipedia:Drafts#During new page review, but only when either "3a. There is no evidence of a user actively working on it" or "3b. There is no assertion that the page belongs in mainspace, such as a clear statement to that effect in the edit history". Can you please explain how you thought that criterion was met, especially in light of the initial edit summary in the draft's history, "references and figures will follow", and the fact that you moved it less than an hour after the first edit to the article and less than 40 minutes after the second edit? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I don't consider creating a single line article at 19.09, adding a reference at 19.20 and then nothing until 19.59 actively editing an article. I have reviewed over 11,000 new articles in the last 3 months. If you're not happy with the way I'm doing it, then remove my NPP flag. --John B123 (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

What a reasonable, non-argumentative, and responsive reply, one that assumes implicitly that the only edits worth making are the ones that can be made in seconds or single-digit numbers of minutes. I'm impressed. And why are you patrolling from the new end of the NPP queue rather than the old end, anyway? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

​@David Eppstein: What a sarcastic reply, I'd expect better from an admin. If you took the time to look, I patrol both from the front, to try and stop myself and other patrollers getting numerous messages on their talk pages because articles that were created yesterday haven't been reviewed, and also from the back to reduce the backlog. My dealings with admins have generally been positive and my experience is that they mostly go the extra mile to be helpful. However, I've come across a few that when it comes to their pet subject or articles they have created they behave like a mother being told their new-born is ugly. --John B123 (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps, to avoid similar mistakes in future, you could restrict your draftifications to times when you are patrolling for the old end, and restrict your actions on the new end to tagging for cleanup and/or listing them as candidates for later draftification once they've sat around long enough for it to be more clear that they're no longer in active development. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

As I said earlier there was no mistake, the article was not being actively edited. Perhaps you should recuse yourself from commenting on other peoples involvement in your pet subject as it is coming across as biased. --John B123 (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It is obvious from the timeline of edits to the article, both before and after the move, that it was being actively edited. Your denials of the obvious do you no credit. And with your repeated insinuations of "pet project" I think you also need a warning of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. It may be Tomo's pet project, and my reaction here may come from the fact that I value content creators like Tomo a lot more highly than I value bitey gnomes, but my own changes to the article have been minor. Although I have some interest in configurations more generally, I knew nothing about this one before Tomo's creation of it and still know nothing beyond what is in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• While I think both sides of this discussion could benefit from a deep breath and a step back, since I've been pinged here I should say thatt I do think that I agree with David on the underlying issue. While patrolling from the front is good in order to catch attack pages and other disruptive content, I don't think there's any need to take drastic action (whether draftify or deletion nomination) for a subject as innocuous as (checks notes) math that I don't understand. I would have waited until several days without edits before taking action; realistically it could have been left up for months as a 1-line stub and no great loss would have happened. FWIW, I rarely use draftify anymore because of how contentious it can be, saving it only for suspected COI/UPE and articles about non-notable subjects with content that could be repurposed elsewhere. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, the activity level on Ramón Mellado Parsons prior to John's draftification is even more egregious: draftified after a sequence of 14 edits (including creation) within about a half hour prior to draftification, the most recent one three minutes prior to draftification. @TheSandDoctor: as the granter of page-move privileges a week or so ago you might also have some interest in this discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Fine, I have devoted a considerable time to page curation and done so to the best of my ability. I would have expected support from admins not nitpicking over a perceived problem. @David Eppstein: - I find you threat of warnings about WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL comical given your second post in this thread. This is not a university and I'm not one of your errant students. @Rosguill: - I'm somewhat disappointed as this is coming across as admins closing ranks.

Impose whatever sanctions against me that takes your fancy, I've got better things in life to worry about. --John B123 (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

...I don't think any sort of sanction is necessary, and am not sure what I have written that implied that I thought so. I don't doubt your experience with new pages patrol more broadly, but I do disagree with using draftify in the above situation. Also, if I took the other position, would that just be new page reviewers closing ranks? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

FWIW I also don't believe that sanctions are necessary, unless a broad pattern of draftifying active new articles continues, and even then I think only the page-mover privilege would be in any danger (so not interfering with any other NPP tasks). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, Rosguill, I take your point and apologise for my previous remark.

