User talk:Jovanmilic97/Archive 2

Some bubble tea for you!
...and in case you are wondering, I was referring to this excellent relist. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/TheOdd1sOut_(2nd_nomination)
Hi, would you mind backing out your close and maybe relisting on Articles_for_deletion/TheOdd1sOut_(2nd_nomination)? This was such a confusing AfD I'd prefer to have it handled by an administrator. Thanks! SportingFlyer  T · C  18:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done! While I don't exactly get the "handled by an administrator" case, I am always happy to help if needed! Won't relist since I think like you said administrator should decide on that now, not me. :) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you! The procedure surrounding this article has been so strange - deleted three months ago, I thought it was a clear G4, my G4 prod removed by someone who thought it should go to an AfD since the first AfD had a number of sock IPs voting delete, and the only user to actually comment on G4 commented right before you closed it. It's such a strange situation I'm hoping an administrator can close it in order to provide a bit of clarity to the process. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just as an aside, I got a "consensus can change" from the admin who closed it, even though there was a strong delete vote after it was opened back up. An strange end to one of the strangest articles I've ever seen. Thanks for reopening it though! SportingFlyer  T · C  22:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I noticed it a while ago, while I personally would do a relist because a rebuttal for the sources has arrived, you can say there is still a majority (all of the voters being at least more than a year old accounts) that support the sources and are based on the subject passing WP:GNG thus being all valid votes. I mean you could try at Deletion Review, but I even you get granted a relist, it would at best roll over to "no consensus". Very weird AfD, and thank you for thanking me! :) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisting AfDs
Hi Jovanmilic97. I appreciate the help at AfD but I would kindly request that you wait a little bit before relisting discussions. Twice in the last few days I was reviewing discussions only to discover they had been relisted while I was looking them over. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Will do, and thanks for the call here. I also noticed that the "delete" closure on the first AfD was a right thing to do after being thorough instead of another relist. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Unreal Engine games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Android ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_Unreal_Engine_games check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_Unreal_Engine_games?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Your post at notability
I saw the post and almost responded. There are a lot of appearent conflicts between Wikipolicies. Policies are created and edited by many different users not by one mind. They allow for interpretation and circumstances. Hope that helps? Legacypac (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh thank you for responding! I was kind of bummed out nobody was willing to reply but were voting on PORNBIO issues. Yeah, I guess it is the best to apply case by case. I do think it creates a valid link: obviously if an author has 3+ books all reviewed, it is more than likely the author himself gets the coverage somewhere too. But I do feel AUTHOR C3 is a bit too inclusive, basically allowing everyone with a notable work in Wikipedia, which is iffy to me. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * PornBio is a much more exciting topic. Authors only become notable by writing notable works. If no notable works they are just a random wannabe author. Same with artists and other creative professionals. Their work makes them notable so I don't see a contradiction. Legacypac (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Deprodding of Brave: Shaman's Challenge
I have removed the tag from Brave: Shaman's Challenge, which you proposed for deletion. My reasoning is explained on that article's talk page. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! Lowercaserho (talk) 12:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Request on 00:01:39, 1 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Andupchur
Andupchur (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

André UpChurch was a real artist in Chicago during the 1980s. He worked alongside with groups like Ministry and other Blues bands that were relevant and important in the Chicago music circuit. He deserves to be remembered.

Please be careful with WP:NAC
Hi. I saw you recently closed Articles for deletion/Asia-2 as No Consensus. Looking over your history, I also see that you've done a lot of No Consensus WP:NACs:
 * Articles for deletion/Catherine Ball
 * Articles for deletion/Rosco McGlashan
 * Articles for deletion/Richard I. Winwood
 * Articles for deletion/Jay Ansill
 * Articles for deletion/Wüstenrot-Gruppe
 * Articles for deletion/Colos (rapper)
 * Articles for deletion/Wings of Hell

