User talk:Spiderone/Archive 93

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi Spiderone. Your account has been added to the " " user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember: The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging  pages for  maintenance so  that  they are aware.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
 * If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.
 * I have revoked this per your multiple inappropriate draftifications, cut/paste moves, and CSDs. When a page is moved back to mainspace after a NPR draftification, it is inappropriate to move it back. If deletion is necessary, Deletion process should be followed. You should never cut and paste the article back to the draft or redirect an article to a draft and then nominate it for speedy deletion under R2. The page history is legally required for attribution to comply with the license. Three cases that I just encountered of you doing all three of these are Jakkajan Wanwisa, Kat Rattikarn, and Praewa Patcharee. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 09:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for clarifying. Is there any likelihood of me being able to regain the right later down the line? Also, in the case of Kat Rattikarn, where the only source is a broken link to their personal Facebook page, are such articles eligible for BLPPROD? Spiderone  09:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you give it a few months before applying at PERM. In the meantime, please review WP:DRAFTIFY. If the "source" doesn't support any statements made about the person, then yes. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 08:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * also please revert Draft:Hay Chutima if needed as it looks like this was also a second draftication that was challenged by the creator. Spiderone  09:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You can do that yourself. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 08:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, can you see this article now 1977 Shia protests in Iraq,,, thank you ,,,Hamaredha (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much ,,,Hamaredha (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

EVFTA
Dear Spiderone, I wish you all the best for the new year! Combined with a Thanks for the deleting/redirecting the EVFTA article to the European Union–Vietnam Free Trade Agreement which I have created today (I started with EVFTA but then realized the full name is better/correct).

BTW: I have the impression that many (new) EU topics do not have so excellent articles in EN WP (FR or DE articles are often better). Perhaps it´s the case that the contributors' attention reflects the estrangement UK / EU (without my wishing to judge it; I just find it logical).

Have a good Sunday! --F.Blaubiget (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - you're welcome. You probably have a fair point about UK editors' reluctance to write good articles on the EU! I appreciate what you're doing! Spiderone  13:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for saying so, I will do my best - and will hopefully have more time for EN WP this year.


 * One question: Is there a way to see which contributor has reviewed an article? Can't find anything when I created an article. Thanks again --F.Blaubiget (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe you can check on your 'notices' to the left of your talk page at the top of your screen. Spiderone  14:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Belated: Thank you dear Spiderone! I wish you a lovely Sunday (after a strange first week of the new year) --F.Blaubiget (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

same to you as well! It certainly is shaping up to be another odd year! Spiderone 18:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed article for deletion
Hello,