Secondly, to all, although the criteria for draftifying is documented, I can find no guidance for how long to wait before draftifying, bar the standard page curation tool which advises waiting 30 minutes. Although several days has been suggested above, that is personal opinion which has been based, at least in part, on previous experience. Without wanting to drag other people into this, I could provide examples of other very experienced editors taking a different viewpoint and draftifying regularly within an hour. Neither of these viewpoints is right or wrong, just different ways of application. There is no evidence of a user actively working on it. is subjective. In the case of Draft:Danzer's configuration, in my view the article wasn't being actively edited. I realise that is not agreed, but that is a matter of interpretation of the guideline. Again, that doesn't make either side right or wrong. With regard to curating new pages from the back or from the front, I can find no guidelines on that. I have already explained my reasoning for working from both ends and object to it being inferred that I shouldn't be looking at the newest articles.

There is a saying ""you reap what you sow". People who approach me in a friendly manner will get a similar reply. Equally, people who approach me in a less pleasant way will see a similar attitude reflected in my reply. I doubt there is anybody with a large number of edits who can honestly say they've never made mistakes. I certainly have, and when I have I hold my hands up. However, I don't consider a difference of interpretation a mistake.

Lastly @David Eppstein:, I consider your conduct in this exchange incompatible with WP:ADMINCOND so would request, once this matter is closed, you don't contact me again. Should you feel an administrative reason to do so, then I would appreciate you passing it to another admin. --John B123 (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the lack of guidance on draftifying, for a while we even had instructions at WP:NPPDRAFT that were totally at odds with what was written at WP:DRAFTIFY (I've since reconciled them, largely by adopting DRAFTIFY's language at NPPDRAFT). In theory, drafting should be a way to give an editor some space to continue working on an article and then submit it, but in practice it just doesn't turn out that way, and if you've been following the recent discussions at WT:AfC, you'll know that there's a broad sense that AfC submissions are in practice good for one thing, and that's screening out likely COI. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't been following the WT:AfC discussion, but have read it now. Whilst there may or may not be a need to reform the AfC process, I see the ease at which editors can bypass the process as a bigger problem. I'm sure you've seen plenty of articles that have been declined at AfC moved to mainspace by the creator. It seems too that a lot of editors who have had an article declined just create subsequent articles directly in mainspace. No idea what the answer to this would be, but some form of first line defence against COI, articles about my aunt's window cleaner etc is needed. --John B123 (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, depending on the circumstances of move-warring, it's often enough evidence (in addition to the content of the article itself and the editor's editing history) for a UPE block, which is easy enough for me to implement as an admin, but leaves you hanging if you're just a new page reviewer. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi can you please review Sham Raj II also, Thanks - MRRaja001 (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi MRRaja001, I've marked the page as reviewed. Regards --John B123 (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. - MRRaja001 (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I am sending you this because you placed a notability tag on Peter Sojčík which appears to question his notability. However I have to inform you that the subject's notability is based on him meeting WP:NHOCKEY, which he does via criteria #2, played at least 200 games in the Slovak Extraliga, which he has played 537 games for date. And so if this article where to be nominated for deletion it would be voted Keep, due to this criteria being met. Therefore, he meets notability guidelines. Tay87 (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tay87: That may be so, but it isn't included in the article, hence the notability tag. Notability needs to be established within the article. --John B123 (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@John B123: Sorry for the late reply, I deliberately blocked it from my system after my comment and then I forgot about it. I put it on the article that he has played over 500 games plus I placed his notability status on the talk page shortly after messaging you, which I should have done after creation but I forgot. Whether that's enough to remove the tag I don't know but I looked into it and there are articles that have the tag for years so it can sit there I guess. But I meticulously make sure a player meets WP:NHOCKEY guidelines before creation so it does annoy me when my work gets questioned. But it's all part of the work and effort I guess, you've probably been on that ship more times than not. Tay87 (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tay87, no problem. Thanks for adding the the info, I've removed the tag. Regards --John B123 (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello John. I came here to explain that the page Fabrice Baron indeed meets notability - the player played in the final of the 2000 Coupe de France. What leagues he played in don't matter. Best regards. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Paul Vaurie, apologies, I missed that. (Looking at it again I managed to totally confuse myself after I saw Calais RUFC, thinking it must be a rugby union club from the initials at the end) Regards. --John B123 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@John B123: No worries. Have a great day! Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks WhiteFalcon1 --John B123 (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Is that a useful short description? I see the deity, but "phrase"? I've amended to "Roman deity". PamD 11:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi PamD. I did wonder about that before importing the short description from Wikidata. The German article de:Talassio does include it's use a a phrase. I was unsure whether to include it to future-proof the article and to provide consistency with Wikidata, or not to include it as it wasn't in the article. As you seem to have a definite view, I'm quite happy to go with that. Cheers. --John B123 (talk) 11:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. Can one word be a phrase? But Google translate on the German article calls him a citizen, rather than a god. The single source looks rather flaky, and doesn't support much of the text. If he's really a god I'm surprised we don't have an article on him already ... altogether looks a bit iffy really. Ah well. I added the three missing redirects from bolded alternative spellings, and reminded the creating editor that bold in the lead, beyond the article title, is only used for the targets of incoming redirects which they hadn't created. Not one of Wikipedia's finest, I think. I added a couple of project banners, so maybe someone with subject expertise will drop by. I see that this supposed Roman equivalent wasn't mentioned in Hymen (god) until added by the author of this article. PamD 14:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