Please note that WP:BADNAC specifies that it's not appropriate for any discussion where the outcome is a close call. That pretty much excludes any No Consensus closes. I'm sure you had the best intentions, and your efforts are appreciated, but it would be better if you left the close calls to an admin to close. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Will do! Thanks for reaching me out. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft for The Legacy Walk
Thank you for reviewing my Draft:The_Legacy_Walk but I just realized that there is already an article about Legacy Walk so I would like to delete my draft now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mruanova (talk • contribs) 00:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Need Help With Page You Requested For Speedy Deletion
Hello, I recreated this page for subject Tyler Morris because I believe it was falsely deleted. This artist has just charted on Billboard at #8 (week of Jan 12, 2019) and is a Gibson Guitars artist as well as having many other accomplishments. I have tried to reach out to Tony but he has not responded. BobKelley (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did not tag it for G4 deletion. No idea who did, maybe the admin who deleted it saw the post on the Tony's page? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft rejection of Draft:Highland Regiment Drum and Bugle Corps
I have a couple comments about the rejection comments: I can go through and add some additional citations, but I think that at this point the article has the same foundation as other articles on the same topic (participants in the Drum Corps Associates circuit). Jimpjorps (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Reference 2 isn't a blog, it's the official website for the governing body of the competitive circuit this corps is a member of
 * Reference 3 doesn't say much because this is a relatively new member of the circuit and has only competed for one season
 * Other member groups of the same circuit were considered to meet WP:NCORP and have similar levels of citations; see the articles for other groups in the navigation template added in the last edit
 * Sorry about the blog assumption, it does make it WP:PRIMARY since the governing body is connected to the corps, and thus has no meaning towards WP:NCORP. I feel like this is a case of WP:TOOSOON based on what you have said for reference 3. Also please do add some more reference if there are ones and resubmit. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Request on 20:46:47, 20 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by MatthewCenance
At first glance, I have not found enough sources. Metacritic says that the game has not been reviewed by any review sites it recognizes. Websites such as IGN have no reviews and hardly any details on the game. Even the Google Custom Search website gives only a GameZebo review. GameZebo was the first website where I could find a review on the game, which describes the gameplay and part of the plot of the game. If additional sources are required, I have nowhere to look. Where should I continue to look to add qualifying citations for the article Draft:Neopets: Codestone Quest? Matthew Cenance (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , want me to be honest? I don't think you can or will find anything. Metacritic is a great place to find some indepth reviews if possible, but the fact there is no such thing is already a huge hint this game is likely not a notable one, sadly. I helped recently lots of video game drafts to develop like Thronebreaker: The Witcher Tales, Riding Spirits or Unruly Heroes, but I couldn't find anything else either. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we put it in a list page instead? I created the page to fill out a red link I found on the Neopets merchandise navigation box. That could fix the red link right? Matthew Cenance (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , I created Neopets: Codestone Quest as a redirect to Neopets where I added the mention so it fits there the best. Both redlinks and redirects though cannot stay in a navbox per WP:EXISTING so it has to be removed from there sadly. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So there can't be a section for the game itself? Why not? Matthew Cenance (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Need help With Draft Page - Breakout: Dark Prison
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Breakout:_The_Dark_Prison Thanks for your review. I see your concern. This game is not released yet. However, from the graphic of the game shown in public website and the trailer, this game looks promising and not like a fault. I see a lot of games has already a wiki page long before they official release. My reference may be not strong enough, but I will keep finding more resources. Hope this helps. Any suggestion will be greatly appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamerseven (talk • contribs) 15:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! I too think the game has a potential to be notable, but considering to coverage it gets is WP:ROUTINE or are press release, I would say to wait for a while. There are likely to be some previews of the game as the time for the release is coming. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Assessment
Hello. Firstly, I would like to thank you for removing some of my additions of unreliable sources (although there is no guideline that says that the sources should be reliable for a video game article, especially when it comes to reviews), but I am not here to argue about it. My concern is this. Since when did an article with 21 reliable sources be a Start in an assessment category. Like, it I see it to be a C at least, no less. Many thanks for helping with my first article on a video game. ;)--Biografer (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Please be careful with articles by experienced editors
First, you confused Polanie I and Polanie II games. They are different games, each of them notable. Second, please don't move articles by established editors, like let's say me, an editor who created probably 2,000 articles, do draft spaces. Experienced editors know what they are doing and don't need to play with draft space. That said, thanks for drawing my attention to the fact P2 article existed on en wiki, I'll try to fix it a bit too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point, feel free to move it, I have no objections to video over computer. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Parkasaurus
I gathered some sources here. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 11:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Galfab


