User talk:Onel5969/Archive 103

Archive 103:June 2022

NPP
I'm apologise for the late message; I haven't been as active for a while. I hope you reconsider retiring from NPP, because I think you do a lot of genuine good there. The only reason you were blocked was because of your edit warring, stubborn obfuscation, and persistent obstructionism. Specifically cherry-picking (and misusing) WP:BURDEN to "win" unlimited reverts and circumvent policy in bad faith, while also canvassing, filibustering, and casting aspersions when experienced editors point you to other policies. You kept doing this even after you were told that there was no edit warring exemption for that and you were pointed to a plethora of policies that you chose to ignore (such as WP:ATD-R and WP:DISPUTE). No user can unilaterally decide to redirect an article and keep it there without consensus, and you were advised to open an WP:AFD more than once. Several attempts were made to discuss the disagreement with you on various talk pages, but you ignored all of them. The only time you replied to anything was to filibuster by repeating the same point ad nauseum (long after it had been addressed) and refusing to say anything else. Eventually, you resorted to campaigning other NPP members to help you out, which by itself was block-worthy behaviour.

You were fortunate the first time you were reported, because that was closed (prematurely) due to inactivity after getting bludgeoned by partisans and the people you canvassed from NPPR. But the following month, you boomeranged yourself anyway after continuing the same behaviour. Given that you had been doing this across multiple articles in different topic areas, and were engaged in personal attacks and canvassing, the administrator was being generous by only blocking you from the one article.

You have been editing long enough that I know you understand what you did wrong. You don't need to stop doing good work at NPP, unless that's just what you want to do. You only need to drop the WP:OWN "My way or the highway" approach and not engage in disruption like this in the future. That doesn't seem like eggshells. All of that conflict was easily avoidable if you hadn't tried to dodge the dispute resolution and deletion processes to get your way faster.  Dark knight  2149  03:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, all I can say, if you haven't been active, that's probably a good thing for Wikipedia, perhaps you should reconsider becoming active. Regardless, don't post on my talk page again. Onel 5969  TT me 09:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * +1, that was an unusually cruel and nasty post and having read the ANI links, it seems DK has been stalking Onel for some time. Blocking Onel, even temporarily, was an own-goal scored by an admin who has very little experience with the NPP process and the work required and the challenges faced. They should apologize. 78.19.228.144 (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions
Hey you should join the The 50,000 Challenge since you make so many Arizona state legislator articles. Jon698 (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I find "challenges" to be a waste of time.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Rivian R1S
Hi. Re the Rivian R1S, you made an edit in January this year to restore a poor article to a redirect. I agree with that edit, then. [BTW, I created the original redirect in 2019.]

Another editor has recently (6 June) made the redirect into an article once again.

I stumbled onto it today, and found it has a couple of very poor sources (possibly click bait sites recycling old 2019/2020 material into 2022 material for clicks). I've made a few edits and clarified that the sources are poor.

