• Mohit Rajani8 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Impelsys ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Tvx1, Can you please tell me minimum how many reference links should be there for new article creation? Is there any terms or conditions for this? I have seen some other articles which have very few links but still it'll be there on space. for example: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingenta" So, can you please explain me this how and why? And also please guide me if someone like me want to create article which have very few sources or one could not find it but whatever information and knowledge individuals have they want to go with that then what are the suggestions from your end?

Hi! I can not accept your reject reason. What sources do you want to see? BKK is an organizer transport company of Budapest, it is not reliable?? Are you kidding me? In this subject where do you want a reliable source from? WP:ROUTINE says nothing about this case or I do not understand, please draw up your own words. Kemenymate (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to accept or decline for you. If a submission is declined, it's declined. At no point in my reasoning did I claim that your sources are unreliable. Please actually read the feedback the reviewers write. What we need is independent, third party mainstream reliable sources. Only those sources will allow us to assess the subject's notability. The sources currently present are nothing but routine information. Routine information means basic information that is pertinent to a subject. In case of football matches that would be the team rosters, for a sports season the season calendar and for public transport authority it's basic information like timetables, routes, fare information etc. Source #1 is just the basic information for the commuters: timetables, routes, access information, fare information, where to buy and validate tickets etc... . Sources #2 and #3 are simply links to the homepages of the public transport authorities without any indication why the are mentioned where they are mentioned in the article. They are not related to the accompanying text in any way. Source #4 is the company in question detailing their history, which is again pretty basic. Source #5 is again a link to the homepage of bus operator, but it doesn't support the text it's partnered with either. Source #6 is another timetable (routine) and Source #7 is a routine list of the rolling stock they use. Source #8 is just a link to the part of the site were commuters can find out which bus(es) they have to catch to get to their intended destination and Source #9 is the routine information on a set of historical tours they offer. There is no evidence of notability here leaving us nothing to justify accepting it. In fact, I feel that anything that needs be told about Budapest public transport can be included on the relevant section on the article on Budapest itself.Tvx1 22:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me which source would be better than the original transport company. I am very curious. There are several articles with one or less sources, for example: List of bus routes in Malta or Buses in Prague. Are they OK, but Budapest is not? I really do not understand. Kemenymate (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No they're not ok. There even is a tag on the Malta article pointing that out. But it doesn't matter, they are not being discussed here. And many wrongs don't make a right. What you need is a number of independent, third-party mainstream reliable sources demonstrating that this bus company is notable beyond the Budapest commuters. Wikipedia is not a travel guide Tvx1 21:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 24.60.203.149 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:John Robinson ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Just wondering what is wrong with sources like the Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, San Facisco Chronicle, Music Web International etc?

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to List of bus routes in Malta, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Any uninvolved editor may remove a speedy delete tag, provided they offer an explanation. I have given one. You do not have the right to restore the tag and I say again: please take it to Afd if you wish to pursue this, as you did with the other bus route article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You have given none. You have simply said "take it to afd". That's no explanation or justification. Per the process' instructions you have to provide an explanation why it does not meer the selected criterium or declare your intent to improve the article. You did neither. Furthermore, there is no prohibition on restoring such a tag.Tvx1 01:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I will say again that the speedy corp tag does not apply. You do not have the right to continue to restore it. a) I'm not convinced that all the routes in Malta represent a single corporation and b) we have a large category system of such lists at Category:Lists of bus routes. It requires an Afd, imo. Any deleting admin will see the edit history and my rationale, as well. This isn't going to work. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Speedy_deletion I have clearly stated my objections. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read the "renominations" part.Tvx1 01:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you? "It is typically taken to deletion discussions" -- that means to an Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Typically is not the same thing as mandatory.Tvx1 02:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So unless you have a policy in front of you you're going to act like a jerk? That's great. I'm done wasting time on you. The matter is at Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one acting as if 'd broken policies, without backing that with evidence.Tvx1 02:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Tvx1 reported by User:Shawn in Montreal (Result: ). Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really, really, really unnecessary. You incorrectly assumed bad faith om my part and that I would endlessly reverting and that I would not have gone to AFD, while forgetting that you're the one who broke WP:3RR.Tvx1 02:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Knock it off, both of you. Nothing useful is coming out of bickering. The situation has resolved itself so I'm letting everyone off with warnings; I suggest you both take a step back and cool down for a bit. Primefac (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tvx1. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Rowde/My F1 schedule, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: U5 only applies if the user has no or few other edits. Use WP:MFD instead . Thank you. SoWhy 11:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• NRCBeng (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Groupes Bibliques Universitaires ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi,

You just refused my article because no change was made since the last submission... which was totally logical since the last reviewer had made a mistake and told me to just resubmit. Before that, I had added lots of references. Here is what I was told to do : @user:NRCBeng. I made a mistake there. Feel free to resubmit it again. » Shadowowl Marcos Rodriguez | t | SPI | AIV | Sandbox | Helpdesk » 17:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Could you please re-review my article on that basis ?

Thank you

NRCBeng (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not wishing to appear uncharitable... but, after nearly 2 years!!! Eagleash (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't get what you mean here.Tvx1 20:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rowde; blocked indef 'abusing multiple accounts'. Not before time as you know! Eagleash (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've realized that in the meantime. I don't know where that came from. Is there a report somewhere. Also don't forget that their IP ranges are still able to edit.Tvx1 21:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't know how it came about either, maybe Favonian spotted something and decided to investigate a bit. As he has been banned for abusing multiple accounts, the thing about edits by blocked or banned users (socking) being reverted would seem to be be particularly applicable. Eagleash (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i understand that ATP is the main and obvious source to take information about rankings. But if you know how the ATP Ranking works, you should know that the 90 points of Halle will be replaced for the 300 for Rotterdam final. I will not change it, until you verified this information tomorrow with the official ranking.

Thanks, Kleyw (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they will be. If a player has a result that could be replaced within his maximum of countable tournaments, the points for that tournament would be listed in the "Next best" column in the ATP's official rankings. You can cross-check this for all players who have a points value in the "Next best" column. For Goffin there is a 0 points in the "Next best column". This indicates that there should not be any replacing. Tvx1 00:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will check again in the ATP rankings the position of Goffin this week. As advice do not change things in the encyclopedia, if you are not sure. Kleyw (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were just as unsure as me (and for the record, I was sure of my edit). As it turns out his Monte Carlo points were substituted. The real lesson we should learn from this is that the should not list future ranking positions anymore at all in any case anywhere.Tvx1 13:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tvx1! Could you take a look at Talk:2016 European Grand Prix/GA1 over the next couple of days and see if you agree with me that some of the stuff this reviewer demands are just either too much for just a GA or in worst cases stuff that we, by WikiProject standards, do not include in race articles at all? If it comes down to it, I might even need some assistance here convincing them that they are asking for unreasonable things, but I'll see what the response on my first edits are. Anyway, a look from you would be much appreciated :) Hope you're well (and not too worn out by a certain F1 editor yet...)! Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you didn't need my input.Tvx1 19:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It worked out surprisingly fine in the end. Thanks for the reply though :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]