This editor is a WikiGnome.     WikiGnome - User page << February >> Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 2024 Today is Friday 2 February 2024 JoeNMLC, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit] Hi JoeNMLC! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 22:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC) 2020 Talk Your edit at Template:Sangamon County, Illinois[edit] This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. Hi JoeNMLC, Please be careful with editing templates, you added a second state parameter. I've removed it now - RichT|C|E-Mail 19:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Rich Smith: - Yes, I see that it shows "state" of Illinois. Wondering how to add |state = (({state|autocollapse))} so that the navbox can collapse? JoeNMLC (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] Do it where the template is called, like ((Wikipedia template messages|state=collapsed)) I see you tried that... not sure then... I've added the Help Me template to this thread so other editors who may know better than me can assist - RichT|C|E-Mail 20:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Rich Smith and JoeNMLC: Hi, your friendly local techie here :) The problem here was that the template was just transcluding a template lower down the "tree", so to speak, without passing any parameters you set on down there - so the underlying template for that box didn't know about the collapse template set on this specific type of box. I've added the relevant parameter to this box template now, and passed it through to the lower level - so, long story short, it's working! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Rich Smith: - Thanks. Way beyond I could have ever figured out. Changed one more article & this solution works Ok. Cheers! JoeNMLC (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit] Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] 2021 Talk Requesting some help[edit] Greetings, Thanks for your recent help in the article Black Sea trade and economy to create a suitable lead from article content. I would like to request you to provide similar help to create the lead for the article History of the Black Sea if possible. Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Bookku: - Often the easiest way to construct the article lead is by viewing another lead example. When I look at Mediterranean Sea article with link to History of the Mediterranean region both of these show well written lead summarizing the content. So for History of the Black Sea I would recommend moving more content from Black Sea history section into the history article. That way it will make writing lead easier. Regards, 15:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC) A barnstar for you[edit] The Portal Barnstar The Portal Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who have made significant contributions to topic portals. This barnstar goes to you for your significant work in expanding the Selected pictures entries at Portal:Astronomy. Thanks for your work to improve the portal, and for improving the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's WP:READERS! North America1000 22:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Northamerica1000: This award is quite unexpected & I am honored to accept the Barnstar. My earliest interests were science and geography. Not sure how that fits in with my 40+ years in the computer industry. Now being retired I enjoy helping to improve Wikipedia. For Astronomy, "Selected pictures" I'm working through the Zodiac constellations, choosing pictures that are both varied and somewhat educational so the Portal readers who are new to Astronomy may learn interesting facts about our universe. JoeNMLC (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] It's nice work, and the portal has grown a lot since you started expanding it. Keep up the good work! North America1000 13:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] Speedy deletion nomination of Herbert Friedman[edit] If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article. You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles. A tag has been placed on Herbert Friedman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable. 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 deleting administrator. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 18:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] @WaddlesJP13: - additional content by myself and another person. JoeNMLC (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] Hayes F.C.[edit] Hi there, just to let you know I reverted your addition of Aaron Patton as a "See also" to the Hayes F.C. article. There are over 120 former Hayes players with articles, so there's no particular reason to single out one fairly insignificant player to be listed as a "see also" on the main club article IMO..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] I came here to say the same thing about Bali Peace Park in Perth#See also and Euphemia Welby in Order of the British Empire#See also. Each is one unremarkable example amongst hundreds of links which could be added if Wikipedia were a directory of such things. Certes (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] Same with Actinonin. I get it that you're trying to un-orphan things and that's useful. However this is one anti-bacterial in an article that overarches Bacteria and Archaea. I'd suggest figuring out what makes actinonin, and adding it to that article instead. (I see you already did that at [[peptide deformylase]] which does look good to me.) Invasive Spices (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] Hi @ChrisTheDude, Certes, and Invasive Spices: - Thanks for the feedbacks. Now that there are now less than 90,000 Orphaned articles I'm feeling a bit less stressed. When wikilinking one Stub-article to another Stub-article, I have sometimes wondered if both articles can/should be deleted. But again, I'm onto the De-Orphan stuff first, and have only tagged a few articles for Notability. I have read through the Deletion process & prefer to not get involved with that just yet. Just the other day, I found Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, an interesting read. JoeNMLC (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] I've also reverted several "see alsos" of unrelated tech companies. If you have some specific relationship that you've found reference to and want to highlight, you're welcome to edit the text of the articles to reflect that, with citations. But there was no obvious connection between any of the companies. They work in different fields, in different countries, and have no overlapping ownership, mission, or products. Bill Woodcock (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] Hi Bill @Bwoodcock:, Thanks for letting me know. While working on Orphan articles that would explain the randomness of these updates. (Backlog is now less than 90,000 articles.) From now on, I will stay away from those business articles, especially when stub class. JoeNMLC (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] You are still inappropriately "un-orphaning" things. You added Phormidium africanum to the "see also" section of Cyanobacteria. As far as I know, there is nothing of special interest about this particular species. There are over 2000 other species of cyanobacteria, most of them also of no particular interest. If you want to un-orphan a species that seems of no particular interest, you could go to the next higher level taxon for that species which has an article, like the genera, and list the species for that taxon. — Epipelagic (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] Disambiguation link notification for September 10[edit] Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Observatory chronometer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chronometer. 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) 05:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] Removal of Amal Al-Awadhi[edit] Hello, Please Remove Amal Al-Awadhi From Notable People Section, as it not fair of adding 1 person and leaving many more important people who have pages in Wikipedia, it is better to remove than adding 100 other names. Thank you. Sportshrejmann (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Sportshrejmann: -  Done. Thanks for letting me know. I see there is article "Kuwait" about the country, and article "Kuwait City" that has a "Notable people" section. From the "Amal Al-Awadhi" infobox, it is unclear for "Born" so I added Amal Al-Awadhi to "List of Kuwaitis", "Arts" section instead. JoeNMLC (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] Moving[edit] Hi. Long-established articles, especially edited by more than one person, such as José Gralha, should not be moved to draft space. Please use WP:AfD to delete those articles, or tag them for improvements for those not suitable for deletion. Station1 (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Station1: - Thanks for the feedback. While working on Orphan articles, I see there are many hundreds/thousands of these footballer non-notable articles, all needing updating. In order to stay focused on the Orphan articles, I prefer to not get involved with that deletion process. Today I added the Notablity-sport tag and reset the talk page class back to stub. JoeNMLC (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] Hello, JoeNMLC. Regarding Peter D. Easton, as a general, non-official, guideline, I wouldn't move to Draft space any article that is more than 6 months old, certainly not an 11 year old article, even if it is in bad shape. Those articles should be WP:PROD'd or sent to WP:AFD, not draftified. Liz Read! Talk! 02:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] De-orphaning[edit] Hi Joe, I really appreciate your enthusiasm for working on the orphaned articles backlog. As one of the most active de-orphaners, I can certainly say it's a place that needs more eyes. That being said, I need to ask you to slow down and put more thought into the de-orphaning process. There is no deadline, and no need to feel stress over a backlog that has existed for longer than some of our younger editors :) Quality analysis of how best to de-orphan a given article in order to serve the reader is better than great speed. A "see also" link to an article that isn't clearly related does nothing to help the reader and defeats the process of de-orphaning in the first place. Additionally, many orphans are better off deleted as non-notable or merged elsewhere, which are options you don't seem to consider. For example, you added San Benedetto, Florence to the see also section of Zenobius of Florence without any clear, referenced context as to why they're related. There's no indication that Immaculate Heart of Mary School, Bulacan and Immaculate Heart of Mary College-Parañaque are related in any way. In other cases, the article being de-orphaned might be better off not having an article at all: 75th Year of Independence Day of India is probably better off merged into Independence Day (India). List of popes from the Tuscolo family is unsourced, has a misspelled title, and is duplicative of the list already existing at Counts of Tusculum (I've now redirected it). These are just a few examples pulled from your recent contribs. I can see from the messages already on your talk page here that several experienced editors have asked you about this already, but it seems like your approach hasn't really changed. Please slow down and take more care with what you are doing. Stick to the really easy orphans until you get the hang of it. If you have any questions about how to de-orphan a certain article, I'm happy to help, or you can just leave it and move on to the next one. Like I said - there's no rush, and no need to stress. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Premeditated Chaos: Question: What I have trouble understanding is how to handle very poor/minimal (for example - one sentence) articles? If "Move to draft" is not an option, and "Delete" is not an option, what then? Just skip, and leave it hanging out there forever? imo, a good cleanup tool is needed to offset the daily flood of articles with Orphan tagging. JoeNMLC (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] Some short articles don't really need to be standalones and can be merged upwards into others. I often merge very stubby articles about geographic features into "parent" articles. For an example, I merged a bunch of features that are on Booth Island into the Booth Island article. Be careful when opting for this as it's not always the best option. Some stub articles are simply not notable, and should be evaluated for deletion by doing a check for sourcing. I do this quite often too. Sometimes I find sources and wind up expanding the article quite a bit (Zahava Burack, Potato race are a couple of gems I de-orphaned and expanded to be Good Articles). Sometimes there's nothing, so I nominate for deletion. And finally, some topics are actually notable but can't really be expanded because sourcing isn't available. Populated places or elected politicians from places outside the west are often difficult to expand because of a lack of sourcing, but are inherently notable per WP:GEOLAND and WP:NPOL respectively. Like I said, if you can't figure out how to de-orphan something, especially since you're relatively new to the process, it's okay to just leave it for someone else to look at. No stress - the backlog doesn't hurt anyone, and there's hardly such a "flood" of new orphans that we need to stress about it. The backlog counter has actually been steadily going down for years :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] Hi @Premeditated Chaos: Recently, I finished going through Biography articles at Category:Orphaned articles from January 2011, and skipped the "impossible/difficult" articles. Yesterday, I started a "second pass" through this cat., looking at non-bio articles. Also "discovered" Category:Wikipedia articles needing context Category:Biography articles without listas parameter and see how better context is still needed for many articles. And quite a number of bio. articles without the "listas" (on talk page) are also missing article "DEFAULTSORT". There definitely is enough variety of Wikipedia updates to keep me interested. JoeNMLC (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] Hi Joe, glad to hear you're still enjoying mucking about in the gritty underbelly of Wikipedia :) If you haven't come across it yet, WP:BACKLOG may be of interest to you as a sort of central clearinghouse of maintenance categories, organized by number in the category and also earliest extant category. For orphans that you've tried and found impossible, you can add "|att=October 2021" as a parameter within the orphan tag (so you'd have ((Orphan|date=September 2010|att=October 2021)) in the code) and it will put the article into a separate "attempted" category, so it can be signaled that it's been attempted and nothing has been found. It doesn't so much reduce the backlog as move it around a bit, but at least it helps cycle through the older categories. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] October 2021[edit] Hello, I'm TJRC. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Maryland Institute College of Art, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I've added a source to correct this, but in the future, please include a citation when adding such material. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit] Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] Nomination of Lucas, British Columbia for deletion[edit] A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lucas, British Columbia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucas, British Columbia until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] Wishing you a happy 2022! [edit] Happy New Year! MMXXII Lunar Calendar JoeNMLC, Have a great 2022 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.    – Background color is Very Peri (#6868ab), Pantone's 2022 Color of the year Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year 2022)) to user talk pages. – North America1000 17:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] p:astro/events[edit] Hi JoeNMLC - I was just checking if you were working on this month's events for the Astronomy portal, and if you still wanted to keep our arrangement of alternating months. If not, that's ok! I was just wondering since I haven't heard from you in a while. --Lasunncty (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Lasunncty: - no, I have "moved-on" to other tasks. Thanks for the note however. Last month I added a "Work list" onto my user page to better focus my Wikipedia efforts. Each day I start at the top & go through the list, although sometimes I skip around. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] Disambiguation link notification for January 30[edit] An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of New York University faculty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spanish. (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] Lists of football clubs in de-orphaned articles[edit] Hello. I would like to ask you to stop adding List of football clubs in X country to the football player articles. List of football clubs and specific player are undoubtedly related to broader topic of association football, but I struggle to see how they related to each other and what help such links serve for the readers. Please try to update the update pattern you're using. Thank you. --BlameRuiner (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] @BlameRuiner: - Thanks for the feedback. Will no longer add. Is it still Ok to add the Football in X country as that relates to where the country the player is from? JoeNMLC (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] @BlameRuiner: - In addition to Orphan articles, I've also been updating Wikipedia articles needing context and so I thought adding both the "Football in X country" and "List of football clubs in X country" would help orient readers who are not familiar with football. Some of those footballers play for many clubs so I thought that link would provide information about other FC in that specific country. I'd be interested in hearing back from you. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] Year articles[edit] Hi, please note that the year articles (i.e. 1983) are for people who have notability across multiple countries. There are "Year in Country" articles (i.e. 1983 in France) for people wo are only notable in one country (or a very few). Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Black Kite: - Thanks for letting me know, and still learning. Yes, some of those footballers are just in one country. So plain "Year" for multi/international athletes only. Will re-wire my brain going forward. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Black Kite: - For article Ville Mäkilä, Finish footballer, there was no "1990 in Finland" so I cloned 1991 to create 1990 one. Also found interesting List of years in Finland. So it's easier to clone than make from scratch. JoeNMLC (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Black Kite: - Also cloned from another Africa country to create List of years in Equatorial Guinea. Hoping to not go thru that again, kinda nerve-racking. JoeNMLC (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] 1979 in Equatorial Guinea moved to draftspace[edit] An article you recently created, 1979 in Equatorial Guinea, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 03:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] @Itcouldbepossible: - This is my first attempt at one of those Year articles. I've cleaned it up & did the Submit for review. Sadly it says "This may take 3 months or more". It's just a list, not complicated, so wondering if any way to expedite? Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] Congratulations. Your draft has been accepted. The 3 months is just given as a general time. Your draft can sometimes be accepted even be that time. The last time I draftified the article because it was not fully developed, but now it qualifies to be an article. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 02:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] Your submission at Articles for creation: 1979 in Equatorial Guinea has been accepted[edit] 1979 in Equatorial Guinea, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer. If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback. Thanks again, and happy editing! Bkissin (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi JoeNMLC! Thank you for your edits to Valbona Sako. It looks like you've copied or moved text from Durrës into that page, and while you are welcome to re-use the content, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I noticed you made some edits recently to some orphans I have PROD'd/AfD'd and I had some thoughts about it. It seems to me that there's not much point spending time trying to de-orphan something that's likely to be deleted, first because if it's not notable then it's not likely to have any good spots to link it from, and second if it's going to be deleted, those links will just be removed anyway. I also noticed that you're adding de-orphaning templates/messages to the talk pages of some orphaned articles. As much as I think it's great that you're trying to spread the word, I'm not sure it's all that useful in actually getting articles de-orphaned. Most of these pages are little-seen backwaters (check the page information for hits on the talk page - less than 10 a month in most cases for old orphans) and they already have the orphaned tag on the article, so posting on the talk page is a bit redundant. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: - One of my family was an orphan so I've been interested in helping with these on Wikipedia. Now that I'm retired my energy level varies from day-to-day, trying to "take the weekend off". Thanks for letting me know about the Talk pages Pageviews, did not know availabe on Pageinformation. I do understand there are some articless that will remain orphan forever. Just wish they could somehow be "gathered together" with some common topic. I seem to recall at least one football (soccer) article with about 5 biographies, each bio with its own section. I do have a "Work list" (on userpage) to be more organized & that is helpful.