​ Thanks for spending the time to look into this. Hopefully somebody with more expertise in the subject will move this on further. Regards --John B123 (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The page Actinocarya was created some moments ago completely without intention. I just blanked it, but you might as well still nominate it for speedy deletion, or I can do so.

Regards ThomasPusch (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi ThomasPusch, I see it's now been deleted. Regards --John B123 (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello John! It would be better to move Lebanese government of November 2009 to First Cabinet of Saad Hariri rather than deleting the latter. Thanks. --Maudslayer (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Maudslayer, I've moved First Cabinet of Saad Hariri to Draft:First Cabinet of Saad Hariri to clear the namespace prior to a move. I've also posted a requested move notice on Talk:Lebanese government of November 2009. Regards --John B123 (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Please help patrol the article. The advertising style has been fixed. Thanks. Namerst (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Namerst. There are a lot of claims in the article that are unreferenced. All achievements need to be referenced. Regards --John B123 (talk) 11:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I put links to almost every proposal. Also cleaned of advertising phrases. Look please. Thanks. Namerst (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

If something in the article is not correct, please tell me and I will fix it. Namerst (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Namerst, that looks better, I've removed the tag. Regards --John B123 (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Has the page been patrolled? Namerst (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

​ It seems to be, it doesn't come up as not-patrolled when I load the page. Regards --John B123 (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello.

Yes, I am fully aware I made a mistake by putting copy-pasted text from source in unedited/rephrased state. I left this information on lay while I conducted proper research on matter. I had low-key hoped somebody could contribute - to this under construction article - the additional information while I was doing my evening routine and sleeping.

That said, this speedy deletion came out of nowhere and I was given little-to-no time to react to it. The article existed less than 24 hours, under construction, about actual real-life army unit and this warning undercut me, as I was sleeping during this period. Even though we live in lockdowns and such, I do not have infinite time to do all the work - especially since in Sunday I was editing other articles.