Hello, Jovanmilic97. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Galfab".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Cpt Viraj  (Talk)   15:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MSA Capital
Hi! Thanks for closing Articles for deletion/MSA Capital; however, I don't really think you closed it correctly. I wonder, did you read my comment "I've no objection to creation of a redirect, as proposed by Zanhe, after deletion"? After reading that you could either have left it alone, or closed with that result. As I said in that discussion, this is undisclosed paid editing in mainspace in violation of the Terms of Use, so needs to be deleted. It's not appropriate for me, as nominator in the AfD, to do that now. Could you very kindly either revert your close or change it and find a way of getting the page deleted (G6 should be applicable) so that a clean redirect can then be created? I'm sorry to be a pain, but I really don't think we should be leaving WP:UPE contributions hanging around, even in page histories. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Done! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Queen Sized, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Queen_Sized check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Queen_Sized?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Eric Schulz
Thank you for submitting Draft:Eric Schulz for the AfC review. It is, however, not yet ready for the review, so I stopped the process. I will work on improving it further. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Suzan Der Kirkour
Hi Jovanmilic97. I have no objection to closing Articles for deletion/Murder of Suzan Der Kirkour as Keep since that was quite clearly the consensus. I do strongly object to your closing comment that "Tragic but not notable" is not a valid deletion rationale. It most certainly is an excellent reason for deletion. "My cat died last week" is a tragic but not notable event that would lead to deletion of an article about my poor cat. The consensus is that the murder of Suzan Der Kirkour is notable, period. (and nobody contests that it was tragic but that's beyond the point). Pichpich (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , my point was that the cited comment by PamD (not yours, a valid nomination), represents WP:NOTNOTABLE, which is something that is avoided in AfD and discounted. You need to have a policy or a guideline based reasoning for deleting or keeping an article, simple enough. The tragic part, like you said stands, but the deletion reasoning of the user PamG does not. Updated the closing statement. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Cutie Q
I've spent an hour or two expanding the page (it still needs a bit of work but I can easily fix it). How does it look so far? Namcokid47 (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Page is now complete. Feel free to add stuff to it while I nominate the page for GA. Namcokid47 (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just saw it, great work with limited material available! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Romance of the Three Kingdoms XIV
I added sources and submitted the draft for review. I am not sure if you would be willing to review it again. Thanks for your help. Zeonis1 (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

New message from Stifle
Stifle (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Hassan Shahnawaz Zaidi


Hello, Jovanmilic97. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Hassan Shahnawaz Zaidi".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! HawkAussie (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Drift City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PVP ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Drift_City check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Drift_City?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Bike or Die!
Hi Jobanmilic97. If you get a chance, I would appreciate if you could review the Bike or Die! page and provide feedback on the changes so far. Many thanks. pinchies (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Talos the Untamed
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Talos the Untamed. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

inappropriate relists
inappropriate relists such as this, waste valuable community time. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Articles_for_deletion/Greater_Valley_School,_Greater_Noida
 * I don't think it was inappropriate, especially considering the early Delete vote, and back and forth with Harshil and DreamLinker. There was certainly no consensus at that point. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * you seem to be vote counting without considering the weight of the arguments. This is not vote. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  18:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I am not. Dreamlinker posted some sources and Harshil thinks they aren't enough for GNG. At the very least a one relist is merited to discuss the sources more. Also, I would ask from you to lower that aggressive stance with me, especially with how you started the first post. No need for it. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Given the lengthy discussion at Articles for deletion/Thomson Airways flight BY-1526 could you explain how it meets the WP:RELIST criteria? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel that 1 (and only one max. because of an already big participation) relist should be a good way to achieve a better consensus if possible, for a discussion that has not died down yet. That is because I believe some extra days of discussion could be a benefit for this AfD. Of course that does not prevent anyone to close it before 7 days end post relist if any admin desires to close it as a no consensus. Considering we already have even more discussion post relist, I think it was a good call. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , actually I think the discussion since the relist shows it was a bad call. You have people who've already commented digging their heels in and repeating the conversation. It's not moving forward it's entrenching. I carefully considered that AfD and made a decision not to close it myself but I think there is a policy based consensus to be had there but as a new sysop decided I wanted to compare my proposed action to that of an experienced sysop. If an experienced sysop had found no consensus fair enough but I think this is a good example of why I think NAC should only be done in speedy keep and speedy delete closes - a position I held before I became a sysop. But this isn't the right forum for that, so let me repeat my initial question. Can you explain how your action follows policy and guidelines, WP:RELIST or otherwise. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I find it a similar case as with Gage Creed at the Deletion review/Log/2019 October 6 that the opinions seems to be at the odds as well whether a closure before a relist was merited or not. There are no policies/guidelines that specifically prohibit a relisting in case there is a substantial discussion, in fact, it is recommended to not do it where there isn't. If you wish, I can restore AfD back to the old log/remove my relist tag (not sure if that is possible though now). Also relisting isn't really a NAC (which stands for Non Admin Closure). This relist isn't a substitute for a no consensus, nor it is a repeated relist of an AfD where only one side had good arguments and would turn into a WP:RELISTBIAS. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair point about the current DRV discussion. The other stuff I'll save a response for a more appropriate venue :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * *gulp*. On a serious side, I do agree that some specific rule needs to set regarding the "a lot of conversation-split opinions-one relist or no relists at all?". Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 16:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

