If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please let me know. I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion. Thank you. --John B123 (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

On the offchance that you should ever see any non-motorcycle products in Motoplas (M.P.C. = Motoplas Company) refs or other literature, I would appreciate it. Possibly tonneaus for sports cars and sidecars. Tried at Grace's guide and done a few superficial searches mentioning Waverley Works. I don't know when BSA absorbed Motoplas, maybe inheriting the Waverley building as I surmise it may have been. Don't need to cite it. Many thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rocknrollmancer. I haven't seen anything like that but it's possible they were produced. BSA were in possession of the Waverley Works by WW2.[1] Motoplas doesn't seem to have been set up until the 1950s and was an offshoot of one of BSA's subsidiary companies Metal and Plastic Compacts.[2] [3]. These may also be of interest. [4] [5]. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - I've been doing some very small bits on railways and this image shows large sheds that had their own shunting lines for shipping heavy engineering out; after the heyday of manufacturing they became run down and under-occupied - one chap at the gym in 1985 worked there - Sintered Products - owned by engineering giant GKN. I always thought that Motoplas was independent and that they would've already diversified into other products than seat covers befire being bought-out by BSA (don't know why - must do better in future). --Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rocknrollmancer: Hi, I've just noticed from Amal (carburettor)#cite note-7, Motoplas took over the manufacturing of Amal's alloy brake and clutch levers in '67. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks, I wrote it! Nice to be reminded though, it was an age ago. I've just been looking for some F750 pics that's on my old computer but can't recall where from (a paddock shot of Percy Tait on the Suzuki triple sprang to mind). I keep threatening to screengrab the URLs, but I've now found a few new pics of interest so all's not lost. rgds,-- Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rocknrollmancer: Sorry, I didn't realise you wrote it. Tait on a kettle, must have been in 76. There's some info on his North West 200 winning triple here. On a side note, in about 74 I owned an ex-Boyer of Bromley 1966 Bonneville production racer that was originally raced by Tait. (Not a true Thruxton, but Triumph supplied Thruxton kits to selected dealers for racing. Boyers were a semi-works team at the time.) A pig to ride on the road, a very cammy engine combined with a close ratio box meant acceleration to 30 was pedestrian and then the power came in with a bang. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JB123, hope you and yours are well. In the world of botany there are many names, in the world of Botanical Science, there are accepted names and non-accepted names. POWO at the moment is the most up to date with accepted names, that is why I used that source. Why not more than one source? Then we get into dating problems (this years, last years) and debates in science around what is currently accepted. The practice at Wikiprojects Plants is to use single authoritative source for such. POWO seems most up-to-date and down-to-earth. I'm afraid if you tag this list with "single source" then you are going to have to go to the majority of botanical pages and do the same for naming. Brunswicknic (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brunswicknic. I'm good thanks, hope you are good too. Over the past year or so NP patrollers have had different opinions from members of Wikiprojects Plants. On one occasion the member was of the opinion that if the article has a taxon bar it should not be tagged with {{One source}}, but if it doesn't have the taxon bar it should. If List of Terminalia species didn't have a taxon bar then by his interpretation of the "thoughts of Wikiprojects Plants" it should be tagged, but by your reasoning it shouldn't. On other occasions articles created under the name given in one database have been criticized because another database classifies it differently. In more general terms, there is no WP:SNG for plants, so WP:GNG would apply, which talks of reliable sources (plural). It would be really useful for NP patrollers, who are generally not plant experts, to have some definitive guidelines from Wikiprojects Plants. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John B123, thanks, I'm well too (I'm a resident of Melbourne, Australia, and we have managed to get Covid down to zero at present). Forgive me, there is a taxonbar on the page, since its creation. However I appreciate the difficult task of NP patrollers, making judgments all the time is an intense process. I will post a new heading, drawing attention to this issue and see what comes of it. Thanks for your work. Brunswicknic (talk) 09:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brunswicknic. In the UK we're just coming out of our third Covid lockdown. Hopefully with a large portion of the adult population now vaccinated things will improve. Your brining this up at Wikiprojects Plants is appreciated. Another thought would be for somebody from the Project to be given NPP rights and look over the new plant articles. Not only would their subject knowledge be useful, but they may be able to resolve any problems rather than just tagging the article. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for curating this page. Yo have suggested improvements and addressed that the article contains or relies on one source. But actually, to be honest, this type of articles always rely on a single or a few sources. Because these are list articles and these contains in a group in few stats websites. If it would be a biographic or organizational article or any event, it would have enough sources. You can also see some articles similar to my one, for example- List of Dhaka Division cricketers, List of Duronto Rajshahi cricketers etc. These articles also rely on one source. — A.A Prinon  ^Conversation 11:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi A.A Prinon, the reference for the article is to a subscription site so it can't be verified unless you subscribe. Additionally, the notability guidelines refer to "significant coverage in reliable sources", ie more than one source. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 13:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John B123, The reference is a subscription site. But I am viewing that site without subscribing. If you can stop the site before the paywall loads, then you can also view that site. However, the same subscription site (cricketarchive.com) is also used in all other similar list articles. See- Template:Lists of Bangladeshi cricketers. A.A Prinon (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@A.A Prinon: Defeating paywalls isn't how Wikipedia works and is basically dishonest. I'd draw your attention to WP:ONESOURCE: a subject for which only one source can be cited is unlikely to merit a standalone article. --John B123 (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123: However, all the lists of first-class, List A and T20 teams players of Bangladesh also used this same subscription site as reference. A.A Prinon (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@A.A Prinon: That's as may be, but it doesn't make it compliant with the guidelines. Perhaps I need to nominate these lists for deletion. --John B123 (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123:, Now you please check the page. Hope that now you can verify the list. A.A Prinon (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John B123 Sir, Kindly review the subject. Best regards RV (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RV, all done. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and best regards RV (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John B123 Sir, Please review these two pages, the first is Sherpa fabric and the other is Solidonia. Best regards RV (talk) 12:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RV, all done. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much and best regards RV (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded the No Good Gofers page in my own words to where it shouldn't be copyright infringement anymore.

