This is an archive of past discussions with User:John B123. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi John B123. On behalf of the Wikipedia community, I award you this barnstar for your amazing contributions to sex work articles. This under-represented area of Wikipedia is greatly benefited by your contributions over the years. Happy editing, MX (✉ • ✎) 00:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
The 2018 Cure Award
In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.
Thank you for making my day with your review of my new page - I thank you and the animals and humans who care about climate change, flooding, archaeology and habitat preservation will be grateful too! Minard38 (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I have been creating 18 wikipedia articles and John have been extremely helpful in advising, reviewing and showing me where to improve in each. He is a very nice person as a reviewer, and ensures that his messages and advice is nice to read, easy to understand! Thank you for helping me in this wikipedia article creation and I hope to create more articles next year June! Dukula Jayasinghe (talk)15:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@Dukula Jayasinghe: - Thanks for your kind words. I'm glad to have been of help to you in creating these article, which are informative, well researched, well written and well presented. Look forward to your articles next year. --John B123 (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
hi,
thankyou,i added links to gudiyatham east.please help to improve thus.good job.thankyou.
after reading please reply me..
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for making my day with your review of my new page - I thank you and the animals and humans who care about climate change, flooding, archaeology and developing tourismPratheeba Rani (talk) 12:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
@Pratheeba Rani: - Hi, I've made a few changes to the article. Unfortunately I had to remove most of the content about the biodiversity park as it was copied and pasted from a newspaper. Please do not copy and paste in the future, it's not acceptable on Wikipedia. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I will try to finish the last airport which is the Shirpur Airstrip as quickly as possible so that all the airports in the requested page of WikiProject India are complete. Thanks a lot for your support!
--YashPratap1912 (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you again for reviewing so many of my poor pages! Without you, new page patrollers would have a lot of work to do.—Arorae (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello John B123. I appreciate your participation in the article about Thomas Kiernan (biographer). This is the first page I have ever created for Wikipedia and I want it to be great. Your assistance is vital as I am new to page creation. I do not know how to "message" inside of Wikipedia so please let me know if there is a better way to seek your guidance. Yours in service, Riseley Riseley (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Madeline Blair is a great story, every once in a while I come across a gem when page curating and this article was todays. Cheers. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Thank you for your advice on those edits; hope you don't find it bad as I added back article title in en translation to a ref; thought more readers will understand it better. (; Wish a toast with you, some iced milk tea very popular over here. Omotecho (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Good evening sir, i noticed your help on Nicolas Dalayracs article and thank you for the fixes made there, i would fix them too, but converting everything to meet with the templates and its parameter here needs a heck of knowledge though! Have a nice sunday evening, greetings from Germany. Abani79 (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@RubenSchade: - Thanks. I've found your articles informative and well presented. If all new articles were like that reviewing would be a far easier job. Cheers. --John B123 (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I have created another two articles as per WP:NPROF and WP:N whom I came to know while going through an IEEE journal as worthy to be included. I kindly request for review and leave a feedback for further improvements. They are Avik Bhattacharya and Josiane Zerubia. Thank you.
Just to say thank you so much for reviewing the articles I've been writing about various Manx people. I'm obviously quite new to Wikipedia so I really appreciate it! CáitChrainn (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me in achieving my aim of publishing all the requested Indian Airport Articles. You truly deserve a home made chocochip cookie :) If you dont like a cookie, reply on my talk page and I will thank you for your edits via some other food item (except beer because I am only 16 years old ) :) YashPratap1912(CONT.)16:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
With respect, I believe you placed the BLP template on the Franco Mormando article in error. The article is abundantly sourced and has tons of citations for verifications. May I ask if you actually read the article? Pasquale (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I am sorry that you read sarcasm in my words. It was totally not my intent. I understand that a new article is subjected to a much higher standard than an existing article, but even so, I worked hard to make sure that every point in the article was sourced, and so I continue to be completely baffled by your statements. I wonder if you would kindly give me an example of an unsourced or unverifiable section in the article. Thanks a lot! Pasquale (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Whilst the references may well cover all the article's content, that needs to be made clear in the referencing. For example, the section "The bubonic plague" has no references. Whichever of the references on the page cover this section should be added to that section to show its source.
As a rule of thumb, every paragraph should have a reference. It is perfectly acceptable to reuse references where they apply to multiple paragraphs. Looking at an extreme case with say 30 sources, it is unreasonable for the reader to be expected to look through all the references to find which one verifies a certain part of the article. I hope this makes it clearer. --John B123 (talk) 11:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Article tagging
Hi, I had a question I created Ho3ein article. Just a few seconds later, the user tagging it. The article was translated from Persian.whether the tagging in this article was correct؟؟?--IMani→ (Talk) :)18:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi IMani. Any user can nominate an article for deletion at any time, but it's customary to wait at least 15 minutes before tagging. I doubt this nomination will go anywhere.
Hi John B123, noticed that you have added improvements to the new page "Blue Line (Namma Metro)", thanks.
I actually created the page practising in my sandbox as I wasn't sure how to go about creating a new page. During the process, I mistakenly moved the page several times, hoping to get to post it.
Now that the page has been created, I would like to clean up my sandbox, remove the link etc. I'm hoping you could help me with this.