I urge you - or whoever is responsible - to rescind the decision and I hope I can in time apply some proper edits to avoid copyright infringement. --TrickShotFinn (talk) 10:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• (talk page watcher) @TrickShotFinn: The problem is that Wikipedia must not break the law, so material which infringes copyright gets deleted on sight, even from a user's own drafts or sandbox. And one of the "speedy deletion" criteria, G12, is for "text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving". I haven't seen the page you created, but if it consisted only of material copied from eleswhere, then it had to go. If you had added a couple of sentences ... "The 39th Special Forces Detachment is/was a unit of xxx founded in yyy and serves/d notably in zzz.", with at least one reliable source and perhaps categories etc, the article would have been a viable stub and the copyvio material would have been removed using a different process. But if the entire article is copyvio, then it gets deleted. There is nothing to stop you from creating it again using the same source for information but writing it in your own words. If you have created a basic non-copyvio stub with a reliable source and need time to develop it further there is a useful template {{under construction}} to add, to make it less likely to be threatened with deletion while you sleep / work / deal with Real Life. PamD 11:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi TrickShotFinn. There's not much more I can add to what Pam has said above. I see you have started recreating the article and am sure it will be a useful article in time. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the info, I created the page with text provided by Joa, I didn't think to check where it came from. Is there a way for me to retrieve what was deleted to save time with the rewrite? eg the info box and notable performance list don't need to change — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaseparlo (talk • contribs) 04:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jaseparlo, you need to talk to the deleting admin, in this case WilyD. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Sir, Kindly review the new page Crash (fabric). Thanks and regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi RAJIVVASUDEV, all done. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou so much for immediate action, Best regards RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello! When reviewing my page List of Maryland state historical markers in Allegany County, you added a template asking for additional citations. I have a page ready for each county in the state, so I want to make sure I get this right the first time. Why would I need additional citations? I agree that they could be useful, but I don't feel like they're a must here - The source provided is the MD official marker registry. AviationFreak💬 18:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi AviationFreak. In certain circumstances lists can be unreferenced if individual items have their own pages and the relevant information is contained within that article, but that is not the case here. For example, the Braddock Road article has no mention of the marker so the information in the list needs to be referenced. The reference you do give is to a search form [2] which is not generally acceptable for a reference. If there is no summary page for Allegany County on the MHT website, then individual search results pages need to be given, e.g [3] for Billmeyer Game Refuge.

Also of concern is that the "Location" column in the list seems to have been copy and pasted from the MHT pages. Regards --John B123 (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I've added a summary page as the ref - Could the location information constitute a copyvio? I think the way I've used it constitutes fair use. AviationFreak💬 19:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

​ The summary page is only a list of links with no information on each entry. "Mountain Road (west side), 0.35 miles south of US 40, at entrance to MD Wildlife Division District Office" needs to be verifiable, which the summary page doesn't do.

There are only limited ways of saying "US 40 Alt. (south side), west of Winchester Road", so that and similar short locations are probably ok. Longer entries such as "I-68 (east bound), west of exit 46 (MD 220 to Bedford) (no access), access from drive for Uncle Tuckers Restaurant off of MD 144" are probably best reworded. "Fair use" is generally limited to direct quotes or where there are no viable alternatives to it's use. As the location text could be reworded then fair use is not applicable. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Just wanted to thank you for taking a look at Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006. I'm currently working on expanding with additional sources and content within the next day or so. I've been inactive for a long time, so I probably have forgotten many of the usual style guidelines by now. I'd definitely appreciate your tips and advice on what I can do to improve! Edge3 (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Edge3, apart from the references and categories with have already been tagged, I can't see much wrong with it. Your memory seems to be serving you well! Let me know if you need me to have another look at some future point. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! It's been a while, but I seem to be remembering the rules very quickly. :-) I've added categories and removed that tag. As for references, how many do you recommend? I've just finished expanding the content for today. I might add more tomorrow, but I think it's nearly finished at this point. The subject matter doesn't really require a longer article. Edge3 (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, John B123, just wanted to follow up and see if you had any thoughts on whether there are enough references on the page? Best, Edge3 (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Edge3, that looks fine now. Regards --John B123 (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I was translating the "Frid Wänström" article from the Swedish Wikipedia.