For Category:Unassessed biography articles that I had worked on in the past, there are several sub-sections. Wondering if it would be helpful for Orphan articles to make category subsections by topic? What do you think? Sort of like those for "Stub sorting" - i.e. Culture, People, Religion, Science, Sports, etc. JoeNMLC (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, JoeNMLC,

I couldn't tell by your talk page comment on Medaid4kids and MIZY Center whether you wanted to halt the proposed deletion of these articles. They've now been deleted but if you would like to continue to work on them, please ask for them to be restored at WP:REFUND. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is sort of a rudimentary version of what you're thinking of on Category:All orphaned articles, which lists a bunch of subtopics and uses the in-wiki search function to list the results. I'm not a big fan of that method but unfortunately I'm not sure how it could be made better without a lot of legwork in creating a subcategory structure that mirrors the stub sorting process.

For myself, I like to use the PetScan tool to dredge by category, which works quite well for my purposes as I find it's more efficient to rip through a bunch of the same type of article at once (often paired with a list). The tool looks a little complicated but is actually fairly easy to use. On User:Premeditated Chaos/sandbox2, I have a big list of pre-set queries for categories with high numbers of orphans; you're welcome to pop in and work off any of them if you'd like.

PS I think it's really cool that you're relaxing post-retirement with Wikipedia :) And really sweet to pick your area of focus based on your family! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: - Thanks for mentioning that Filter this category by topic on cat. page. I had seen it but not ever "connected" with it's usefulness. When working on Astronomy articles I had used that PetScan tool but did not know how to make those wikilinks like on your sandbox. Thank you for your help, it just makes life a bit easier. Cheers! JoeNMLC (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy to help! It's nice having company down in the trenches. Enjoy your weekend! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: - Earlier this year, when I reviewed your Petscan info. I attemped a few (without it working for me). After digging down into your sandbox2, I got in working Okay. So when I re-built my userpage, I added a Petscan section. Since then I used Petscan to do de-orphan task for Mines, Coalfields, Lakes in/of Canada (by province). Up-coming this week, some more Association football players.

I do find Petscan to be very useful - a time-saver. Over this weekend I created a Petscan subpage. I did include a "Further" with wikilink to your sandbox2. Asking if that is Ok for you? Let me know, & feel free to do any Edit changes to that subpage. I tried to be clear as IMO the Wikimedia documentation is confusing & without examples. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course, kind of you to check but no problem at all. I haven't been doing much orphanage stuff lately unfortunately, but it's good to see people still working at it. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article you recently created, 1966 in the Soviet Union, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. (t · c) buidhe 21:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Buidhe: - I added content & submitted for review. JoeNMLC (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Numberguy6 was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Cites only one source.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:1966 in the Soviet Union and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:1966 in the Soviet Union, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((Db-g7))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Numberguy6 (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1966 in the Soviet Union, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Greenman (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Need to show they are notable independent of the New Seekers

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Peter Oliver (musician) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Peter Oliver (musician), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "((Db-g7))" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit added William J. Chiego to the List of people from Newark, New Jersey. The source cited isn't live, but an archived version says nothing about his being from Newark, nor is there some other source in his article to connect him to Newark. Do you have anything to establish a connection to Newark? Alansohn (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alansohn: - William J. Chiego is "Jr.". His father is "Sr.". Today I found this obit. at "http://files.usgwarchives.net/nj/monmouth/obits/coaststarobits02.txt" for death of his mother "CHIEGO, Rose M". It shows Newark connection for family. Do not know if that is sufficient. JoeNMLC (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is a more detailed obituary" of Chiego Sr., who was born in Newark. The obit lists four other places in New Jersey where the senior Chiego lived. I add a source for Chiego Jr. that says that he lived and went to high school in Red Bank. There is a family connection to Newark, but I don't think that it supports a connection for William J. Chiego. What do you think? Alansohn (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alansohn: - Lately I've been chipping away at Orphan articles. Doing cite's is something I rarely do & rely very much on Templates. So I am not sure how to answer-not enough experience. BTW, The "William J. Chiego" article can be updated since he retired as director of McNay Art Museum in 2016. I did add a SA section (plus cite) to the Museum article. You're welcome to update as I need to get back to de-orphaning some more of the 86,000+ articles. JoeNMLC (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of years in Brunei is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of years in Brunei until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

North8000 (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I moved this page you draftified back to mainspace. It is generally bad practice to draftify a page older than around 6 months old; this particular page is 10 years old. As the subject is notable and there is a corresponding French Wikipedia article, then the best duty would just be to tag it with Twinkle tags, or if you're feeling spicy and have the language knowledge, perhaps translating it. Curbon7 (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After a review, I also reverted Flavia Vento and Sajjad Rahbar for also being far too old. I have nominated Sajjad Rahbar for deletion as the point is well-taken and the sourcing is non-existant. I think the sourcing provided in the corresponding Italian Wikipedia article may be enough to give Flavia Vento WP:GNG, but if you feel otherwise, then nominate it for AfD.

Remember: per WP:DRAFTIFY, draftification should never be used as an alternative for deletion. Curbon7 (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Curbon7: Thanks for the draftify info. It did not occur to me about having those articles to be deleted. I did look at Twinkle & it looks rather complicated, so will not install Twinkle for now. The reason those articles are so old is because I'm working through Orphan articles backlog. I just need to say "Next" for any of those bare-bones/minimum stub articles & not useup my time trying to improve (which may be impossible). So no more Draftify on these old articles. JoeNMLC (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, JoeNMLC

Thank you for creating List of years in Republic of the Congo.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|North8000)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, JoeNMLC

Thank you for creating List of years in Colombia.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|North8000)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, JoeNMLC

Thank you for creating List of years in Cuba.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|North8000)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate that you tried to end the orphan status of a page, but I have deleted the link for General History of Latin America on the Latin America page. The publication had been posted on the UNESCO website, but it is "no longer available". An internet search found no evidence that is archived somewhere. I am going to nominate the page for deletion.Amuseclio (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)AmuseclioReply[reply]

Hello, JoeNMLC

Thank you for creating 1973 in Botswana.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|North8000)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Pizzaplayer219. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 2007 in Syria, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. THE Pizzaplayer!^{TALK TO MEE!!} _contribs 17:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Joe, I've noticed you making quite a few "see also" style de-orphanings recently. I know both myself and other users have asked you more than once to be more cautious with those in the past, but it seems like it's still ongoing and I wanted to remind you why those are not really useful except in extreme cases. The point of de-orphaning is to build the web and enable readers to reach articles that may be of interest to them via inline links. Using see also to de-orphan rarely contributes to that goal, and instead just de-orphans for de-orphaning's sake.