G7
See WP:OWN, youre wasting my time on the article, adding a reference is not minor Atlantic306 (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you be any more rude? "Wasting your time?" You added a 70 bytes ref, that is minor, sorry. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Youre the rude one, I also copyedited it, checked all the refs etc, published it and any editor can remove a csd. I suppose you want to remove it from your history to brush up your reputation? Reporting at edit-warring Atlantic306 (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, not there is not even a shred of WP:AGF, congrats. And no, I do not want to remove it because of my reputation (what does that supposed to even mean?). And I am the rude one, okay. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for wasting my time on that article and other editors - there was no reason it should have been deleted, also note you can be blocked for two reverts ( I know it's happened to me) but I wont pursue edit-warring now the article's gone Atlantic306 (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if it looks like you have wasted your time by reviewing it, for that I am truly sorry. I was doing a run-through of my articles, and when I came to this article, I realized it just doesn't meet WP:GNG (and also WP:TVSHOW which doesn't give national shows inherent notability) in my eyes (1 small-ish review on Common Media Sense, and other refs being announcements/ratings/interviews with Larry Sims). It's not related to any reputation or something like that (please, WP:AGF is a core policy). Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft review for Samica (book series)
Dear Jovanmilic97, concerning the rejection of Samica (book series), I can appreciate your concern that "It will need more than references to the website of Samica to meet WP:NBOOK". However, I think that a legitimate exception can and should be made here because it is clearly notable in the area of Sámi studies since four serious volumes on relevant topics have been printed, and a fifth is in the works, all with ISBN numbers and registrations in the German index of available books (which is unfortunately inaccessible due to a paywall). However, because Samica is a not-for-profit publication with no marketing department or any intention of creating a marketing department, Samica has never even attempted to gain publicity as a brand names, and as a result simply has never been mentioned by name in the media, and thus has no cite-able sources.

However, as evidence that it is notable in the area of Sámi studies:
 * volume 2 is the only extant dictionary for the Pite Sámi language, and its initial print run of 530 copies has completely sold out.
 * the publication of volume 2 was covered multiple times in Sámi media, but never mentioned the series Samica (although pictures of the volume can be seen, such as here on this webpage by Norwegian national broadcasting company's Sámi site.
 * volume 5 (a German translation of contemporary Sámi poetry) will be released at the Frankfurt Book Fair (the largest book fair in Germany) next week as part of this year's special focus on Norway –– but, alas, the series is never mentioned by name.
 * Samica has received funding to publish specific volumes from significant Nordic organizations such as the Sámi Parliament of Norway or the Finnish Literature Exchange.

So I request that you reconsider on these grounds, and give the article full status. If and when the Samica series is ever mentioned anywhere in the media by name, I will add references to this article.

PS: I am one of the series editors, but I have no financial conflict of interest with Samica – as mentioned above, it is non-profit, and I receive no material rewards (financially or otherwise) from its success. I'm simply interested in Sámi studies, and thus interested in promoting Sámi studies in many ways. the Samica series is but one of them.