Would ask that if you have time, you take a look and see if you think it even warrants an article, rather than a redirect. I'll try to stay involved with the convo as well, as I have definitely edited the Rivian R1T article in the past, and I believe Rivian is significantly underproducing the volume of that vehicle (can't manufacture to demand), has recently increased the price a lot, and all of that might make "production" of the R1S highly suspect. But I'd be happy to be convinced by multiple good current sources. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It appears to have enough sourcing in the current article to warrant its inclusion.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:15, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Harry J. Karns
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of M4A (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on M4A (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for H. B. Wilkinson
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Another NPP school question
Hi Onel5969. Anyways, I noticed that the NPP school page says to nominate 5 successful G11s and G12s from the New Pages Feed, but only the G12s part mentions that I can count draft CSD's. I was wondering if G11s for drafts could count towards this too? So far I've found it easier to identify these issues with drafts than articles created directly in mainspace, even if I haven't had 5 of each yet. But if it's imperative that G11s are found through the New Page Patrol feed instead of the Articles for Creation one, I can do that eventually. Clover moss (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi - first, my apologies for not getting back to you sooner.  This kind of got lost.  Second, I'm a bit confused by your question.  G12 deals with copyright violations, while G11 is advertising/promotion.  Copyright issues trump anything else, as it is a legal thing. It's one of the reasons that when I was reviewing I always did my earwig check first.  This exercise is about Copyvios.  Looking at your CSD log, you're doing fine on G11s.  Remember, you have to use Twinkle for it to appear on your log.  If you do it manually, or use the page curation tool, it won't show up. Hope this answers your question.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's the way the two sections are phrased. One explicitly states to use the New Pages Patrol feed for G11s, the other section about G12s says that I can use the New Pages Patrol feed or the Articles for Creation one. My question was if I could use the Articles for Creation feed for G11s, too. Also don't apologize for taking a bit to get to me, I'm the one who's taken almost a year to get through all this. Clover moss  (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay,, I see now what you're asking. In short, no.  The AfC fee is for drafts, and you can't G11 a draft.  In those cases you should leave a comment for the article creator telling them what the problems are, e.g. promotional, weasel words, advertising, etc.  You can only G11 live articles.  The only speedies I'm aware of that you can use on drafts are G12 or G13.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've successfully G11'd drafts? All of my G11s this month have been drafts but they were really really blatant unambigous advertising, which is kind of the point of G11. I can wait for nominating G11s through the New Pages Feed if that's important, though. Clover moss  (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Specifically Draft:KANIKA KHANNA, Draft:Why automation necessary ? and Draft:Bees Network Ltd.. Each page was deleted by a different administrator. I thought that G deletions were for pages in general? I could be wrong, though. As for how I've been nominating for deletion, the only times I've manually did that was in 2019, I think? It's hard to know for sure because I can't see that as I'm not an admin. I've been using Twinkle for this since late 2019, though. Haven't done it through page curation because I don't technically have the new page patroller right yet. Unless you're talking about the Afc reviewer tool? I'm aware that the processes are different, but I'm fairly certain page curation has to do with NPP. I was actually going to ask when I should apply for NPP... is it sometime throughout the NPP school process or after I've finished? I get that you technically don't have to do either of those things to apply for userrights, but what are your thoughts? Clover moss  (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My experience at AFC is that they tag drafts G11 that are promo and that aren't worth fixing (the bad ones). When I first started, I tried never using G11 in draftspace, and found that others would quickly G11 and delete the ones I didn't tag. I also agree with the statement that it is hard to find G11's in mainspace, especially if one is following the "15 minute rule" advised at WP:NPP. There's often someone that will tag it G11 quicker than 15 minutes. Hope that helps. – Novem Linguae (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to find G11s in mainspace literally everyday for about a month and I haven't had any "luck" (if you can call identifying spam as luck). To be fair most of the time I was only checking the New Pages Feed once or twice a day. I was also doing my best to not go against the "don't rush this" advice. I'm assuming G11s in mainspace were more common before ACTRIAL was a thing? I started editing in late 2018 so I've always been used to seeing draftspace, but I find reading old policy discussions interesting sometimes. The idea of people being able to create articles directly in mainspace on like their first edit... I can see why the community was like "yeah this isn't the best idea". Especially with biographies. Geez.  Clover moss  (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , I haven't actively reviewed in several months, but when I was, I didn't go a day without finding an article or two which was eligible for G11. Granted, I reviewed between 100-200 articles per day, so it was "easier" for me to find examples of most things. But in NPP school is training, to make sure you have grasp of the concepts, and you obviously do of G11, so I wouldn't worry about it anymore.  Onel 5969  TT me 09:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. I'll still work on the G12s. Do you think I should apply for the New Page Patroller right or that I should wait? Or you don't have an opinion on that since you're no longer reviewing? I'm somewhat aware of what happened but I don't pretend to understand because I'm not in your shoes. Clover moss  (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Kingdom of Oblivion
Hi One15969, on Metacritic four independent reviews are aggregated, is this not enough to say it is notable? Tekstman (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC) PS it is not my article, just happen to stumble on your redirect
 * Hi - it depends.  If the underlying reviews are from credible sources, and in-depth about the song/album, then it's most likely notable, but those full reviews should be referenced, not simply the metacritic piece.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Two of those reviews were already separately referenced, so I think there is no issue in me reviving the article then. Tekstman (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ray Ferguson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Daily Standard.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)