On top of that, see also sections should be tightly curated, and need to be strongly related to the topic so they will be useful to the reader. Putting individual people in see also sections of broad topics is almost never useful unless the person is very tightly related to the topic, and in those cases they should usually be mentioned in the text instead. The same goes for taxonomy articles like Aniserica, which you put as a "see also" in Ericaceae. Ericaceae is a large family with 120+ genera in it across 9 subfamilies; these genera cannot all be placed in the see also, or it would become wildly cluttered. As it turned out, Aniserica isn't even a valid genus anymore, so it wound up as a redirect - this kind of cleanup of bad or duplicate articles is a secondary benefit of de-orphaning work.

I know you mean well and want to reduce the backlog, but it's important to do so in a useful and thoughtful way that improves articles, otherwise we may as well not do it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: Thank you for taking the time to help me. On today's first de-orphan article (Open Source Alliance of Central Asia) I added that organization's founding into 2011 in Afghanistan article "October" section. While reading article I see in August section, cite [45] is very large. Wondering if this is normal or acceptable? Could you look at this & see if it needs fixing? Thanks. JoeNMLC (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: - Thanks for correcting [45] ref. I know WP is not perfect & we all make mistakes at times, so always looking to improve where possible. JoeNMLC (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: for orphan article Organizational assimilation, I added wikilink & cite into "Further reading" section of Organizational information theory. Is this Okay there or should it be moved to another location into body of article? I did not remove the orphan tag. JoeNMLC (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The way you de-orphaned Open Source Alliance of Central Asia was good, but I don't think the subject is notable - I've added a PROD tag to it. Please remember that deletion is a valid option for orphans whose subjects don't appear to be notable based on the availability of sourcing. Good spot with the weird reference though, someone copied an enormous amount of text from a New York Times article into Wikipedia, which is a copyright violation. I've removed it.

For organizational assimilation, I appreciate what you were trying to do, but the way you added to the "Further reading" section there is not really in line with how those sections normally work. You can look at Wikipedia:Further reading for some more information on it, but basically it's a list of additional publications that may be of interest to readers on the topic. There shouldn't really be prose in those sections.

On top of that, the link there is especially tenuous as Frederic M. Jablin was only the editor of the textbook that the cited chapter appeared in, not its author. (Karl E. Weick and Susan J. Ashford are the authors of "Learning in Organizations". The next bit, "In Frederic M. Jablin and Linda L. Putnam (Ed.)," means that that chapter appeared in a textbook edited by Jablin and Putnam).

What I did instead was link to it in the text of organizational culture, which is a fairly obvious parent topic for organizational assimilation: here's my diff. "Organizational culture" as an article kind of sucks and needs to be reorganized, but at least there's an organic link in the text to organizational assimilation with a ref. An interested reader can easily follow that link to see the concept. If some editor in the future wants to expand on it, they could do so. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos:, Yes, for "organizational assimilation", I was thinking the same thing about "Organizational culture" but uncertain where or how to fit for a good context. And what you did with the two ref. definitely is an improvement. Again, thanks for your efforts - real learning moments for me. JoeNMLC (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced entries to the Year articles. I have enough work to do getting rid of the ones that are already present, without having to undo yet more. Deb (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Deb and Premeditated Chaos: Ok, got it. JoeNMLC (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of people from Grenoble, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CTHS.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit, added Meena Dimian as a notable to the article for Bayonne, New Jersey. The source you cited is NYC Media Group, which does nor appear to mention Dimian or make any connection to Bayonne, either on the page you linked or in a search on the site. His article says that he was born in Bayonne, but cites no source. I did a search in Google and Newspapers.com and found no reliable and verifiable source to connect him to Bayonne.

Did I miss something in the link? Otherwise, I'm not seeing anything that would establish a connection. Alansohn (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alansohn: Thanks for finding this. I did the "undo" for Bayonne article. JoeNMLC (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for taking care of this2. I will continue to look, but I haven't found anything to confirm the connection to Bayonne. Alansohn (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, JoeNMLC

Thank you for creating 1976 in the Soviet Union.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|SunDawn)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, JoeNMLC

Thank you for creating 1980 in the Soviet Union.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|SunDawn)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I noticed your edit at Patna. The village you have added belongs to Patna district (of which Patna is the headquarters), and not the city itself. I don't think that article will need a Villages section as the article is for the city itself. I have reverted your edit for now, but if you have other views I would love to listen. extra999 (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Extra999: - Thanks for letting me know, and yes, having both the city & district with same name can be confusing. I did place the Villages section & article Pitwans into "Patna district" article instead. I also ce Pitwans to use "Patna district" wikilink. JoeNMLC (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May I ask why you have deleted the templates for years in association football (eg. 2022 in Association football)? Made it easier to see and jump between different countries. Cheers, Kezyfooty (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kezyfooty: The "Association" word was changed to "association" to match other template names. JoeNMLC (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JoeNMLC: Oh cheers for that! Kezyfooty (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. The technical changes you made recently to the Deaths in 2022 page have been reverted. They are a consensually agreed set of requests and informational guidelines, and as such require a fresh consensus to be reached at the talk page for any changes. Please start a new section on that talk page outlining the changes you would like to see made and why. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Refsworldlee: - fyi User talk:Marbe166 explained the ongoing process at their talk page here. I'm always glad to learn something new. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hadn't realized that - thanks for the heads-up. I have no problem if you decide to delete this section. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2000 in Romania, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Greenman (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi JoeNMLC. You are adding villages to the Jalandhar article, which is solely about the city. Should these not be in the Jalandhar district article? - Arjayay (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Arjayay: - Thanks for letting me know. I moved those "Jalandhar" villages into "Jalandhar district" and also renamed that district article's "See also" section to "Villages". Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I see you've been adding former Verwaltungsgemeinschaften to articles about districts in Saxony-Anhalt, for instance at Stendal (district), where you added Bismark/Kläden, and Salzlandkreis, where you added Aschersleben/Land, both without any context or current status. I guess your idea was to de-orphan them. Since these organisations don't exist anymore, I think it's better to link to them from current municipalities that were members (like Aschersleben and Bismark, Germany). An alternative would be to discuss all the former Verwaltungsgemeinschaften of a district in its history section. Markussep ^Talk 17:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. In countries such as Argentina, India & others, these locations can be added to the District article, usually under "Villages" or "Towns & villages" section. I'm glad you mentioned these 3 are defunct/disbanded. So they can be handled differently. JoeNMLC (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even in Argentina or India etc, a disbanded or otherwise deprecated administrative unit should not be added to a list of existent towns or villages. Administrative sub-units are different than towns/villages, and deprecated units shouldn't be placed in the same list as existent ones anyway - it's not clear for the reader. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article, The Magical Moment, has been nominated for deletion. You may comment on the nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Magical Moment Donald Albury 22:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I notice you are adding at high speed utterly ridiculous "assessments" to projects, resulting in e.g. Cyclo-cross, Wout Van Aert, and even Tadej Pogacar being of "Low importance" to the cycling project??? Assessments have very little value anyway, but if you add them, at least make an effort to get it somewhat right. If you don't know enough about the subject, please just don't assess importance at all. Fram (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fram: - Thanks for the feedback. Will not do these...I've lost touch with cycling since my 1970s-1990s involvement in the sport (like a past life). JoeNMLC (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit to the article for Gary Seligson makes the assertion that the article has been "Successfully de-orphaned!♦ Wikiproject Orphanage". This was accomplished by adding Seligson as a notable of West Orange, New Jersey in this edit, which has an edit summary stating "add Gary Seligson, drummer and percussionist; copied content from Gary Seligson; see that page's history for attribution".

