User talk:CFA/Archives/2021/July

Invalid parameter usage
Thanks for fixing that on Marjorie Taylor Greene. I'd meant to use 'access-date', but I must've been too tired, so it's a good thing that was my last edit last night. Haha  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  13:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No problem! Glad to help. Clear  friend  a  💬 19:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Article rejected
I'm confused! That page is literally like ALL of the articles from this subject, there's nothing to add...maybe a source for the periods when cinemas were closed because of Covid, sure I'll add that. But other than that there's nothing to add. I had created this type of pages for years and they were always approved! So are you gonna go on a mass deletion of the other articles from all the countries too then, or are you gonna revise this decision? DCF94 (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You need to think on it. It's only the fifth of July. Usually, lists related to certain years are created at the end of that year. The article does only have one source, which is against policy for accepting submissions. Articles with a single source. Learn your policies, and please don't go about to reviewers' talk pages and be like this. It's not civil. Clear  friend  a  💬 14:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Add at least one more reliable source, some more text that isn't the table, and I'll revist it. Clear  friend  a  💬 14:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It's much better now! It now has more than one reliable source. It was already approved by another reviewer. Clear  friend  a  💬 14:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Moving articles to mainspace
Hallo, Thanks for your work with AfC. When you move a draft to mainspace, please remember to check whether the drafting editor chose the right title. I've moved the unnecessarily-disambiguated Luís Raposo (archaeologist) to Luís Raposo. There were also a pair of links to make to other language wikipedias. It needed a bit of copyediting - the image was slightly malplaced and had a nonstandard size and caption, there were two DEFAULTSORTS, and some duplicated categories, and links to the disambiguation page ICOM. Thanks, Pam  D  14:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help! It's highly appreciated. Clear  friend  a  💬 14:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There are also probably far too many external links but I don't feel enthusiastic enough to weed them out! Pam  D  14:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed them too. I'll put the page on my watchlist and deal with them later. Clear  friend  a  💬 14:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's good, thanks. And you'd managed to add a duplicate banner to the talk page. Fixed, and another one added instead. Pam  D  14:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oops! Not sure how or why I did that, but thanks for fixing it either way. Clear  friend  a  💬 14:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun! Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete redirect page?
Hello!

Thank you for recently reviewing my draft of List of Melbourne Football Club seasons!

I noticed that 2019 Melbourne Football Club season redirects, and I don't think it should. Could you advise me how I can file the redirect page for deletion?

Thanks! Aa508186 (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, and while I'm not very well experienced with professional sports (haha), I don't think it should redirect there. Would it make more sense just to make 2019 Melbourne Football Club season redirect to your new page, rather than deleting it? I'm assuming that they are related, and that the 2019 season is just one of the many seasons listed on your list page. I believe the redirect page, if it needed to be deleted, would meet section 5 of WP:R (speedy deletion G1), because the redirect page "makes no sense". However, it is always better to find an alternative to deleting, as in your case, redirecting it to List of Melbourne Football Club seasons. Glad to help, Clear  friend  a  💬 11:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
 Hello :

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a  month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is currently a backlog of over articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Asking one thing
How do you join wikiprojects? I've been wanting to join Wikiproject Userboxes. Signed, Dinosaur   TrexXX33  (chat?) 19:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello again! To join a WikiProject, first, find the one you want. You can do this by typing in the search bar "Wikipedia:WikiProject ____" (whichever one you want). As an example, let's say you want to join WikiProject Ottawa. You type in the search bar, "Wikipedia:WikiProject Ottawa", then go down to "Participants", then just edit the section and add your username and link to your page by doing the normal wikitext for linking. It's that simple. Some WikiProjects may also ask to add your experience with that subject next to your name. Once you join the WikiProject, you have to help out! Go up to the "Tasks" section, and find some articles to create or expand upon. If you want to add a WikiProject userbox to your user page, the WikiProject will have the template code for their userbox somewhere on the page. You can also click on the "add template" button in the editor and type in "User WikiProject ____" to insert the WikiProject userbox of your choice. Also, one more thing. Consider checking out the Teahouse, a space for new users to ask questions, but continue feel free to ask me any questions you may have about Wikipedia. I'll leave an invitation on your talk page to the Teahouse. Glad to help! Clear  friend  a  💬 10:46, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:List of Atlas LV3A launches
I noticed that you recently declined List of Atlas LV3A launches and reference the dicussion about what lists of launches to accept, where it was said that we would only accept articles about 10 launches, and the sources as reason. I do agree about the sources. However, in the diccussion, it was also said that a notable rocket list would be accept even if it had less than 10 launches, and the same thing if there was no other article to put the data in. Atlas LV3A count as notaable since according to Space Launch Schedule (https://www.spacelaunchschedule.com/1961-1969_launch_schedule/) and Space Launch Now (https://www.spacelaunchnow.me/launch/). Can you accept it?