I recently proposed deletion of the article Urban Service Track. I posted on the talk page in 2013 and again in 2018, suggesting the article is not sufficiently notable to justify the article - that's the rationale for the proposed deletion. Created Articles for deletion/Urban Service Track. Just FYI. Rytyho usa (talk)
 * - that's absolutely fair enough. I did a quick search and the organisation gets a lot of hits on Google but nothing that strikes me as being significant so definitely worth a deletion discussion. Spiderone  08:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible article deletion
I noticed that you nominated the article Naeem Charles for deletion, however I don't think that it should be deleted. There multiple references that include primary sources, and all of the information is true and accurate. Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - Firstly, a deletion nomination does not mean that I don't think that the information is accurate. Wikipedia has notability guidelines, the most important of which is WP:GNG. For Charles to qualify for an article, there must exist multiple sources showing significant coverage of him as an individual. Significant coverage needs to be more than just a passing mention and it needs to be more than just an entry in a database website such as Global Sports Archive. If such sources do exist, please do link them in the deletion discussion and please feel free to add them to the article as well, although that second part is not essential for the article to be kept. Spiderone  22:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary deletion of articles
I'd like to point out that User:Sro23 has been arbitrarily deleting newly created pages without any proper procedure, such as Isa Jafari and Ihor Skochylyas. Additionally, he has repeatedly vandalized the page Robiro Terán, deleting it and replacing it with a mere redirect. --31.158.158.194 (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Following Comment at AFD
Per this if you decide to take this to AFD I will fully support you and !vote accordingly. Celestina007 (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - thanks! It definitely warrants a discussion so I've started one here Spiderone  16:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Three users have warned so far
Hi, I already commented in one AFD where the user cupper is simply nominating articles for AFD without following proper steps. Now I believe its true because anither user has also pointed out this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cupper52#AfD_-_Thomas_Delany Please take necessary actions. Thankyou Kichu🐘 Discuss 16:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - hi there, I'm not an admin so can only issue warnings and not blocks. I understand your concern about the AfDs but please consider continuing to speak to Cupper on their talk page. I don't see any massive problems here. If the subjects are notable, they will be kept. If you believe that Cupper is acting in bad faith and have tried talking to Cupper and don't feel happy that the issue is resolved, then please start a discussion at WP:ANI. ANI is a last resort and you must notify Cupper if you decide to do this. I hope this helps. Spiderone  16:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou. Please see this discussion also and can you please tell me whether I should go for ANI https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Delany#Thomas_Delany Kichu🐘 Discuss 17:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - I agree that it's a questionable AfD but it was done in good faith and I can understand why it was brought to AfD. The user has been spoken to a few times on their talk page so, as long as all future AfD nominations are appropriate, I don't see an issue Spiderone  17:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou for the advice. I will act accordingly. Let me find whether the user is actually doing it on good faith or with other any intentions. Happy editing ... Kichu🐘 Discuss 17:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are welcome Spiderone  17:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Your review of article Maurice Novoa
Hi, I was a little confused when the page that you reviewed Maurice Novoa has been nominated for deletion, I understand that if there is an issue with the page the reviewer normally indicates it with some kind of template. Is it possible you may have missed something? The article has national print news sources so I don’t see how someone outside of Australia can know much about them if there are not online. Any advice would be much appreciated, Cheers Australianblackbelt (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - hi, I'm not perfect so sometimes I will endorse an article because it looks to meet notability guidelines but other users will disagree, which is fine. With that being said, I think that there's enough coverage to suggest that this should not be deleted as an uncontroversial PROD. Spiderone  19:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing it up, you are most certainly right about more articles out there on the Novoa specially when there were several national print edition Spanish news papers. I know for a fact he was featured many time in a paper called Noticias y Deportes understandably people don't don't keep those papers and back then facebook was not a thing so its practically impossible to find unless one goes to the national library archives which is something I'm not willing to do as a volunteer. I do believe this year is his martial arts club 10th year anniversary seeing as it says he started the club in 2011, so there may well be something published about him this year. There is only one Spanish national news paper left in this country its called El Español. Cheers, Australianblackbelt (talk)

Help
Hey Spiderone, I had few doubts about page writing.. My articles always have mistakes.. No matter how hard I try, Can you please guide me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shreyaunchalli (talk • contribs) 07:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - hi there! It's the way that the article is referenced. The references need to be exactly after the statement in which they support. I will have a look in about an hour or so and give you an example of what I mean. Thanks! Spiderone  15:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - please see the note that I left on your talk page regarding the above Spiderone  19:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Duntech
thanks on that edit. Not sure how I missed the '06 PROD in the history. Will take to AfD shortly should you wish to weigh in there. StarM 17:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I just found it when looking at Database reports/PRODed articles with deletion logs :) Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wasn't aware of that page before and watching that now. So double thanks. Have a good day!      StarM 17:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

FYI on Unknown User Double
See Sockpuppet investigations/220.120.78.242 David notMD (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Wilbertostucko.jpg


The file File:Wilbertostucko.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned image, no context to determine possible future use."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