I reviewed all of the sources in the article for Seligson and I don't see that any of the eight references mention West Orange. Maybe I missed something, but if you had a source that made the connection, why did you not add the source to the West Orange article, as has been done for every single notable in that list. If you didn't have a source, why did you add it? De-orphaning articles is wonderful, but if you're just spreading unsourced content from one article to another, you're making things genuinely worse than before. In every case, find the source and add content to article with the source, as required by Wikipedia's verifiability policy, which says that "Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." No one should be dependent on reading an edit summary to direct them to a source that might -- or might not -- exist in some other article. Alansohn (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alansohn: - Sorry for my mistake. I thought from past WP experiences that I was doing the right thing. Guess this article is one of those "perpetual orphans" or should it be AFD? Just wondering your opinion. JoeNMLC (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JoeNMLC, I was thinking about AfD, but I will genuinely try to find sources to be added to the article for Seligson. Alansohn (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alansohn: - fyi, after some more digging, I added a cite to Seligson article for Date-of-birth, linked from 1961 article, Births section. So then I removed the Orphan tag. Hope I did this correctly. JoeNMLC (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The source you added from Alchetron appears to be a mirror of the Wikipedia article and the only source listed there is Wikipedia. I searched in Newspapers.com and had no luck. I will search further. Alansohn (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I removed the tag on the page. First and mostly, the film seems notable (I added two sources from books but Googlebooks has quite a few other that could be also quoted). But also, the page had already been proposed for deletion in 2020. And, as you know, you can't do this twice. Best, — MY, OH, MY! 08:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mushy Yank: - Thanks for finding sources. I admit I'm very un-skilled at finding, and have only added a few references here-and-there with Cite-Template help. So now I was able to De-orphan "Tiga guérisseur" article by adding into "2001" article along with the cite you provided. Thank you. JoeNMLC (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Veselin Jelušić, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Thank you. GiantSnowman 18:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GiantSnowman: fyi - Koegathe Rabithome is one of the players that Veselin Jelušić coached. Also Koegathe Rabithome is the last remaining article at Category:Attempted de-orphan from March 2022. I'm at a loss how to de-orphan this one, as the person definitely is notable (international footballer), just that article needs more content. Even date-of-birth would help. Any idea of how article can be wikilinked? JoeNMLC (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles need to be de-orphaned organically, not by shoving in a 'see also' section. As it stands, unless he meets GNG, Rabithome is likely to be non-notable. GiantSnowman 20:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GiantSnowman: - thanks for clarifying. So being an international player does not automatically make the person notable. Would it be Okay to tag with "Proposed deletion"? I just recently learned of PD as first step for possible removal. JoeNMLC (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Certainly feel free - and if the PROD is contested, the next step is WP:AFD. GiantSnowman 19:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GiantSnowman: - Yes, I will think about doing that. However I'm still confused about adding References to an article's wikilink. Does this mean every wikilink in every article requires a reference? JoeNMLC (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

statements/sentences need reliable sources - not ever wikilink does. GiantSnowman 19:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GiantSnowman: - Today, for Koegathe Rabithome article I added the Proposed deletion tag. Perhaps an expert will be able to improve. JoeNMLC (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks! GiantSnowman 20:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GiantSnowman: - On tonight's History channel there was a segment on Dorcas Reilly, chef and inventor. When I looked her up on Wikipedia, I see the article is nicely referenced. Even though the Rater tool suggests the article Class - Start, wondering if class C would be better? Only thing I can see missing a perhaps a photo. JoeNMLC (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's too short to be a C. GiantSnowman 18:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 1972 in the United States, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Today I reported "false positive". JoeNMLC (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello JoeNMLC,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged House of God Church (Keith Dominion) for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want House of God Church (Keith Dominion) to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

greyzxq ^talk 21:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello JoeNMLC,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged 2013 Puntland Democratic election for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want 2013 Puntland Democratic election to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

greyzxq ^talk 21:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of neighbourhoods in Winnipeg

added a link pointing to Tuxedo, Winnipeg (Neighbourhood)

Tuxedo, Winnipeg

added a link pointing to Tuxedo, Winnipeg (Neighbourhood)

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done - cleanup to resolve. JoeNMLC (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Bianca Barreto. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability and your article is too short, please see WP:HOW to see how to write better pages. Please use the sandbox if you want to do any more test changes. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Wafflesvarog (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wafflesvarog: - This article was created by Heroeswithmetaphors 12:03, 7 June 2023‎. So I'm quite surprised to receive your notice when all I did was add several article improvements. Please do not include me in future messages like this. I do agree that moving this one to Draft is a good thing. In the past when I attempted moving a few articles to Draft, it was reverted. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...a page you prodded last Thursday, and which I decided to commit to my watchlist only because I might give saving this a shot through WP:Library/Newspapers.com. Listing two potential sources for your consideration, which may make this horsetrack satisfy WP:GNG along with the Sports Illustrated story already listed there. Anything extra, and I'll hopefully ping back soon. Wish me luck!

• Morrow, Darrell (1966-11-01). "Gambling on Races Denied at Hidden Valley Downs". The Wichita Eagle. p. 1A. Retrieved 2023-07-11 – via Newspapers.com.
• Dyar, Ken (1966-05-08). "Dream Realized: Hidden Valley Oasis Opens". The Wichita Eagle. p. 9A. Retrieved 2023-07-11 – via Newspapers.com.

--Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Slgrandson: - For the above, I copy/paste to Hidden Valley Downs Talk page so it's available on topic. JoeNMLC (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, JoeNMLC,

Just a reminder that when you tag a page for any type of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/MFD/etc.), it's good practice to post a notification on the talk page of the page creator. Most editors do this by using Twinkle when they tag pages for deletion. Twinkle is a very useful editing tool that is used by most page patrollers and many administrators. It basically has all of the templates you might need so that you don't need to remember them or go search for them. I encourage you to try it out and see how it makes posting welcome messages or talk page warnings, reporting vandals, setting up an AFD discussion, so many editing tasks, much easier.

Just remember to set your Twinkle Preferences to "Notify page creator" and then any time you tag a page for deletion, Twinkle will post a notice on your behalf to the article creator. I'm sure if you created an article, you would want to know if it was headed towards deletion so it's considered a courtesy. It's especially important with PROD'd articles where an editor can set about to address any concerns you have about an article. Thank you for your contributions to the project! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Liz: - Thank you for this communication. A while ago, I did look at Twinkle tool & was somewhat overwhelmed by complexity. My major focus is de-orphaning very old de-orphan articles (5 to 15 years ago), and many page creators are long-gone (inactive) or deleted from Wikipedia. To notify them would be futile. But I do see the value to contact new/active editors. Question: On that Twinkle tool, is there an easy way to setup just the notify function & skip all the other stuff? For "Proposed deletion" and "Afd".