 * Hello! Fair point, that was said in the discussion, so we might be good to go on that. However, I'm just not sure if two sources by the same organization (Space Launch Schedule), would be OK for an article. Often times, lists are like that, with information taken from one source, and that being it. Maybe you could add some more sources for the information in the lead section of the article? Clear  friend  a  💬 11:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * One other thing. I just noticed that the rocket in which the list is based on (Atlas LV-3A), doesn't even have its own article, which might make the list have less of a chance of being accepted. You should try creating an article for the rocket before the list. So, I won't be accepting it quite yet, I'll either leave it for another reviewer, or you can send me a message if you've made some improvements based on the suggestions. Thanks, Clear  friend  a  💬 11:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

About Boris Milev resources
Hello Clearfrienda, I will try format properly resources and use more resources outside Boris Milev writings. The ISBN code is OK, but some books are old or had been published in countries where they didn't use ISBN codes. I have another question. On the page https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q93609358 how can I add a reference (ajouter une référence) or add a value (ajouter une valeur)? Thanks in advance


 * Yes, I understand. I wasn't saying that every book has an ISBN code, just that if you use the proper template, it will automatically link the ISBN for easier access, making reviewers' lives easier. Many books don't have ISBNs, and that's perfectly fine. If it's easier for you, the visual editor makes citing easier, as you don't have to know the wikitext for all the properties to a reference. I'm not very familiar with Wikidata, but to add a reference, I'm assuming, that you push +reference, under the ✏️edit button. Clear  friend  a  💬 11:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * As you can see in the French Wikipedia entry for Boris Milev, the sources are properly formatted and linked through the "cite" template. Just use the cite template so everything flows together, and I'll accept it. Clear  friend  a  💬 11:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Request on 08:52:16, 9 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Unuphrio Muralto
Hello,

Thank you for reviewing the article on LUMI, and for taking the time to respond. I have added more citations from reliable (academic) sources, but as I'm sure you are aware most academic papers are paywalled, which is why it becomes necessary to rely on reporting from news organisations who have paid for access to academic journals. Some of the sources I used fall in this category, such as InsideHPC (who, incidentally, I see are in turn used as references by Anne C. Elster in her IEEE paper). Nevertheless, I have added sources from Karolinska Intitutet, IEEE, Swedish Research Council and Dr. Pekka Manninen - surely about as reliable as you can get. If you still feel that some of my sources are "unreliable" I would greatly appreciate if you could let me know which they are.

Unuphrio Muralto (talk) 08:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello! I've had a look, and it looks good to me now, I'll be accepting it. On another note, just to let you know, there are ways to access pay walled sources for purposes of referencing them. Have a look at WP:PAYWALL, but basically, others can find the information for you at WP:RX. You can also get access to certain acedemic journals and the like, freely, with an in-good-standing Wikipedia account, through The Wikipedia Library, (e.g. JSTOR). Glad to help —  Clear  friend  a  💬 11:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * However, just because I've accepted the article, does not mean that the article is done and perfect. I'm pretty sure the lead section in the article needs to be divided into other sections (on a similar note, the page doesn't have any sections). Also, you still could use more citations. Just take a quick look on Google Scholar for academic journals about the supercomputer. Clear  friend  a  💬 11:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you! As I am currently overcome with emotion, I will have to defer on a full response. I have long wanted to contribute (other than financially), so this is significant to me.


