User talk:Jovanmilic97

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by .

My article is deniend...it is related to a Canadian politician and actress in India. We can provide all detail required here. Please reply us. Because its too urgent...new movie is releasing in 2 months. They also own a movie production company

Draft:Sanjay Chhimpa

Hii Jovanmilic97 I have added a number of links which show that he has acted as a singer in many films, which is mentioned in the film Wikipedia page with the name. I also enclosed the Imdb link in which all the singer data is present. You will reconsider this and publish it

Respect Gsswiki5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4052:697:3352:2BC0:4B1B:77CF:79F4 (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About the draft article Draft:Syed Sahil Agha

Hello, I noticed that in the above draft you made this comment: "Improperly sourced. Please read how to cite sources. Links need to become references, not just bare url posted. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC) ". I don't know if you are aware of it, but WP:AFCSTANDARDS makes very clear that having bare URLs as sources, while not optimal, is not a reason for declining an article for publication. Please don't make comments like this when they are patently untrue, yes? It confuses and discourages contributors. Thanks! A loose noose (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A loose noose Hello! From what I know, per WP:MINREF BLPs have to be inline cited, which is what AFCSTANDARDS is calling on as well. So as such it does not meet inline criteria standards and thus I declined. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, let's work through this then. I am certainly open to learning here! I had another look at the references. They actually were inline cites, but the person who wrote them had put in bare URLs for the "website=" parameter of the Citeweb template, and this caused an error for every citation. I have now gone ahead and fixed these so that all of the cites now show no errors, and the all are (and already were) "inline" cites. Do you think that if you saw the article now, would you go ahead and publish it? It is still very short, of course, but length is not usually a criterion. A loose noose (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - A loose noose I would say I kind of agree with Snowycats on this. Not enough significant coverage in reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. References are either citing about what he said, making it WP:PRIMARY, or he is a passing mention in a bigger event. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, here's a different question: do you think it would survive a deletion discussion? A loose noose (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - A loose noose, I feel like you are testing me here :). Please read Review guidelines on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Reviewing_instructions#Step_2:_Notability_and_verifiability which says "If what is written in the submission meets the notability guidelines, but the submission lacks references to evidence this, then the underlying issue is inadequate verification and the submission should be declined for that reason". So whether it would survive or not (and I think it would not), it doesn't matter here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        My apologies, not meant as a test, rather a question of philosophy, and for my own better understanding. :-) Thanks for your insights! A loose noose (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TheOdd1sOut_(2nd_nomination)

Hi, would you mind backing out your close and maybe relisting on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/TheOdd1sOut_(2nd_nomination)? This was such a confusing AfD I'd prefer to have it handled by an administrator. Thanks! SportingFlyer T·C 18:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer Done! While I don't exactly get the "handled by an administrator" case, I am always happy to help if needed! Won't relist since I think like you said administrator should decide on that now, not me. :) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! The procedure surrounding this article has been so strange - deleted three months ago, I thought it was a clear G4, my G4 prod removed by someone who thought it should go to an AfD since the first AfD had a number of sock IPs voting delete, and the only user to actually comment on G4 commented right before you closed it. It's such a strange situation I'm hoping an administrator can close it in order to provide a bit of clarity to the process. SportingFlyer T·C 21:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, I got a "consensus can change" from the admin who closed it, even though there was a strong delete vote after it was opened back up. An strange end to one of the strangest articles I've ever seen. Thanks for reopening it though! SportingFlyer T·C 22:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer I noticed it a while ago, while I personally would do a relist because a rebuttal for the sources has arrived, you can say there is still a majority (all of the voters being at least more than a year old accounts) that support the sources and are based on the subject passing WP:GNG thus being all valid votes. I mean you could try at Deletion Review, but I even you get granted a relist, it would at best roll over to "no consensus". Very weird AfD, and thank you for thanking me! :) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some bubble tea for you!

Credits where it is due. Thanks a lot for relisting AfDs with vote stuffed Keep comments and thereby maintaining the sanctity of AfD. Cheers from a fellow AfD contributor. DBig Xrayᗙ 11:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and in case you are wondering, I was referring to this excellent relist. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting AfDs

Hi Jovanmilic97. I appreciate the help at AfD but I would kindly request that you wait a little bit before relisting discussions. Twice in the last few days I was reviewing discussions only to discover they had been relisted while I was looking them over. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, and thanks for the call here. I also noticed that the "delete" closure on the first AfD was a right thing to do after being thorough instead of another relist. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Unreal Engine games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Android (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

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

Your post at notability

I saw the post and almost responded. There are a lot of appearent conflicts between Wikipolicies. Policies are created and edited by many different users not by one mind. They allow for interpretation and circumstances. Hope that helps? Legacypac (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac Oh thank you for responding! I was kind of bummed out nobody was willing to reply but were voting on PORNBIO issues. Yeah, I guess it is the best to apply case by case. I do think it creates a valid link: obviously if an author has 3+ books all reviewed, it is more than likely the author himself gets the coverage somewhere too. But I do feel AUTHOR C3 is a bit too inclusive, basically allowing everyone with a notable work in Wikipedia, which is iffy to me. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PornBio is a much more exciting topic. Authors only become notable by writing notable works. If no notable works they are just a random wannabe author. Same with artists and other creative professionals. Their work makes them notable so I don't see a contradiction. Legacypac (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of Brave: Shaman's Challenge

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

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

Andupchur (talk · contribs)
- Draft:André UpChurch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Andupchur (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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