@DemonStalker: Please see copyvio report[6] Regards. --John B123 (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123: I checked it and after the change it said thirty something percent and that copyright violation was unlikely. Is this a fine percentage or should it be closer to twenty percent or even lower? DemonStalker (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DemonStalker: You need to change the text that's highlighted in red. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123: Ok I fixed the highlighted areas dropping the the violation percentage from 30%+ to ~8% with the longest highlighted area that is left is a phrase/saying. DemonStalker (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guess all of this doesn't matter anymore because the page was deleted. :/ Ok, false alarm, turns out I'm just dyslexic

@DemonStalker: I've removed the speedy delete tag and added a {{copyvio-revdel}} tag which will be removed by an admin when he has made the offending revisions of the page history. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John B123: Ok thank you <3... I have one more unrelated question though. In the Special pages (Wanted pages) what does the /GA1 and /GA2 mean? DemonStalker (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DemonStalker: /GA pages are for discussions about articles nominated for GA (good article) review. I'd ignore them as they are probably orphaned links to pages that have been deleted, moved or archived. If you are using the list for new articles to create I would ignore anything beginning with "Talk:". Regards --John B123 (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday i create an article which name is Mokhsedul Momin. He is an politician and also chirman of saidpur upazila. I added some reference. But i cloud not find out why Wikipedia find out biography??? What's the main matter?? SanyHossain (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SanyHossain, local politicians are not inherently notable, see WP:POLITICIAN. Regards --John B123 (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what can do now?? Put you give me some ideas. I want to make sure this article never delecation. SanyHossain (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SanyHossain, you need to add content and references to show notability beyond just being a politician. --John B123 (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John B123 Sir, Please review the Momie cloth. Thanks RV (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RV, all done. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much and best regards. RV (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John! Can you please have another look at Ravi Poovaiah and see if it needs any more improvement. Thanks :-) VV 18:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VV, that looks fine now. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I Suspect this three accounts to be the same person which was vandalising the kallar caste & other pages without a Wikipedia account, this accounts evolved after the page was protected, this people have been vandalising other pages as well. Oudi berry AravindShekar9 Ihaveabandonedmychild Nandivarman (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nandivarman, I don't have access to the tools needed to investigate sockpuppets, but if you post your concerns at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, somebody there will be able to look into it. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nandivarman (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John B123 Sir, Please review the subject page, Sir, kindly have a look if Solidonia is reviewed or not. Thanks and best regardsRV (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RV. I've marked Anidex as reviewed. Solidonia was previously reviewed. If you want to see if a page has been reviewed, you can see from the page logs, which can be accessed from the page history tab, the "View logs for this page" link is on the left just below the article title. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