 * Glad to help! Clear  friend  a  💬 10:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello again! I've calmed down a bit now :) Still feels great to have had my first article accepted - proud and humbled in equal measure. Thank you once again for helping me drag it over the threshold. I know it's still a bit bare, and I have been thinking about breaking it up into sections ("architecture", "funding", and "environment" seem logical), but now that it's up I also hope others who perhaps know more about the subject will help improve it further. Meanwhile I have been looking at other articles about individual supercomputers for inspiration, and have some ideas for what to expand on. Also wondering if it would be appropriate to reach out to someone at CSC to see if they'd be willing to release a photo for use in the article?


 * I did search in Google Scholar (I think that's how I found the IEEE paper), but so much is paywalled when you click through. I couldn't very well use something as reference without reading it first! I will definitely check out JSTOR; sounds like a great resource! But a downside of relying on scientific journals for references is that the average user probably won't be able to access them - I know this has frustrated me many times in the past, when I've wanted to read more on the subject of a Wikipedia article. In an ideal world, everyone should have access to this information! Unuphrio Muralto (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea! Feel free to expand it, and links to it from other articles, so people can find it and help expand it. If you try to get an image, you can, but you'll have to make sure the image is released with the proper Creative Commons license for Wikipedia, as deemed by whoever took the photo, and possibly whoever owns the computer. Yes, many academic papers are paywalled, but you can still access them through the Wikipedia resource exchange, where other editors who have the subscription to that source can give the information you might need. You can also request access for access to otherwise paid sources through The Wikipedia Library. You are allowed to cite sources which have a paywall, as if a claim for verifiability arises, someone with the subscription can simply check the source.  Clear  friend  a  💬 11:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Tropical Depression 08W (2021). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Forgot to move! Clear  friend  a  💬 16:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

An enquiry about references of the article that you declined
Hi! Thank you for your time and efforts to review the article about Draft:RabidAnce. According to your comment, It has been declined mainly due to issues of sources for reference that are cited. I hope I will be able to clarify which sources that were cited in the article are unacceptable in order to replace it properly prior to resubmit. In the first draft article, references’ sources were largely divided into (1)‘press news’ by newspaper reporters, (2)the ‘official webpage’ of artists’ agency company and (3)‘Youtube video clips’ that RabidAnce appeared on and released by licensed Korean TV broadcasting companies such as Arirang TV and JTBC. I thought that (2)the official webpage of the artist agency could provide the most accurate and objective information in regards to artist profiles since everyone is accessible to the company's website. Also (3)the Youtube video clip of Arirang TV is the only one showing English subtitles so far and even Arirang TV is a reliable licensed broadcasting company. On top of that, I referred to another article having references from Youtube. That’s why I cited this. However, I cautiously doubt sources from the webpage and Youtube might be regarded as either self published one or non-reliable sources from your perspective. Hence I have replaced those doubtable sources by myself with all press news. Could you please look over the changes of references so that I can make sure the article is acceptable or not. I look forward to your response. Thank you so much.


 * Hello! Yes, YouTube is not reliable, and while it could be an independent source, you cannot cite YouTube because of its reliability (see WP:RSPYT). The agency's website does count as self-published. Most of the sources you added are good, they're about the subject, so that's fine. However, in at least the first 2 paragraphs of the article, I do see some peacock words. Example: "distinctive", "uniqueness", etc. In the "members" section, the inline citations used do not seem to actually verify the information, as most of the information there isn't mentioned in the reference, showing possible original research. The article overall is good, just some minor things need cleaning up, and possibly adding more inline citations, as this does count as a biography of a living person. Feel free to drop a message when you think the article is ready. Clear  friend  a  💬 14:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Clearfrienda, thank you for your prompt and kind response. Your comments were very helpful for me to revise the article elaborately. I have tried to get rid of all peacock words and added more inline citations, sources of which are mostly from press news and some third party organization’s web pages while overall contents of the article are maintained. If you think this is fine, I would like to resubmit the Draft:RabidAnce.
 * Many thanks.