Jpwallop (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

PPS: I managed to find Samica mentioned on the program for the Frankfurt Book Fair for 2019's honorary guest Norway, and have added this reference to the article. Jpwallop (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

PPPS: Furthermore, as User:Michael.riessler asks in a comment on the draft article itself: "why would WP:NBOOK be relevant for a periodical?"Jpwallop (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Then the article itself should be changed to reflect on that. You yourself called Samica as a book series, both in title and in the first sentence, hence the WP:NBOOK suggestion. And yes, it does need to pass WP:GNG as there is no inherent notability for periodicals. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Done now, moved it as a periodical draft title, tweaked the lede to highlight that and resubmitted for you. I never review the same draft twice if improved/something worthwhile comes up for different opinions. Good luck in getting your draft submitted! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the advice, polishing/re-categorizing and re-submitting.Jpwallop (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:GNG WP:NBOOK should be met now, there are various independent sources mentioned in the article. And that the book series (by the way, a "book series" is a kind of periodical, the title is completely fine) truly exists should be clear if it listed in the catalogues of various significant libraries in Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, etc. Michael.riessler (talk) 02:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for reviewing The Art of Elysium. E-Stylus (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Jovanmilic97 - I submitted an edit request for a non-free logo to be added to the above article's infobox, however the request was declined based on the file summary. If possible, would you be willing to share any advice as to whether the revised file summary meets site guidelines? Thank you. E-Stylus (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Request on 21:40:10, 16 October 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by RikuXan
Why would the previous 13 compilations have been noteworthy enough for an article, but the 14th wouldn't? It is already linked in the Above & Beyond box, just currently red.
 * Want me to be honest? Not sure those (or some at least) deserve a separate article. All of those have to meet WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Daikatana
Just wanted to thank you for the sources you provided on the talk page. I expect they will be put to good use pretty soon. GamerPro64 20:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The Halloween Game (South Carolina-Tennessee rivalry)
The South Carolina Gamecocks and Tennessee Volunteers are two SEC East football teams who play every year. Over time, the two have formed a rivalry between one another. This game has typically been played near Halloween, and has been nicknamed "The Halloween Game" by some fans. For example, Tennessee and South Carolina played in 2009 and Tennessee wore black to celebrate Halloween, and some called the rivalry "The Halloween Game" that year. However, some do not feel this is a genuine rivalry and even question the name "Halloween Game". However, there is evidence to support a South Carolina-Tennessee rivalry. Here are some sources:

Knox News › sports › 2018/10/23 UT Vols: Why the South Carolina rivalry is so important to Tennessee

Bleacher Report South Carolina vs. Tennessee: 10 Little Known Facts About the Southern Rivalry

247Sports › tennessee › Article › Te... Tennessee vs. South Carolina: Is it a rivalry? - 247 Sports

Saturday Down South › steve-s... Steve Spurrier has changed the South Carolina-Tennessee rivalry

I ask you to read each source and re-consider the deletion of "The Halloween Game" page. There is evidence to support the fact that it is a college football rivalry and that it should be called "The Halloween Game". Blue Director (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have, and none of the sources mention "Halloween Game" in the text. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Someone once labelled the game "The Halloween Game" on Wikipedia, which is why I called it that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Director (talk • contribs) 23:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Entelo
Hi there. I saw you resisted this. Another admin deleted the page while its still an open AFD. There's no consensus to close, the AFD itself is still open, but the article is deleted so nobody can comment. The admin who deleted it has not been responding to messages. Can you help figure out a solution? Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

AfD
Hi. I always follow up on AfD I have voted on, even if by now there are several thousand of them over the years. So I'll just take the opportunity to gently point out that no one besides yourself mentioned OUTCOMES here. Cheers, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am sad that the AfD went that way, since I am not a fan of high schools' inherent notability. Yes, I did mention it, since it is mostly the reason people do keep on articles like this. Cheers, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I think the close by was entirely appropriate considering the low participation, and of course no one here is disputing the closure. For me however as coord of the schools project, I firmly stand behind my reasoning for keeping secondary/high schools until one of the days a clear policy is expressed on the way they should be treated - and this was an engagement  practically invited me to make during my RfA nearly 9 years ago. What I did find odd, was that where the RfC suggested that OUTCOMES not be cited at AfD, and no one cited it, that you found it necessary to bring it up, thus sorry to say, but I do not find that to be within the spirit of clean discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft review eigencircles
Dear Jovanmilic97,

The draft article contains two references, none of the content is original research.

I refer the two articles of Englefield and Farr.