My father was working (as aerodynamic expert) for him at Saab in the 1950s and I try to document their aviation history achievements (that was remarkable) before it all goes into the mist of disappearing because nothing would be referable when nobody that actually meet them is alive. They are all dead and the persons are not that interesting as what they did. However it is in general much easier to relate what they did to the persons rather than to what they did (the aircrafts) in Wikipedia due to the policies of article procedures.

Frid is known for his trip to Switzerland buying Messerschmitt documents that based the development of Saab 29 Tunnan and else was a manager at Saab, but what I understand a very good team coach with Erik Bratt, Lars Brising (not translated yet) and Tore Gullstrand in the management team.

• This makes him appear in "Who is Who" Runeberg books that are digitalised in the 1969 issue.
• Frid got medal twice by the Swedish aeronautic society, Thulinmedaljen, so certainly he did a good job

But all the work were military secrets and released after Frid was dead and gone.

• It is very hard to find any documentation more than this about him
• Saab has scrapped the administrative staff archives
• The tax authority registers are public and retrievable
• The KTH Royal Institute of Technology is a state authority and as such can't scrap its archives, I am trying them right now. Also National Archives of Sweden where the university might sent off its elder documents.

I doubt there are any ways to improve the article content.

• It is possible to face lift the language (the basic language is translated slightly formal language of the 1960s (encyclopaedia language)
• We can't get much more references

But I am happy you try to find someone to improve it. --Zzalpha (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Zzalpha. Thanks for such an interesting article. As you say, sources are few, but I did find some in connection to his involvement with the J 21 (quite an unconventional aircraft). [4], [5], [6] and [7].

Regards --John B123 (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

hello john.this was closed wrongly in spite of our cms.how can i overturn it? the article has admin access now for creation! please help me what can i do now. the non-admin closed it,that's not have a problem? Best--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mojtaba2361. I was surprised to see it closed today, especially only 2 hours after the last comment and 4 hours after a new editor joined the conversation. Non-admin closure is allowable.

In practical terms I don't see you getting anywhere pursuing this. Although I agree with you that meeting WP:NFOOTY is sufficient, any further discussions will bring out the same editors who believe GNG needs to be met as well. Possibly better would to start a WP:RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, asking if biographies of soccer players need to meet WP:GNG as well as WP:NFOOTY. Regards --John B123 (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

How many sources are needed for the page to be verified? Sargon Gallu (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sargon Gallu. There is no fixed number of references needed. All content needs to be verified. In practical terms, a reference needs to be provided for each paragraph (assuming the content in the source covers the whole paragraph). It's perfectly acceptable to use the same reference multiple times if the reference covers multiple parts of the article. Regards --John B123 (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@ John B123 Can you review this article Nabin Rabha. Thanks WhiteFalcon1 (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi WhiteFalcon1, looks ok to me. I see somebody else has already reviewed it. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@John B123 Thanks WhiteFalcon1 (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@John B123 can you check this article Alexander Romario Jesuraj is reviewed or not.Thanks in advance WhiteFalcon1 (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi WhiteFalcon1, I've marked it as reviewed. Regards --John B123 (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@John B123 can you please review this article Karolis Skinkys. Thanks WhiteFalcon1 (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi WhiteFalcon1 - all done. Regards --John B123 (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I note that you have been reviewing most of the pages I have created recently. Apologies for giving you so much work. It's the fault of Women in Red!!! Anyway, many thanks for your speedy clearances and comments. One article I did two months ago does not appear to have been reviewed, although I may have missed it. Could you take a look at Mike Jensen (internet pioneer) please? Roundtheworld (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Roundtheworld, no problem, thank you for creating the articles. I've reviewed Mike Jensen (internet pioneer). Regards --John B123 (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks.Roundtheworld (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

This is in reference to your adding the tag of "citations needed" to the page Brezis-Lieb lemma. What do you think is missing? There are four textbooks in the references, in addition to the original paper, all of which are referenced with precise locations in the text. Gumshoe2 (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gumshoe2, the lead and "Proof" have no references. Regards --John B123 (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a reference for the one sentence in the lead which is not fleshed out in the main section. All of the references for the statement of the lemma double as references for the proof, which is standard in math and would be expected/understood by readers. (I've removed the tag.) Gumshoe2 (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