 * Good to go! I've checked the article again, reliable, secondary sources do mention and are about the subject, at least most peacock terms are removed, format's good. I've resubmitted and accepted the article. Glad to help, Clear  friend  a  💬 11:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Wolfgang Weber (journalist)
Dear Clearfrienda, all sources agree that Wolfgang Weber was one of the most important “fathers” of photojournalism alongside Erich Salomon, Felix H. Man, Alfred Eisenstaedt and some others. His invitation to the most important European art exhibition documenta proves this, and the fact that his estate was bought up by the renowned Folkwang Museum and processed in a large exhibition underscores its importance. You may be right, that the quite inadequate German Wikipedia Article about WW, is very poorly(!) quoted, but what else can I do to improve the citation in the English version? I gave a lot of serious links to find all you want and need about his life and work with one click in the internet. Every single word in the Wikipedia article about Wolfgang Weber is traceable with the sources given - even if you use only the English sources. Sorry, but I am not able to improve it any further.Rundstef (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello! I've had a look at my review again, and have noticed that my comment wasn't very detailed. I agree with you in that the article is notable, and it does have reliable sources, however some of the material you've included, especially in the "Life and work" section, appears to be somewhat poorly sourced, with some information not appearing in sources. Likewise, I've relooked my decision, since this is not a biography of a living person, and that certain articles I thought were unreliable, actually were. I'll be accepting the article, but please consider adding more citations that can accurately verify the information, not just one or two. Sorry about the confusion!  Clear  friend  a  💬 17:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much!Rundstef (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Glad to help! Clear  friend  a  💬 11:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Ontario Alliance of Climbers
Hi Clearfrienda. Thanks for taking the time to review the article I've been working on which covers the Ontario Alliance of Climbers. As you can see from the edit history, I've been working on this article for some time to add and refine the citations to show the noteworthiness of the topic. I've taken feedback from a few past editors and have refined it based on their feedback, including national news media as well as publications significant to the climbing community (Gripped/Mountain Life Media). Can you provide any more specific critique on this topic as based on the current wikipedia guidelines, the sources covered fulfill the requirement based on the revised edits made to the references. Appreciate your time!

45.72.130.90 (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello! I've had another look at your article, but I can't see any coverage of the topic in reliable, secondary sources. For example, the only reliable source confirmed by Wikipedia is this one by The Globe and Mail, but it doesn't actually seem to mention the Ontario Alliance of Climbers, the closest I've gotten is the "Ontario Access Coalition". Is that OAC related to the one the article is about? Sources 1 and 2 are primary, and I can't find anything about Gripped, and while TVO is probably reliable, I can't find anything about the organization. The Toronto Star is reliable, but I can't find anything about the organization, once again. Again, I can't find anything about Mountain Life Media. Overall, I can't see notability for this article unless you add reliable, secondary sources about the subject. Thanks, Clear  friend  a  💬 11:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * @Clearfrienda. Correct, the Ontario Alliance of Climbers is the same organization as the Ontario Access Coalition, with the organization rebranding in 2018. Anytime an article is referring to the OAC, that would be for both the Ontario Alliance of Climbers as well as the Ontario Access Coalition. When you write 'I can't find anything about the organization', are you referring to the secondary sources (TVO and Toronto Star) or are you referring to the OAC itself?  TVO as a provincial TV network and the Toronto Star as one of Canada's most widely read newspapers must surely qualify as notable sources, wouldn't they?  Appreciate it.