Some of those old articles are only 1 or 2 sentences, so I need to ask: is it allowed to post the Afd immediately without doing the Proposed deletion first? Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Joe! AfD and PROD are independent processes. You can definitely do one without doing the other one first. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed the ((proposed deletion/dated)) tag from Rajendra Pambhoi, which you proposed for deletion. I replaced the dead ref. The article meets WP:NPOL. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add ((proposed deletion)) back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MPGuy2824: - Thank you for letting me know. I do concur with the removal. And as I'm always learning something new, thanks for that DEPROD link, another useful tool if I ever need to do the Deprod process. At my sandbox subpage I have started a simple wikitable that helps me track mostly Orphan articles for PROD and AfD. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've noticed your prod rationale Show the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article by using multiple sources that meet four criteria. The sources should be (1) reliable, (2) secondary, (3) independent of the subject, and (4) talk about the subject in some depth. I'm not sure I am interpreting this correctly but it seems to be requesting that anyone wishing to contest the proposed deletion add some sources to the article. This is not how PROD or deletion in general works. If you want to propose or nominate an article for deletion, you should search for these sources yourself WP:BEFORE initiating deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 03:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kvng: - Yes, before doing the PROD message, I do (1) search for sources & not able to find any appropriate, (2) check History to verify not a prior PROD, (3) Setup the Proposed deletion message. If already a PROD & it was removed, then AfD next. Thanks for the feedback. Going forward, I will change that Concern/Reason to mention the unsuccessful sources search. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Just letting you know I've removed the ProD tag from the page. The article is a stub but the subject seems rather notable. Best, -MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 09:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mushy Yank: - Thank you for the improvements so this article can be kept on Wikipedia. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello JoeNMLC!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fan Girl (2020 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Project 8.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to If Y'all Weren't Here, I'd Be Crying Tour (2). Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources and It has too little information to be encyclopedic.. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Robert McClenon: - Firstly, this is not my article. All I did was de-orphan like the other thousands of old articles I've been working on. Second, after reading this one, I would suggest (another editor familiar with the topic) merging this small content directly into the Post Malone article, at Tours section. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know it wasn't your article. The draftification thingy allows me to notify any or all of the editors who have touched the article. Also, there is another draft, Draft:If Y'all Weren't Here, I'd Be Crying Tour, which is more detailed, but needs updating. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Danchuwa- Bula Ward. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Losipov (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Losipov: - FYI, I did not create this article, only did de-orphan and a few updates, so it may be an abandoned draft unless someone else chooses to improve. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JoeNMLC I understand. When I started the move process, it gave me the option of notifying other editors who contributed to the article. I thought it would be a good idea to do so, along with the creator. Apologies for the confusion. Losipov (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, just a note on this move: IEEE Fellows are explicitly mentioned as notable in Wikipedia:NPROF as long as their fellowship can be confirmed, so a one source stub is probably fine in this case. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Excellent article on a technical subject. Well synthesized from the various peer-reviewed articles. Oaktree b (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Oaktree b - What is this for? Please clarify. I'm confused... JoeNMLC (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, JoeNMLC,

I was just looking over articles that have been PROD'd, like Andriy Savenets, and noticed that you didn't post a notification on the talk page of the page creator. It also helps editors if, in your edit summry when you tag a page as a PROD, if you mention that you are "Proposing an article for deletion" or "PROD". If an article gets de-PROD'd, it's then easy to tell by looking at the page history that an article has been PROD'd before.

These practices are made easier if you use Twinkle when you are tagging a page for any type of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/MFD/RFD/CFD/etc.). Just make sure you have set your Twinkle Preferences to "Notify page creator" and then Twinkle will post these notices on your behalf and you don't need to take any additional steps. It really makes things easy so I encourage you to try Twinkle out. Twinkle has a lot of other great features that you'll discover including maintaining deletion logs for you, if you are interested in tracking how you are doing. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Liz, Firstly, for edit summary, I've been using ce, add Proposed deletion. Do you recommend using "Proposing an article for deletion" or "PROD" instead? Is it really that helpful? If Yes, I changeover to those exact words.

After looking at the Twinkle/doc, here are my 2-cents worth. Twinkle evaluation...

• PROD (proposed deletion)
  • Instead, I have my own tracking at JoeNMLC/Article PROD and AfD. It helps me keep my sanity & is fairly new-just put together in May, 2023.
  • Majority of (orphan) articles that I nominate for deletion are very old-created many years ago, so user-notification is a BWOT in my opinion. Or when a defunct/inactive user is notified, does that trigger a message to people (if any) who have that person on their Watchlist?

• XfD (deletion discussions)
  • Not sure if I would ever need to use these functions. Still learning about del. discussions & have only participated in a few so far.

• Tag function
  • Using a notepad-plain text editor, I built my own tagging list; I like & am comfortable with it's speed and accuracy. Monthly, I do a search/replace of the date on each line.

For me, Twinkle has a great many features that may be helpful for people, just not for me. I would be afraid to use Twinkle lest I make mistrake(s)! Sorry for the length of this response. Thank you for taking the time to communicate. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please engage on article talk at Tate (spirit) and read WP:RS. Commercial links that cite no sources, as well as blogs, are not usable sources on Wikipedia. Best wishes, - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Terminating deposit, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done - Added cite title (two articles), JoeNMLC (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, hope you are doing well. I rollbacked two of your edits, one on El Dorado (Japanese band) and one on Mabel Martin Wyrick because the sources you added did not reference the actual topic of either article. For example, the reference on the El Dorado was about visual kei culture but, going through the article, there was no mention of the band as the actual topic. Similarly, Mabel Martin Wyrick's reference was the US Census for a place in Kentucky where some of her writing was based - it has nothing do with her as an author. I am going to continue looking for these kinds of issues and trying to find a better reference where possible or rolling them back where necessary.

Please be sure that the sources you are using as references are meeting the project's guidelines of being relevant, reliable, and verifiable. I understand your desire to get through the categories and backlogs but adding references to any topic mentioned in an article, rather than the article's topic itself, does not accomplish what the URA is all about. I'm happy to discuss this further but I really think we need to focus on quality, not speed. Kazamzam (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Furthermore, please be sure to update the date on the clean-up tags. For example, on the Mabel Martin Wyrick 'one source' tag, you left the date as September 2007 from the original unreferenced tag. This is a new tag so the date should be September 2023. Kazamzam (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kazamzam - Thanks for the above feedback. I will definitely update those tag dates to be current. I just wish we had a massive group of editors (100 or more) to chop away at the backlog; I do understand why it's so large. Over at WP:Orphan I've reduced my involvement there (frustrated) because there is an automated bot tagging articles, plus Page curation, plus AWB that are actively tagging orphan articles vs. fixing. Lately I've found Query tool to be helpful, and have done a few Move to draft, PROD, AfD articles, so I do like the variety of things to help with. Sorry for the length of this response. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The lack of editors is frustrating - which is why we (or at least me) are very happy to have you. I appreciate you updating those tags. I know there is a lot that needs to be either rollbacked/reverted and I have started chipping away at it to find relevant sources but it is quite a tall order. If you could start working on that as well, I would appreciate it. I think we can still keep the progress that's been made in clearing out the oldest categories even if the progress is at a slower pace now. I think your point about using PROD and AfD is a good one - some articles don't meet the criteria and should be removed accordingly. I'm happy to strategize this with you further.