article
I think the article County University Soccer Stadium is good because it has reliable sources. I know that there aren't really secondary sources, but I will look for some and add them in. --Ajax.amsterdam.fan (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - no problem. Please do add some secondary sources if you find any. As long as they are reliable sources, we can and should add them. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Why do you tag the page of this Iranian character?
Hi Why do you tag Masoumeh's page repeatedly? Because they are Iranians? I have a question for you? Why are you doing this because he is Iranian, unless there is a place for racial discrimination in Wikipedia? Unless the user wrote the page that the page is being created I'm sorry for you too You are not a wiki writer You frequently tagged this page But there is a place of enmity in Wikipedia Why Why Why? J E L O D A R (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why?Why?Why do editors always think it's something nefarious or personal when this sort of thing happens. I don't know for sure but I am almost 100% certain that Spiderone is not sitting at home thinking about the next article on an Iranian he can delete. There is no evidence of specific subject discrimination here. The basic notability guideline is intentionally discriminatory because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Notability must be proved through the sources based on the criteria. No sources based on the criteria means no article on Wikipedia. -- A Rose Wolf  19:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - correct. There's no agenda here. Wikipedia does ask for sources to be reliable and independent. This was simply not the case with this article and it was unfortunately just misuse of Wikipedia as Linkedin. Something that I am growing increasingly tired of. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My frustrations run much deeper. The application of vaguely written SNG's and those written with an obvious bias for specific subjects and against basic notability requirements are rampant throughout the encyclopedia. The answer is not to rewrite SNG's or even come up with more. They need to get rid of everything in WP:N, and rewrite GNG as THE notability guideline under WP:N. Make it clear. Make it decisive. Make it absolute. Wipe out all of these SNG's and essays. Then we can have a proper evaluation of notability and see where improvement can be made upon that to be more inclusive if need be. -- A Rose Wolf  19:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * DO NOT make any changes as another guideline or anything other than a revision to the ONLY notability policy of Wikipedia on that page. -- A Rose Wolf  19:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The SNGs are certainly controversial; for many years now they have led to the creation of hundreds of thousands of barely sourced and barely informative articles on the basis of presumed notability rather than proven notability. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly! And look, you know me well enough from my brief time here. Would you consider me an advocate for wholesale deletion of articles? I personally think the encyclopedia should be expanding. Not like this though. This is chaos with very little control. That is due to a lack of framework. The house is going to fall one day. -- A Rose Wolf  20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For me, it's important we expand on quality rather than just quantity. Back when we had to write on paper, you could never justify an 'article' on someone that has played 3 minutes of their sport and who had no coverage otherwise. It would be a complete waste. Yes, I'm aware of WP:NOTPAPER but we should still be somewhat selective. I sometimes think that people would rather their favourite sports player had an article, even if it's a one sentence stub, than actually concern themselves with having high quality and reliable content which we should strive for. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's even deeper than this and I will admit I have fallen into this trap in the past. The turning point for me happened about a month or so ago. I was literally distraught over information I had added to existing articles here being removed, though some of the information was correct it came from vastly unreliable sources and I should have known that. Sometimes you get stuck in this state of tunnel vision and you are so focused on trying to find sources for every statement that you lose sight of the quality of sources you are using. Any way, I wrote my mothers sister and she chastised me hardcore about even editing here. For whatever reason they do not like Wikipedia. I was feeling down and ready to quit for the second time in six months. My daughter who is going on 9 now looked at me one day and said she had been watching me. She sits under the blanket with me a lot as I edit here. She asked me why coming here makes me so sad. I told her what happened. She literally looked at me and said, "Mama, does writing about those things make you who you are?" I stopped in my tracks and looked at her and she continued, "I mean, you can't be happy until there is something on Wikipedia about who you are?" I needed that slap to the face. It put everything into perspective. I don't need Wikipedia to define me, my beliefs, my character, my life. I am me whether there is a Wikipedia article on it or not. Even if Wikipedia removes every article on every subject I care about, it doesn't reduce its importance to me by even the slightest of degrees. That is a freeing experience. It allows me to look at articles from the perspective of literally worded policy and guideline rather than allow my emotions and feelings to get involved. Don't get me wrong, I am not a "deletionist" but I am able to look at things more selective. Some editors who have been here for many years can't say that. They haven't experienced it and I see them still react to policy with feeling. -- A Rose Wolf  15:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I have a very 'black and white' thought process so, for me, notability is just a fact. It's notable or it isn't. This will, inevitably, cause conflict even though I don't deliberately try to cause such conflicts. I understand why emotions can get involved, though, and I too am 'proud' of some of the work that I've done here and would be a little upset if some of it were deleted. I think people take it really badly if it's an autobiography. I've had people very vehemently argue that they 'deserve' an article on Wikipedia as if it is their God-given right to be on here. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @, That’s a common tactic used predominantly by COI/UPE editors(I’m not calling the creator of the article in question a paid editor) this is merely generic, when you put their non notable articles for deletion they begin guilt tripping you or casting aspersions, or making asinine comments such as “Is it because I’m a woman” “Do you hate blacks” “Are you racist” blah blah blah, It’s an endless list really.  