​ Sir, Thank you so much for the review and the information. Best regards RV (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John B123 Sir, Please review these two pages Brocatelle and Casement cloth. Thanks and regards RV (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RV, all done Regards. --John B123 (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and best regards RV (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent edit to Ulmecatl, but please take care not to add {{stub}} to an article which already has a specific stub tag. Thanks. PamD 18:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I agree with them. I suggest other people who have access to Greek language sources will be able to contribute. And his publications are very extensive. Obviously he has now become a very public figure as a member of the European Court of Justice. Keep up the good work.Grotius2018 (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grotius2018, thanks, I'm sure you're right about sources being out there. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How comes my recently created page Hemmingwell was deleted? It appears it was originally deleted due to lack of sources and general info, however I created this page with far more info than its original state as well as the necessary sources. Can this be reinstated? Thanks. - PayneKiller908

Hi PayneKiller908. The normal procedure for recreating articles that have previously been deleted at WP:AfD, is to create them in draft and then submit for WP:AfC review. There are parts of the article that are unreferenced. I'm happy to restore the article if you are going to add further references. If it helps I can tag where references are needed. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, thanks for the response. Yes I can add further references and if you wouldn't mind tagging where they are necessary that would be appreciated. Thanks. - PayneKiller908

Thanks. - PayneKiller908

Hi PayneKiller908, all done. Regards --John B123 (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @PayneKiller908: I have added some inline tags to the article - if you mouse-hover over, the reasons will be revealled as a tooltip (text overlay).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John B123. Thanks for your edit on Michael Coulthart in which you notice that the references are incomplete. Unfortunately, I am having terrible trouble with the citation bot from where I connect. It has been spotty all day. Can you please help by trying it out for me from where you are? Thanks in advance, Magnovvig (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Magnovvig, Citation bot isn't working for me either. I quite often have trouble with it. At times it runs automatically on the articles in multiple categories and during these times it just hangs if you try to use it. I've filled the references on Michael Coulthart with the RefToolbar, but it still might be worth running it through citation bot if you can catch it at a quiet time. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, John B123 and especially the drudgery to fill-in the refs manually. Cheers Magnovvig (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, @John B123:: what do you think is causing the problems with citation bot? I've experienced this for around two weeks, if not longer. And how do we talk to someone in charge? Thanks in advance. Magnovvig (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Magnovvig, I think it's from a couple of users running long lists from the "Linked pages" option. User talk:Citation bot#Does anyone know what is going on here? might be of interest to you. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John B123 Sir, Please review the Gossamer fabric. Thanks and regards RV (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RV, it loos like somebody beat me to it. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