What can I do more?

Please enlighten me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eigencircle_of_a_2x2_matrix

kind regards Bart vanderbeke (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to put those references to the parts in the article, since Wikipedia articles need to be verified per WP:V. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear Jovanmilic97, OK, will attach specific references in the different lines/paragraphs of the article. cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart vanderbeke (talk • contribs) 14:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear Jovanmilic97 Now there is a reference in almost every line, referring to pages, figures and expressions in the articles. Bart vanderbeke (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Square One: New Evidence in the Michael Jackson Case
I just added more reliable sources to the Draft: Square One: New Evidence in the Michael Jackson Case. I also fixed grammar. Can you please take few moment to review it? .. thanks .Timericon (talk) 19:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems it was accepted, congrats! Didn't see the draft on time, but you did dig 2 solid sources, which is great to see. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I upset you
Didn't mean to come off rude. I value your contributions to the encyclopedia. I am tired, and a bit snippy. A good sign I need to take a break. Best wishes to you.4meter4 (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's totally okay and I am sorry too if I offended you in my posts tone. To just clarify, I am not against WP:NOLY here as an SNG, but the fact that we aren't able to find anything besides it. If we were able to show the subject's accomplishments before that, I would be perfectly fine with keeping it. And thank you for coming here, it shows your civility and good manners. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have no idea whether you are planning to apply for an admin in the near future seeing the large AfD participatiom, but if that happens someday, I will be supporting with no issues. You are a good Wiki contributor, don't forget that. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's sweet of you, but I doubt I would survive that. I was a young and dumb editor 14 years ago with some serious copyright issues and sock puppetry, the whole nine yards. (I was a teenager). I'm not sure I want to live through that kind of scrutiny, even if my edit history in recent years is squeaky clean and something I can be proud of. On the other hand I have a lot of compassion and patience with people because of that which could come in handy in conflict resolution.4meter4 (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Re:Runaway: A Road Adventure
That actually means a lot to me! Thanks so much for dropping that comment off. Runaway is the most ambitious Wikipedia article I've worked on, and I'm really proud of it. Getting a comment about it like this made my day. As an aside, I structured the reception section that way primarily because Runaway's awkward release schedule separated its launches out so much (over a year between Spain and Germany, and two years for the US), and it seemed like the only way to provide due weight and an accurate global perspective was to get creative. But thank you nonetheless, and I hope you have a great rest of the weekend. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Snow polo
I found some sources for that snow polo article at AfC. I don’t have the motivation to do the actual cleanup myself, but looks like a newbie editor who needs some help. Topic definitely notable (covered in Forbes), so definitely salvageable. Maybe ping someone who likes to rescue drafts? Montanabw (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow, excellent work on finding those sources! I may have time in future to clean up the draft, but the subject seems notable. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft review (kon-boot)
Hey Jovan,

Thanks for reviewing my submission. I've used your guidance and I believe the necessary changes were made. Please take a look when you have the time. Regards
 * No problem, thanks for being so nice! I don't review the same thing twice, since I want to let the other AFC reviewers have an opinion on this. Good luck! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Digital Engineering
thank you for your review,

the goals section was a direct reference to the presentation to the professional society for systems engineers that has come to define the term in the US dept. of defense and its contractors.

I know it smells of some contractor trying to sell their product, BUT it is being taught in my grad school classes. I was shocked to find the page missing here and it is needed to help those undergrad and others understand what is going to be a significant shift in how all engineering is preformed.

There is an EXTREMELY limited amount of other references for this new area of systems engineering, it would be a shame to cut the goals section that defines the vision. BUT if that is required cut whatever you think is needed. I just want to get this out there to help other systems engineers students trying to understand the new term. NPS-UF EDU (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I do realize that, but I am not really an expert in this kind of things, so I wouldn't be able to properly clean it up. Sorry. Good luck on getting your draft accepted in the future if you pull it off! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
Fat finger on the close script, was about to edit it but there's an edit conflict.  SITH   (talk)   14:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! I was following the category of AfD debates, so I found it weird when I saw that one. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ruairi O'Connor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Ruairi_O%27Connor check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Ruairi_O%27Connor?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Question
Um, excuse me. I don't think this is the right place to ask, but how many sources would my draft need to be accepted? I added two more at least. Ccccchaton000 (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , there is no specific number so the reviewer has to think there are multiple WP:SIGCOV coverage of the game itself. I have submitted the draft for you. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Karoline Kamakshi has been accepted
 Karoline Kamakshi, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Karoline_Kamakshi help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