Furthermore, on SNG's, I definitely understand your frustrations as I have experienced how perplexing it can be, imho the most baffling and vexing would have to be WP:NPOL which states “” imo, the emphasis here should be on the  word “Presumed” but majority of the editors here erroneously assume if the politician meets any criterion from WP:NPOL it translates to automatic notability for the politician, not considering the fact that the word “presumed” is/was used & not “. I found my self in a very annoying situation in which the subject of the article didn’t have a single solid source discussing her with in-depth significant coverage other than name dropping her as a member of parliament, I pointed this out, but no editor was having it, in so far as she met a criterion, to them she is/was automatically notable. The fact is SNG’s can be irritating, but sometimes they are of help, theoretically speaking, if a scientist who was a recluse and disliked human interaction discovered the cure for cancer, I wouldn’t expect a lot of google hits to pop out on them that truly satisfies WP:GNG, which requires in-depth significant coverage, No source would be able to achieve that seeing that as I hypothetically stated; the scientist is a recluse who dislikes human interaction, thus he automatically fails GNG, but that doesn’t mean he/she isn’t going to be considered notable as they have would have made a great achievement thus I’m appreciative of SNG’s in those type of situations. @Spiderone, yes! It’s so annoying when editors write an autobiography & explain why they deserve one as though it were a de-facto mechanism of Wikipedia works. “I’m famous so yeah I deserve a frigging 'page'. Celestina007 (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is frustrating because we may actually have real issues with the notability guideline but we will never get to the point of fixing it because everything around it is so vague and changes from one SNG to the next. I have taken editors to task on that "presumed" nonsense. I always initially assume good faith but nothing anywhere in Wikipedia says we have to perpetually assume good faith when you open your mouth, in this case through your fingers, and prove to us you don't understand the basic definitions of such words. It does not help that SNG's further discriminate but in the opposite direction. GNG is the most exclusive guideline we have here. A lot of the SNG's are the most inclusive guidelines we have. The rest of the SNG's refer you to the WP:N for notability but stick that "presumed" word in there just to muddy it up further. --- A Rose Wolf  17:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as the hypothetical scientist who "found the cure for cancer" but is a hermit goes, my question would be, is the cure notable or the one who found it notable? You can easy mention the founder in an article on the cure. But is that person notable outside of this momentary flash in time? Wikipedia has rules against writing articles for individuals who are victims of a crime, even when the crime itself is notable. What is notable is the event. Not saying I personally agree but taking the words at their literal meaning the person's involved do not inherit notability because of the events notability. Its why I disagree with the killers getting articles detailing their entire life while victims are a footnote. If the policy is to be adhered to in one case then it should be adhered to in all cases. In the case of the scientist, by the letter of the law as to what is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, they may not be notable. -- A Rose Wolf  17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry for the late reply, I didn’t get a ping. As to the hypothetical scenario, you do raise a valid point as to who is truly notable, the scientist or their work, if I were to give a blanket answer I’d say both are, at least that’s the general consensus for now. I think ANYBIO#2 & NACADEMIC#7 makes the scientist notable. Celestina007 (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That may be my fault. I do apologize. I agree that those SNG's would make the scientist notable. There in lies the discrimination. Take out the significance of the event. Why should the scientist who is known for one event, be given a pass while other subjects, like the murder victim of a crime in which their was an actual crime bill passed into law as the result of their death, are denied because of their involvement in one event, WP:BLP1E Point# 1 is even wrongly attributed to these cases, though the victims of a murder are clearly not living persons. Under just the GNG and N criteria, the events may be notable but the participants, I use that word loosely, would not be. SNG's create a social hierarchy and caste in which some subjects are counted as more important than others and built-in advantages are given to them over others even when the situations, regardless of significance, are similar. -- A Rose Wolf  18:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Jairaj Varsani
Hi, Just wanted to ask why IMDb is a reliable source. It is the world's number 1 film database. I Will change the source for Jairaj Varsani, but I think IMDb is the most reliable DDP-Trooper1777 (talk) 07:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - Please see WP:IMDB - the content is generated by its users and is not regularly checked. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I have now added 'more reliable' sources, they are from books/newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DDP-Trooper1777 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding more reliable sources. My issue is that these only cover Varsani at a very basic level. In fact, in all of them, he is only mentioned once. Have you got any reliable sources that give him more than just a short mention? I searched myself and couldn't find any. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, yes I will be able to find more reliable infomation talking about Varsani in more detail. I'll add them and let you know. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DDP-Trooper1777 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Please could you remove the templates at the top, as all infomation is from a reliable source and correct. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by DDP-Trooper1777 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * - the discussion is still not finished, I'm afraid. I still don't believe that the sources show that he meets either of the notability criteria found under WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG or even WP:BASIC. My concern is that the sources do not address Varsani in depth. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Please could you let me know how detailed the sources need to be. I gave a source that links to the sentence. He appears in all of the films/tv shows provided with sources from trusted newspapers. Since he just came into acting the source don't have info of his personal life, just his acting career. DDP-Trooper1777 (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - There's no exact length but I would expect at least three sources where there is at least a paragraph about him. He may qualify under WP:NACTOR even if failing GNG but I can't see any evidence that he has multiple significant roles in major productions. Only one of his roles could be argued to be significant. Nor does he have a notably large fan base nor has he revolutionised acting or broken any records etc. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Steven Richter
I would like to know what issues you have with [|Steven Richter's] page so that i can improve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RRfeatures (talk • contribs) 11:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - I haven't stated any opinion on Richter yet. I'm happy to have a look at the sources later, though. I'll leave a comment on the deletion discussion page. Kind regards Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I just don't understand why one would think this is biased. None of the links are self made, they are mostly reviews of his films. There is a wikipedia link to his school in Brazil. If you don't think the poster is notable enough for their film work, as in not being famous, then look at the film school. The AIC is the largest film school in Brazil and one of the most well known. RRfeatures (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , easy to answer, notability is not inherited from related persons or objects such as schools to other individuals. Just because his school is notable and has a page does not mean he is notable and should have a page. Both have to withstand Wikipedia's very discriminatory process for inclusion on their own merits. Even if I personally agreed with you that the subject should be included but policy says it shouldn't then I will vote to delete or not include it. Maybe policy should be changed. We wont know if we navigate around it just because we personally feel it is wrong. -- A Rose Wolf  19:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