​ Sir, Thanks for reviewing Gossamer fabric and Huckaback fabric. Best regards RV (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are IMDB references usually not acceptable for proving that a series has won an award? Thanks. Kakun (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kakun, IMDb isn't regarded as a reliable source as anybody can edit it. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll remove those refs. Cheers. Kakun (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not actually helpful, please see WP:NPROF for guidelines for academics and requirements for RS for academics. --hroest 20:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hannes Röst: I am well aware of WP:NPROF. I suggest you read WP:PRIMARY as the bulk of the article is referenced to her self-written University profile. This is not a reliable sources as required by WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. --John B123 (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John B123 Please have a look at WP:NPROF again, it clearly specifies non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details. This is exactly what the article does. I dont see how it could be any clearer. --hroest 21:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hannes Röst: Please read the sentence in full Once the passage of one or more notability criteria has been verified through independent sources, or through the reliable sources listed explicitly for this purpose in the specific criteria notes, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details. You need to establish WP:NPROF from independent sources before adding "non-independent sources". Excluding her self written profile, all there is left is She was listed as one of the 50 most influential women in 2016 by The Analytical Scientist, which is not enough to pass WP:NPROF.--John B123 (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John B123, well said. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are now making a completely different argument, your initial argument was that the article needs multiple sources to support its statements. This is still false, it does not. Since this is clearly not the case, you are now using a completely different argument namely that the subject is not notable. My point is that *if* the subject is notable, *then* we can use official institutional and professional sources. Please let me know if you would like to engage in a completely different discussion, namely if the subject is notable to begin with. This is very easy established with her winning the Thomson Medal, one of the highest distinctions in the field. --hroest 00:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hannes Röst: I'm not changing my argument at all just responding to your previous comment. If her meeting NP is through her winning the Thompson Medal, then that needs to be verified by independent sources (note NP uses the plural). Her writing that she has won it is not verification. For clarity, basing a biography on what they have said about themselves without independent verification is not acceptable. --John B123 (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page is been draftifed by me, grandson(blocked as of now) is trying to promote his whole family and the community, as they are the leader. Sonofstar (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sonofstar, I'm not sure what you are asking me. Regards --John B123 (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the respone. I am just informing you because you reviewed the page and I send it into the draft. Sonofstar (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sonofstar: OK, thanks for letting me know. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey John,

First off thanks for all the work you do, I see you review my pages a lot. Second just would love some help understanding the tag you had added to my page 1932 Penn State Nittany Lions men's soccer team.

For adding more precise citations would that be in the history section? Would it be simply just adding more refs at the ends of sentences that point to articles that confirm that point?

I am pretty new to this specific tag so would love some help. Thanks!

NoahRiffe (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NoahRiffe, I see you have added some more inline refs which helps. In general terms, each paragraph needs a reference at the end, provided that reference covers the whole paragraph. If it doesn't you may need to add refs within the paragraph.

Specifically with 1932 Penn State Nittany Lions men's soccer team, the long line of references under the table need to be moved to the part of the text that they refer to. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John B123 How should I go about that for the table? Those refs in a line there under the table are where I got the results, location, date and time. NoahRiffe (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NoahRiffe, I'd put them at the end of the table row of the match they refer to. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have tagged the following articles, Victorian Railways G class (1877) & Victorian Railways H class (1877), as needing more citations. The whole page is a citation from the book "Steam Locomotives of the Victorian Railways - Volume 1 The First Fifty Years" which is listed in the References section on both pages. This is the only information that seems to exist on these locomotives (other than what I've added to my own website which I sourced from that book, and I've been told in the past I can't reference my own site). How can I list more citations if there isn't any more to list? --Trainsofvictoria (talk) 02:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trainsofvictoria, you need to add inline citations, as at present some content being referenced inline and some being from a general reference is confusing. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this on Victorian Railways G class (1877) acceptable? --Trainsofvictoria (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trainsofvictoria, that looks fine. I've changed the refs to use {{harvnb}} as you've already detailed the book. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help John B123, although it does seem like overkill and a little messy. I'll update the other page and take note of what to do with the other similar pages of missing locomotives I will be creating. --Trainsofvictoria (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delhi Dynamos FC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Odisha FC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello John B123. This title used to be a redirect to Odisha FC. (I got notified of recent changes since I helped with a move discussion back in 2019). Do you know of any reason why Delhi Dynamos FC should still be kept as a separate article? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EdJohnston, I can't see any reason for a separate article. The repeated recreation of Delhi Dynamos FC is largely a copy and paste from Odisha FC. Your protection of the page seems a good move. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added sources that you said, so please remove this Nobìlity Template from Hari Mirchi Lal Mirchi. Thanks. KungfuPanda2008 (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KungfuPanda2008, all done. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing template. KungfuPanda2008 (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am confused on what is your request exactly for the page The_Children’s_House_(Rijeka,_Croatia)?