Sorry to hear about the frustrating changes at WP:Orphan. I actually just deorphaned an article; will try to give it more attention as it seems like a lot of these can be fixed relatively easily. Thanks, Kazamzam (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again. I'm reaching out because I have noticed there are still issues with you referencing relevant sources for articles. For example, on the 2006 US Open – Men's doubles, you cited a 2012 press release from Emirates Airlines that did not mention anything from 2006 or doubles. This provides no meaningful information about the topic and does not back up the claims of the article in any way. Adding relevant, reliable, and verifiable references is the entire purpose of WP:URA; citations that do not meet these criteria are both unhelpful for the reader, who can't rely on the information in the article, and detrimental to the project, because other editors need to fix them and this, at least for me, has been quite time-consuming when I could be cleaning up other articles. Please let me know if you would like any help finding high-quality references - I am more than happy to help. Best, Kazamzam (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kazamzam, I agree 100-percent, and now understand that just because an article's reference exists does not mean it is "on point" so to speak. In fact, last night I added another section to my Article cleanup page here. And placed Melpakkam article, and added a Talk discussion for the article. Yes, finding high-quality references is an issue. I've searched many places in Wikipedia & not able to find any kind of list that is helpful. So does that mean to use the PROD - AfD process for those old/short articles? Another example (many of them) are for "Villages in India" articles - difficult to find anything. A few times that I prod the articles, they were declined but not fixed. Thanks for taking the time to explain how referencing is not just a process of moving one cite into a second article. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kazamzam, Thought to share that I did find a few links to India sources.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities
• Category:India-related WikiProjects

The Encyclopaedia Britannica website (here), although a short-list of cities does have a "Cite" button that makes a nice ref. to copy-paste to Wikipedia. Cheers! JoeNMLC (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The small geography stubs can be very challenging. They typically cannot be deleted unless there's proof that the topic actually does not exist because almost all human habitations have notability under the project's notability guidelines for geographic features, hence why taking them to AfD is usually fruitless. Some things I have tried are making sure the spelling is correct, looking through old census records via Google Books (the census2011in website is not reliable, neither are a few of the most common search results because they don't meet reliability criteria; this will usually be flagged by the edit filter and generate an alert), trying to find something in another language, a news article, or a government source that can be added as an external link and then we can use the Inline template so at least there is something. It's very tricky! Those are definitely not the articles I would start with because they can be very thorny. The articles that I find easiest to cite are species or genus articles (you can find these using the biology filter) because they will usually have a few results in either Google Scholar or Google Books.

I definitely recommend reading through the topic-specific notability guidelines before sending an article to AfD to spare yourself the frustration. You can also check out the perennial sources list to determine if a source is likely to be useful. Kazamzam (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two things: Although census2011.co.in is a janky-ass mirror site, the data is an exact copy of the 2011 Census of India. I used to use both in conjunction when I was doing more de-orphaning focused on Indian villages. I never found an instance where the data from census2011.co.in differed from the data on the official census website. I argue that it is suitable for purpose in the absence of anything better, since the official site no longer works, and the 2021 census has been delayed until at least 2024. I have had people argue that it is possible that I just never happened to come across a discrepancy, which, fine, there are thousands of records and I submit that the possibility exists, but what would be the point of replicating the entire census just to fuck around with the population numbers on a couple of random villages? It makes no sense. It would be so much work to do that for so little benefit, when the obvious purpose of the site is to passively make money by sticking ads on a ripped copy of the census.

Second thing is that GEOLAND actually only applies to legally-recognized places, which are usually villages and upward. Things like neighborhoods, vaguely-defined "populated places", and homesteads don't qualify, and with a properly-articulated deletion rationale, are generally not difficult to get rid of. Another option is a bold merge, if you can figure out a parent topic for them. Non-notable neighborhoods would go to the parent town, for example. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kazamzam, @PMC, tonight I made an attempt to add new cite at article Leonel Navarrete (Mexican footballer). Wondering if worldfootball.net is a reliable source? When I looked at the site's legal page here, they appear to be an established business corporation (Germany). Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evening! Based on what I could find from Google and the WP for football, that seems to be an acceptable source. There’s actually a specific template for it as well (I’m on mobile so I won’t try to link it and mess up this response). If you want to try cleaning up some footballer articles, that could be a very nice sweep. Usually you can find out if a website is reliable by googling something like Wikipedia, the name of the site, and ‘reliable source’ and checking out talk pages of various projects. if it’s a popular website, they have usually already done the legwork. Kazamzam (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kazamzam - Yes, with Wikipedia search for worldfootball.net and it shows over 30,000 articles, so it should be a reliable source. Thanks, JoeNMLC (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kazamzam, @PMC, At WP Reliable sources, Google maps is shown as "No consensus" for Reliable/Not reliable. So today, at Category:Orphaned articles from October 2013 I de-orphaned these two articles.

• Kalattiyur, add cite - Google maps - Kalattiyur, Chikkarampalayam, Tamil Nadu, India
• Bharariwal, add cite - Google maps - Bharariwal, Amritsar, Punjab, India

Step 1 = add article Google maps cite.

Step 2 = add article to district, Villages section with Google maps cite.

Step 3 = remove orphan tag.

Wondering if these updates are Okay? Thanks for helping me. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would strongly advise against citing Google Maps, it's really not reliable for determining whether something is a legally-recognized settlement that meets GEOLAND. census2011.co.in is honestly much better for that purpose, as it uses the census data. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PMC - Thanks, I've moved Google maps into Not reliable section here. JoeNMLC (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great, now be sure to go through and remove or rollback those changes as they are not reliable and should not be kept. Kazamzam (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kazamzam - Yes, I was intending to do those rollbacks tomorrow morning, but now both are done tonight. I did searches at census2011.co.in as @PMC recommends. Both of those villages are not found at that census website, so does that mean it is Ok to do "Proposed deletion" next? JoeNMLC (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately these articles can be difficult to resolve as they are often riddled with issues and require some detective work. I would double check by searching the tehsil/taluk list (these are administrative divisions similar to a US county). Sometimes people use different transliterations of the native-language name than the census does. Usually it's pretty obvious - "Bhariwal" for "Bariwal" or "Bariwhal", that kind of thing.