​ Whilst "All of the references for the statement of the lemma double as references for the proof" may be apparent for a reader with previous knowledge, it isn't necessarily the case for the casual reader. --John B123 (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi John, I appreciate your comment and have tried to improve the article "Mercedes Castro" I think that together we built a great Wikipedia. I have added new references to some of the data that were missing. And I have also added more information about the author and her way of seeing literature. On the other hand, the sources used are first level, very important newspapers in Spain: El País, ABC, El Mundo, El Faro de Vigo and the new sources: the radio television of Castilla León and the portal of new books of the Instituto Cervantes. I believe that all these are very reliable and verifiable sources, so I ask you to remove the label about the need for more sources. Thanks --DamAzul (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi DamAzul that looks fine now. I've removed the tag. Regards --John B123 (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Juan de Bolas, thanks, and thank you for all your contributions. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 11:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok fine, i'll leave it alone. But when this album drops, i'm changing back to it's current look. I'm not gonna keep doing this editing back and forth shit smdfh. PeteStrumentals 3 is coming in two months and you want to delete the article?? smdmfh!!

@Ceedub88: Because it is released still won't make it notable. See WP:NALBUM --John B123 (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

no it's not. This album hasn't even came out yet because there's been delays and date changes ever since due to Covid19. They set a new release date to December 11.

@Ceedub88: And my point was that when it's released that doesn't make it notable. --John B123 (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

So it doesn't have to be notable. An album is a album. that's it.

@Ceedub88: Really? try reading WP:NALBUM --John B123 (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

seem so unfair. every fan or a music lover have the right to know what these albums are, weather they know them or not, It's still an album to me. Even if it doesn't deserve any attention by a known artist or musician, they have every right to know who these people are and what albums or songs they put out.

@Ceedub88: The album details could be added at Pete Rock production discography, where there are other albums that don't have their own articles. --John B123 (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

to me i still think it's just a stupid guideline to move it to the discography page. So what if it's not a big hit album, so what if it's not notable and don't receive any attention, it's an album. It needs to be identified so people would try research or buy this album in the future (if they ever want it). If you really want to move it then go ahead.

Hey John B123, Thank you very much for reviewing the article I created. I highly appreciate it! Best regards, Xander Wu —Preceding undated comment added 16:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Xander Wu, no problem. Thank you for your contributions. Regards --John B123 (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello John,

I have removed the phrase that is the source of possible copyright infringement, please do remove the tag. CommanderPhoenix (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi CommanderPhoenix, a large part of the page is still a copy of [8] see [9] --John B123 (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Please do check again

CommanderPhoenix (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

​ That looks fine now. Regards --John B123 (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, can I ask for a favor. Can you review this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:List_of_Governors_of_Misamis_Oriental CommanderPhoenix (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

​ I'm not an AfC reviewer and as it's been submitted there I can't do a formal review. Informally, it needs more references. I've added refs for the lists {from one of the external links) but the information in the lead section needs referencing. As it was previously rejected for notability, you need to show notability by multiple references. Regards --John B123 (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Sir, Kindly review the new page Draft:Bagh Bandi Khela (2018). Thanks and regards--Shashanka Chandra Das 16:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Shashanka Chandra Das. I'm not an AfC reviewer and as you have submitted it there for review I can't really get involved. However, having a quick look at it, it seems it needs more references to show its notability - see WP:NFILM. Regards

Good afternoon!

I added links to the facts mentioned in the article (including in the section at the bottom of the article).

Is this enough to remove the "No links" template" Dmitru (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dmitru, you need to add inline citations to the article. See Help:Referencing for beginners. Regards --John B123 (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you know how to get rid of the comma from the name Bigmike2346 (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bigmike2346 I've moved the page to Joseph S. Cage Jr. (without the comma). Regards --John B123 (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)