iulian adrian voinescu
Good evening. I wanted to know how i can improve the page of iulian, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iulian_Adrian_Voinescu. I am a beginner. I try to do my best. I am ready to listen any advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugok47 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello ! Thank you for your work so far and your willingness to improve Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Voinescu is not yet a player that meets WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. He has not yet played a game of football at professional level and the articles about him only cover him very briefly and don't go into any detail about him. He may well be notable in future, in which case he will be able to have an article here. Wikipedia is a general encyclopaedia so it's important to understand that we don't have articles on absolutely every single footballer in the world so it's important to have guidelines like GNG to help us establish who is notable. If you want to create new articles about football, we have a big list at Requested articles/Sports/Association football (soccer), all of which are notable topics. If any of these topics interest you, please feel free to create! Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you i will try to create a page about slovakian female player from [], Karina Pelikanova. There are very few women players pages on wikipedia. Do you think its a good idea? Or there are not enough entrances on internet about her ? thanks
 * - I don't think she has enough coverage for an article yet and she is still only a youth player for Slovakia. There are some senior players that need articles as they play for the Slovakia senior team, including Stela Semanová and Laura Žemberyová. I would start with these two first. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Youjay

 * I thought I am doing in sand box but rough draft erroneously get into live space, please ignore and deleteU.J (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, which article are you referring to?  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, dear the first rough draft article was erroneously came into live space, I thought I am working in sandbox but that was live actually, kindly ignore being a new user mistakes, you may delete that one.

The second time I tried to make article being too vigilant, please remove its deletion nomination as I did late night sittings and research for my first publication. I will really appreciate if I am encouraged to let my workings be published after necessary editing whatsoever, thanks.U.J (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Harassment
Hello, I have a question, a user is following me and my edits and is constantly harassing me. How should I inform this so that they stop following me?--ارتین محمدیان (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I took pictures of my articles from Persian Wikipedia and put exactly the same content in the description here. The user tags all my edits by following me. The interesting thing is that I tagged an article and they removed it quickly because they are following my edits. Please stop harassing me. Please tell the user not to bother me.--ارتین محمدیان (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * hi! Have you left a message on the user's talk page? Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I do not know much about what message I should leave, but take a look at my discussion and you will see that the user is following me.--ارتین محمدیان (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:AGF; always assume good faith. If the behaviour is such that it is causing genuine distress then please read WP:HARASSMENT. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The user is very upset with me. I take pictures from Persian and upload them here because they are approved in Persian, but the user tags them quickly.--ارتین محمدیان (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)