Let's start with Kalattiyur. The article states that Karamadai is the taluk. However, Karamadai isn't a taluk, it's a town in Mettupalayam taluk, so that's not right. Looking at the list of villages in Mettupalayam, I don't see any places with similar names to Kalattiyur, so I don't think it's a census-recognized village. I searched Google books to see if there are any mentions of Kalattiyur, but found nothing, which supports that. My guess is that Kalattiyur is perhaps a neighborhood or area within another town or village ("village" in India is a legal designation so they can be quite large but still called villages). Google maps lists Chikkarampalayam (a large village in Mettupalayam taluk) as part of the address for Kalattiyur, so it could be part of Chikkarampalayam. I did a search for Kalattiyur+Chikkarampalayam and I came up with this election document where someone lists their address as being in "Kalattiyur, Chikkarampalayam village". I'm satisfied that it's not a legally-recognized place that meets GEOLAND, and that it's part of Chikkarampalayam, so I'm gonna redirect it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bharariwal is a little clearer, since it's right in the article text - "the village was incorporated within the limits of Municipal Corporation of Amritsar in 1974 and the institution of Panchayat was abolished." This is no longer a legally-recognized separate place, it's basically a neighborhood of Amritsar. This book seems to bear that out, saying "Bharariwal is a part of Ward no 25" in Amritsar. So I'm going to again go ahead and redirect that, this time to Amritsar. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PMC - Double WOW! - Now I understand how & why those India locations are so "complex". And I should just skip them for both de-orphan and un-ref. tasks. THank you so much for fixing those two articles. Late last night, I did work on Andri Abubakar article and found reliable cite from worldfootball.net website. So I know these football articles are ones I can improve. For de-orphaning, I started mini-tracking wikitables here to keep me on-track. For some unknown reason, after about 6-weeks those 2014 articles are again showing (Query) many more orphan articles eligible to be un-tagged. I do like that un-tagging but at times it gets to be very boring (repeat, repeat, repeat) so I do like to skip onto something else for variety. Gota go now as today should be a "non-wikipedia" day for me. Best wishes, JoeNMLC (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Honestly, if you can find them on the census list (and most of them you can) they're not that bad to deal with. My trick is usually to do all the ones in one district at once, either by creating a navbox for the district, like Template:Anand district, or where there's a huge number of villages, a "List of villages in Something district" article instead. It's just the edge cases that can be really wonky. And feel free to remove any unsourced "village cruft" from them rather than desperately trying to source it, it's usually unencyclopedic or irrelevant anyway. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PMC - Late yesterday, I found List of administrative divisions by country and saw in the India section what you describe above, interesting. And thanks for the navbox and list ideas. Sometime ago I recall one of those orphan categories with several hundred India towns & villages articles so, yes the navbox & list articles are helpful ways to group articles with a common District/Locality. For navbox, a fun thing I worked on (August 2022) was at ((Years in Romania)), combining 4 templates into one. Just never thought of doing the same with articles. For lists, I see that at List of villages in Agder (Norway), it contains a comprehensive References section without needing to add a ref. on every line. The column setup looks clear & easy to follow. Wondering if those red links were deleted articles? History shows this list was from merger of two lists. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 04:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Kazamzam and @PMC, Recently I ran the PetScan tool for Sept. 2023 orphan articles, making a list of footballers. Then, I searched at worldfootball.net reliable source website for these players, and found very many. I did this all in bunch, so very helpful. Next I will be adding the first cite to each article, then de-orphan by adding player to YYYY in association football article, mostly Births section. Lastly, removing the orphan tag. FYI, I did update my Petscan page here for the process. It's nice to work on this, taking a break from de-tagging some of those hundreds of orphan articles. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again. I wanted to clarify why I reverted your edits on Troy Creek. The source you used was reliable but it did not verify any of the information in the article. At most it would have been acceptable for citing the coordinates in an infobox but it doesn't verify any of the content, i.e. about salinity and the water quality issues that are repeatedly mentioned in the article. Furthermore, sources like this involve a lot of digging around on the part of the person trying to affirm information about the topic. Especially for places that have common names, this can be an issue because there will be multiple hits. But again, the bigger issue is that the cited reference verifies almost nothing in the article. We see this a lot in other references - a passing mention of a topic in a book does not a reference make.

Sourcing some of these location stubs, as @PMC demonstrated above, can be quite a lot of work and requires experience in both finding and evaluating references for their overall fitness. I would recommend trying a different topic - movies and books are both good options - if you are having difficulty finding references for these small and obscure geographic features. There's almost 119,000 articles in need of sources - plenty to go around! Please let me know if you have any questions. Kazamzam (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update, Hi @Kazamzam and @PMC,

• ( 1 ) After due consideration (debating with myself), I understand that adding new references to articles is not for me. I can update those association football player biography articles (since I found those reliable sources), and un-tagging those not-orphan articles. Both are more than enough to keep me busy.

• ( 2 ) Question - after reading this Signpost article Wikipedia Signpost/2023-09-16/Serendipity about The Wikipedia Library, am impressed by all the sources there. So all those are Reliable sources?

• ( 3 ) Excessive citations article List of Irish local government areas 1898–1921. At "Citations" section, wondering if that tag can be removed?

Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @JoeNMLC, thank you for your response.

1. I really do not want to discourage you from adding new references to articles - you clearly have a great passion for editing and the URA is very short on editors. What I'm suggesting is being a little bit slower and considering what references work and why they work. There are a lot of low-hanging fruit that can be easily sourced from existing articles, i.e. list of Algerian films, most of which have articles that can be used as sources for references for the list. For example, one of the first films listed in the Algerian films article is The Battle of Algiers, which has 49 references. As referencing becomes more intuitive, expanding to other topics will become very intuitive. If you'd like, we can work on referencing an article together.

2. The Wikipedia Library describes itself as a "place for active Wikipedia editors to gain access to the vital reliable sources that they need to do their work". There are still potential issues with citing primary sources but overall I think it's an excellent repository.

3. I think the excessive citations tag can be removed given that there are 34 individual counties to be referenced, each of which has sub-units. Personally, I would use the EC tag for when there are something like 10 citations on a specific sentence (unnecessary and disruptive of the prose of the article). Does that make sense? Yes it's a lot of citations but it's also a large article that needs a lot of citations. Best, Kazamzam (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Kazamzam Thanks for your feedback. ( 2 above ) - For that list of Algerian films, I did add one reference at the last entry of "Award-winning Algerian films" section. When I checked the first one, The Battle of Algiers, I could not find a decent reference for Film, Director, or Awards. For film Rome plutôt que vous, nothing for film or director but there looks to be a good ref. for that film's award. So that is what I added. And you're right, that entire list needs more. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello JoeNMLC:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

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

There is a backlog of over 1500 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Joe, hope you're doing well. I was wondering if you could help me de-orphan (un-orphan?) the article Daohugouthallus. It has a number of links but a lot of the articles where I think it is appropriate to include are not very fleshed out. It might be possible to include it on some lists but I'm hoping to make a more organic connection. If you have any suggestions, I would really appreciate it! Best, Kazamzam (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kazamzam, Even though I'm not familiar with this topic, I made attempt to de-orphan Daohugouthallus article with wikilink at Ningcheng County article. Hope this helps. If not, perfectly okay to revert. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Your recent edit to Biella appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Denisarona - Please explain as I made no edits to Biella article. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The edit was on 5 October 2021. Regards Denisarona (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's pretty ridiculous to template someone with a "your recent edit" template for an edit that was over two years ago. On top of that, there was an article for that person at the time Joe made the edit, which you'd have seen if you'd bothered to check. It wasn't even deleted for notability reasons, but as a G5. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. You added a ((Further)) to Review aggregator that seems out of place, particularly the phrase "the former website" which would refer to a specific website previously mentioned. I'm curious what in your opinion justifies singling out Movie Review Intelligence there. Is there something about the context that makes it more notable than, say, Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes? --95.99.94.82 (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@95.99.94.82 - Thanks for the feedback. Yes I agree, so I removed that "Further" and replaced with a sentence giving Movie Review Intelligence as an aggregator example. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was bad draftification, and I have reverted your move. Subject clearly passes WP:NPOL as the former member of Kyrgyzstan legislative assembly. Sources were there to verify the claims. I have added one more source from the corresponding article on Russian Wikipedia. Let me know if you have any further queries. Maliner (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate Gidonb's and your work improving and expanding the article. It's in much better shape. However, I'd appreciate you not withdrawing the AfD nomination when you're not the nominator. I've edited the page and withdrawn it myself now. Thanks, Sgubaldo (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, Sgubaldo you're right. Sorry-I got caught up in the process & forgot. Note to self = don't Withdraw if I'm not the Nominator. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello

I just created a new music page called Starry but I've got some tags on it . Can you enlighten me on how to improve on the article .. I'll appreciate your response on this sir. Thanks Princeisrael2728 (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings @Princeisrael2728 - While I am not familiar with musician biographies, I did update the article's Talk with relevant WikiProjects. The Rater ORES assessment tool rates the article as "Start" class. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh... Ok thanks so much Princeisrael2728 (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you mistakenly credited that unsigned comment to me on the reassessment queue! I added the comment below it, not the unsigned Bertram Fletcher Robinson request. Apologies for any confusion!! Wasianpower (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Wasianpower for letting me know. I updated the Unsigned, and hopefull this time it's correct. Sorry for the mix-up. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]