RE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Smart_Export_Guarantee Review
Hi Jovan, on your review of my draft you suggest I merge with feed-in tariffs. However, those are subsidy schemes, whereas Smart Export Guarantee is a renewable energy scheme being launched by all energy suppliers on Jan 1st 2020. Funds aren't from the government and instead of the suppliers, the suppliers set the rules on their own tariffs (as opposed to a feed-in tariff, which is set by the regulator Ofgem).

Additionally, I have added the BBC as a source to this, as well as adding more Energy Savings Trust articles, as they are the most trusted independent source in this area. Hearmeroar93 (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of games by 2XL Games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_games_by_2XL_Games check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_games_by_2XL_Games?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Declined G11 speedies; Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, LaunchCode
Hi Jovanmilic97 -- I've declined a couple of your G11 speedy tags. G11 only applies to articles that are irredeemably promotional, and would need to be blanked and restarted from scratch. Usually it's best just to try to clean up the promotional language (Encyclopedia of Life Sciences) or take the article to AfD if notability is in question (LaunchCode). Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck
 豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune. このミラPはJovanmilic97たちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！ フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE! ミラP 03:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!


Jovanmilic97, Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

– 2020 is a leap year   – news article. – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year Send New Year cheer by adding     to user talk pages.

– Utopes (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and Happy New Year to you too! May all your wishes come true. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Resubmitted Draft for movie article with more references as per your note - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Looking_for_Iilonga
As per your feedback I have updated the Looking for Iilonga Draft:Looking for Iilonga I hope the updated version is up to standard. Thank you for your feedback NamibianCinema (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am going to leave to another reviewer to decide, but good luck! I have removed IMDB as it's unreliable to use as a direct ref in the article and cleaned it up a bit! Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It's much appreciated. NamibianCinema (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Afterfall
Afterfall was originally a redirect in mainspace to Afterfall: Insanity. Please refer to its edit history. Jalen Folf  (talk)  00:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no substansial edit history of the redirect besides creation/bot re-redirection. But I won't interfere with this anymore. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC).

Draft:Rybakov Foundation
Hello, dear Jovanmilic97! I congratulate you on the past New Year holidays! Can you please help me? I left a request to review the article Draft:Rybakov Foundation. Can you please see it, I would be happy if you moved the article to the mainspace. I will be grateful to you! 195.123.220.225 (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Yōichi Amano
Hello Jovanmilic97. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Yōichi Amano, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: having your work published in the largest magazine of its kind indicates significance. Thank you. So Why  09:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Recent WP:ELNO cleanup at Dungeons %26 Dragons Online
Hi, this is regarding this change. It seems to me that you were a bit overzealous with the WP:ELNO cleanup. Thanks for your time. Cru121 (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * the twitch link is an official streaming channel with frequent contribs from game staff. Moreover, people interested in DDO might be also interested in a gameplay video, and this is where twitch can help. Maybe.
 * the wiki is 14 years old, has 50+ active users within the last 30 days; has over 50,000 pages including 12,000+ articles and 16,500+ files. Not sure if that counts as "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors", I thought it might.

F1 Manager
Dear Jovanmilic97,

Can this article please about the EA F1 Manager game be deleted as it is not notable, doesn't include sufficient source material, and having this article live results in contradictory information to the Google Knowledge panel when you google search for F1 Manager which brings up the F1 Manager title by Hutch from last year.

Update - I've done as you request regarding the deletion request hopefully what I did was ok? Also is there any chance you could help me get an article published for the current F1 Manager title. This is an official F1 licensed title, which at present has had millions of downloads and has hundreds of thousands of daily users so I feel it certainly warrants an article over many other mobile titles which have articles about them. Getting this article published will also mean that the Google Knowledge Panel will pull through the correct information for the game.

Thanks webster023 (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Anveshanam (2020 film)
Hello :)

Can you Please help me to make my article better? Likantk (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You didn't understand me. There was nothing wrong with your draft, but the article for the film already exists at Anveshanam, which you can freely improve yourself now. There is no need for the draft. Regards, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)