There are enough official sources and they are from different mainstream media. --Zblace (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zblace. The history from WW2 to 2014 is unreferenced, as it the first half of Concept" and all of "Events and projects". Regards. --John B123 (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John B123 Sir, If you don't mind can I remove the notability tag that you have put on the article. As I have now already mentioned some source and added some references. Also in many Embassy article like Embassy of the Czech Republic, Ottawa Embassy of the Czech Republic in Washington, D.C I see that they have less sources like in this article have. But you can see the more sources from

which is already mentioned in history. The Fucture Wikipedian (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Fucture Wikipedian, the references you have added show it exists. That is an entirely different thing to it being notable. The references are mainly from primary sources. The articles you mention were created many years ago, in the intervening years the requirements for notability have changed. There have also been some similar embassy articles created recently that have been moved to draft. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you John_B123 sir, for letting me know that. So can i remove that tag now or I still need some more sources for notability. The Fucture Wikipedian (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Fucture Wikipedian: Embassies are not inherently notable so you need to show why this particular embassy is notable. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright sir John_B123 The Fucture Wikipedian (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that I've blocked The Fucture Wikipedian as a confirmed sock.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jezebel's Ponyo, thanks for the info. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for viewing and advising the work. Meow2021 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John I realized that the first message might have been misunderstood. Really glad you r watching over. Here in Pattaya most of the newspapers cleared servers and sources and closed. Is like the whole city doesn't exist. I have many magazines and newspapers next to me... Original sources have completely disappeared! Difficult work indeed. Meow2021 (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meow2021, thanks. Sorry to here that, I was in Pattaya towards the end of 2019, before covid hit. I thought it's a wonderful city. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. Got one new article today. Submitting for your review. -Imcdc (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Imcdc, all done. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response! -Imcdc (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John,

Could you please explain me what did you mean by telling that the article is not suitable. It meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline: it has significant coverage, sources are secondary and reliable (first of all „Miroslav Krleža Institute of Lexicography” in Zagreb), it is no original research, I am not affiliated with the subject etc. I am very sorry that there are no English sources available, but some of sources given in the article are summerized in English. Anyway, sources do not have to be available online or written in English. I have written the article like other similar articles dealing with members of the House of Ilok (Iločki in Croatian, Ujlaki in Hungarian), who lived in 14th, 15th and 16th century. Should the title be „Ladislav Iločki“ (his name in Croatian language) instead of Ladislaus of Ilok? Because the most sources talk about Croatian variety of his name. I can improve the article by putting some references instead of external links. I am looking forward to your answer. Regards, --Silverije 21:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Silve. The external links section is used to include links to further information not included in the article, it should not be used for references for the article. References should be provided by inline citations. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John B123, Greetings!
Regarding this edit, I recently got to know that refill tag doesn't remove the {{Cleanup bare URLs}} tag (after refilling), if placed inside {{Multiple issues}} tags. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 06:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gpkp, thanks for the info. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My brother I need to you help me? Please in my profile at the bottom 2021-22 CAF Super Cup still showing red. Can you add there - this one but is be little bit long. My phone don't have long one. Please. Much love and salute. Sami Yusuf Khan (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sami Yusuf Khan, all done. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the process of expansion, but still can be passed.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heba Aisha, the first part of "Arjak beliefs" needs to be referenced. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do the needful things, plz note someone is nominating it for speedy delition on A7 and G11 criteria. Many a times, I see deleting admins don't have idea about the subject and inadvertently genuine articles are deleted. That happened to one of my article in past and later admin rectified his mistake. This is 27th article of mine, so i would request you to give me a week to work on it. Since, I can't remove speedy delition tag myself. I ensure, i will take it to a good level. Heba Aisha (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heba Aisha, whilst I agree that A7 and G11 aren't applicable, you shouldn't have removed the tag yourself. I note another reviewer has now marked the page as reviewed. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, mistake, the nominator himself blocked now.Heba Aisha (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]