 * 45.72.130.90 (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello! Sorry if my writing sounded confusing, I was in a rush to reply as I had many other queries to answer. Thank you for clarifying that those two OACs are the same, this definitely changes my opinion about the notability of the article. When I said that I can't find anything about the organization, it means that even if the source is reliable, it doesn't talk about the organization in the article. So, yes the Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, and TVO are reliable, but they don't mention the subject — or at least enough to show notability (called a trivial mention). Again, thank you for clarifying, however the reliable and secondary news articles seem to only mention the OAC trivially, and while it may be good enough if you gather many trivial mentions, I don't think the article is ready yet. Now at least I know that the organization has at least had some coverage in reliable sources, even if not enough. Drop me a message again on this thread if you've made some more improvements. Clear  friend  a  💬 21:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * @Clearfrienda. No problem! The three most reliable sources are those already listed - TVO, the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star.  Based on my read through, all three mention the OAC in more than passing mention and provide coverage of the work the OAC is doing and on climbing access in general.  Gripped, Canada's largest rock climbing magazine, also has extensive coverage of the OAC - I chose only a selection, but there are many, many articles.  OntarioClimbing.com is also another news source with extensive coverage of the OAC that I've left out for the time being.  I had hoped that Wikipedia offered subject specific guidance on climbing as a sport, and therefore might provide further instruction on how I might show reliability of these news sources, but unfortunately Rock Climbing is not listed on this page (despite Rock Climbing being in the 2021 Japan Olympics!).  The organization I'm writing about would be most similar to the Red River Gorge Climbers' Coalition, which also uses subject-specific references (Mountain Project, Red River Climbing.com).  Any further help would be appreciated.
 * 01:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello again! Yes, those sources are the most reliable. The Globe and Mail seems to have a trivial mention of the OAC, in this small phrase: "bouldering policy with the Ontario Access Coalition". The TVO video seems to mention it a few times, so it could be enough. The Toronto Star does mention the organization enough, appearing in several paragraphs. However, to prove notability, we are looking for articles that are mainly about the organization, not just mentioned with an article that isn't about the subject. There should be at least a couple reliable articles that were written solely about the organization or something it does. It seems that with a quick Google search, Gripped does seem to show popularity, but it doesn't yet have a Wikipedia article, so I'm still not sure about the notability and reliable of this one. Add as many references as you can, and drop a message when you think I should re-review the article. Clear  friend  a  💬 15:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Clearfrienda! I've added a number of new references, some from the existing sources and some from new sources I was able to find. I think this should provide a much greater breadth of references from a number of different sources which illustrate the notability of the work the OAC has been involved in within the province.  Could you please take another look at the article and let me know if you have any additional feedback?  Once again, appreciate your thoughts and assistance.45.72.130.90 (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks good to go, coverage in many sources, and with the new sources you've added, I think I can accept it. Considering it has mentions in many large newspapers (The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star), I'll be resubmitting and accepting it. Remember if you find any more reliable sources, please consider adding them, to further improve the verifiability of the article. Clear  friend  a  💬  13:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Total House
You've really made a mess at Total House by deciding to initiate mergers out of the AfC queue in an area where you've got no subject knowledge. The two articles were not about the same topic (the AfC nomination was about a questionably-notable nightclub that was located in a small part of a prominent heritage building with an existing article), and you've then not only mashed the content together but proposed a move of the article from the prominent heritage building to the questionably-notable nightclub?

Please be more careful about messing with existing articles where you've got no subject knowledge, and unless you're going to carefully familiarise yourself with the subject to even a basic degree, leave existing articles alone. You're doing no one any good by getting the AfC queue down by 1 by making a mess of perfectly fine existing coverage. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * They are related. The draft was good and had been approved by other reviewers, and had coverage in reliable sources. In general, no one has contested the merge, other than you. If you really think that the merge was not appropriate, you can undo it with consensus from other editors. Leave a proposal on the talk page. Clear  friend  a  💬  13:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * If you had merged the non-notable club into the article on the notable heritage building and just left it as a subsection, that would've been a perfectly defensible action; certainly, you'll get no opposition to that from me since the nightclub did not pass GNG. Instead, you made a complete mess of the article on the notable heritage building without so much as a Google search (which would have identified the problem even on the first page), and when challenged, claimed that the nightclub is the "common name" for the much larger heritage building, with no further explanation as to why on earth that would be the case. I'm unable to find the original draft amidst the spate of mergers and redirects, but there is nothing in the article that would indicate that the nightclub passes WP:GNG. I find it baffling that you're so keen to try to throw your weight around in an area where you have absolutely subject knowledge while abjectly refusing to even use Google to try to get at least even a basic clue about it. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Fine then, the move will still probably go ahead as planned, as it has consensus from other editors, however, I have changed it to have the original text in a separate 'History' sub-section. You're free to change it up if you have more knowledge on the subject. Clear  friend  a  💬  11:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "Still probably go ahead as planned"? Given that the WP:RM you proposed because you didn't do your research is going down in flames, what, you going to try to do that against consensus to avoid backing down, too? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * No? I don't really care about the outcome of the discussion. I'm saying that there are three users who support the move, and you're the only one who is opposing the move. Unless some more people come to oppose it, it will probably go ahead as planned. I'm following consensus, not going against it. You can leave a proposal on the talk page if you have an idea on what to do. Please remember to be civil. Clear  friend  a  💬  12:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Er, there are four strong opposes, and two supports, neither of the supports having any subject knowledge or giving any explanation for why they thought it was the common name, so the only way it is "going ahead as planned" is if you try to defy a clear consensus. Insisting that you have a consensus you explicitly do not have is bizarre. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, new people have come and opposed. The move will probably not go ahead unless more support is found, and the article will be reverted to its original state. Clear  friend  a  💬  12:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, given your latest effort to try to defy a failing WP:RM by rewriting the article to promote the music venue content, I'm really starting to wonder. Why are you going so hard for this non-notable music venue in a country you don't live in? In the absence of any other explanation, it really starts to raise questions about paid editing/reviewing. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Now you're going too far. I said I don't care about the outcome. I really don't. You are free to propose something, as yes, I have been questioning the notability of this article since I accepted it as well. There's some coverage in local newspapers, and only trivial mentions in bigger, reliable newspapers. I'm just going with what makes sense since it was accepted, and I'm going to follow the consensus of everyone. Who said you had to live in a country to write about a subject? This isn't right. Clear  friend  a  💬  12:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * You say you don't care, but you seem extremely invested in Wikipedia promoting this non-notable music venue in a way that really suggests that you might care very much. Saying "it was accepted" as if it's justification when you accepted it (by inserting the material into a more notable topic) after two experienced reviewers had already declined it doesn't fly. You don't have to live in a country to write about it, but if you edit in a way that makes you have no subject knowledge whatsoever but are fighting tooth-and-nail for specific commercial content that has been previously repeatedly rejected, that's gonna make people start asking questions. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's true. I accepted it. Why don't you put a proposal on the talk page of what you want, instead of continuing a useless argument here? How am I editing in a way that makes me seem like I'm breaking a policy? I didn't even propose the move, that was someone else. If you want it restored, then either do it yourself, or put a proposal on the talk page. Stop being uncivil and arguing here for no reason. Clear  friend  a  💬  12:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The article issue is effectively resolved, with the WP:RM going down in flames and an inevitable cleanup of the commercial spam once that's complete. The issue of what on earth you were up to, not so much. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Chewdara
hii...Clearfrienda Draft:Chewdara, review it again please and check it very well, Ttttt321 (talk). 12:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello! For your draft, Chewdara, as I said in my comment, it probably does pass the notability guidelines for geographical features, criterion one. This criterion states that any "populated, legally recognized places are presumed to be notable, even if their population is low". Chewdara is populated, and is mentioned on the census records. However, you still need reliable sources, and inline citations, so the information can be verified. As of now, your draft is not cited with reliable sources, and therefore cannot be accepted. For example: WikiEdit.org is most certainly not reliable, but is used to cite at least sixty percent of the information in the article. If you have made some improvements to the article, you can leave a message on this thread, and I'll re-review the article for you. Happy editing! - Clear  friend  a  💬  13:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * hii... Clearfrienda
 * Afterall i probably corrected all the irrelevent sources and i request to you check Draft:Chewdara very well,again. Thanks.....Ttttt321 (talk). 16:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello again! Sorry about my later-than-usual response, I was quite busy in real life. It appears that another reviewer has already accepted it. Either way, congratulations on your first article! I hope you decide to stay and continue editing! Congrats again,  Clear  friend  a  💬  02:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)