Hi Bill maxen, the article still needs more references and the English improving. The section "afterlife jobs" may have lost something in translation, it's not clear what this section is about. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I was browsing a page and found that incorrect information was added and the article was protected.Can you correct the information according to the link؟؟؟His full name and date of birth are completely wrong. You can see it in the link.--IMani→ (Talk) :)23:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
The page Rezaya was locked by an administrator as "repeatedly created A7 article − non-notable person, organisation, etc" Your article Rezaia has no inline citations to show any notability. Frankly I am annoyed that you are trying to use me to get around this block on creating the article. --John B123 (talk) 08:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Do not think at all that the article was locked in 2013 and I translated it from Persian. What is the benefit or harm for me?I informed everyone according to the link and asked for help.If helping me upsets you, I will not send you another help message?--IMani→ (Talk) :)08:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
You look at the date the article was locked in 2013. Did I translate it in 2020? Do you think I have any intention after 8 years of translating an article, what is the benefit or harm for me?I'm very upset. I honestly have to ask a question when I do not know something. This is upsetting you. I apologize for this and I do not ask for your help anymore. Thank you.--IMani→ (Talk) :)08:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
See also here I had asked another friend before I talked to you So I have no purpose. When I do not know something, I ask anyone who is experienced and old. I do not care who it is. I ask so that I do not make a mistake.--IMani→ (Talk) :)08:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@IMani: I have gone out of my way to help you previously and have no problem with doing so for you or any other editor. However, trying to get me to get around an article creation ban is something else. --John B123 (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, dear John, please read my discussion. My dear colleague and I have talked about your discomfort. If you please read it to resolve the misunderstanding, I apologize again if you are upset with me.--IMani→ (Talk) :)11:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I do not understand what you mean, Mr. John, can you tell me exactly what is (shall we just draw a line under this now?) What is؟:)--IMani→ (Talk) :)13:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I had a short question: Is there a place on the wiki where we can request that protected pages be removed from protection?--IMani→ (Talk) :)13:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Or even vice versa, a page needs protection where should we announce it?And where should we announce this protection request?--IMani→ (Talk) :)13:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Following the point you raised that the article is overly promotional, I would like more time to address this. Many thanks. Chem0026 (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to women's ice hockey articles. I thought I'd let you know about the women's ice hockey task force, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's ice hockey. If you would like to participate, join by visiting the Members page. Thanks!
Dear John B123 sorry to bother you, but could you please clarify based on your NPP experience whether this subject is notable?
Notes: This article was previously declined as a draft last year with the same references for not meeting Notability.
The creator of this page could have simply retrieved their abandoned draft from here,[2]. Instead, they started again from the scratch, so the edits made by sock puppets previously are hidden.
Also, their first edit was 30th July 2019, and their previous version of Draft on the subject with almost the same references back from 2019. The subject clearly fails WP:NACADEMIC or WP:ANYBIO. She didn't receive any national or international awards.
Some references are misleading like reference number 22, which states that she is 2nd person to deliver keynote after Malala and then reference is linked to this [3] where they are congratulating "Sahar Farooqi" for winning "Achievements in Law"
Also, reference 14 which states that she won "Ethical Affairs Activist 2019" from Cambridge and the reference is this [4]
There are many such references that are misleading, also the editor and the sockpuppets of the primary editor created a page for her brother too Draft:Aashir_Ayaz stating their net worth like 350 million pounds and the same was on the page of Aliza Ayaz later removed by other editors when I addressed this issue in AfD. To sum it up, the subject appears to be notable like the way it is edited with misleading references but if you dig deeper, then you get to see the mess, i.e. there are many references that are not even linked to the subject.
Hi AngusMEOW. I don't normally look at articles like this. I tend to stick to articles in subjects I know more about, or subjects where the guidelines are less subjective, such as WP:NFOOTY where they either meet it or don't. That said, someone has to look at them so I'm grateful to those who do.
Looking at this one, I agree there are serious doubts about notability and the references don't back up what is in the article and/or are not WP:RS. Possibly it would be an idea the go through the references individually and tag {{failed verification}} or {{unreliable source}}. WP:AfD can be illogical at times and can bring out the worst behaviour in editors. I tend to put my point across and leave it at that. Life's too short to get into arguments with editors who often have a bias one way or the other and try and apply the guidelines to suit their view rather than looking at the guidelines and then forming their opinions. Regards --John B123 (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your valuable advice. True, life is too short, if the person is non-notable eventually it would be nominated for deletion by other honest Wikipedians. Yeah, I can see the worst behaviour too in some editors who have been on Wikipedia for many many years. Not sure what makes them think the subject is notable(as they quote it to be common sense). Once again, thank you so much for your time and effort to look into this. Very much appreciated. ^_^ <3 AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 20:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
No problem, feel free to send me a message anytime if you need help or a second opinion. There may be deeper things coming into play here. It might be that climate change is an important issue so anything to support the movement is seen as worth inclusion, or it may be simply that from a quick look the article has lots of references so the subject must be notable. As I said before AfDs can be funny things, sometimes an article that shouldn't stand a chance in hell is kept and other times when you wonder why it is nominated it gets deleted. Regards --John B123 (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Exactly, I think that's what has happened here, this article had so many references that on the first look it appears to be notable, and hence a lot of editors got mislead into believing that the person is notable. But I went deep, into the edit history, going through every article carefully; that's when I realised that a lot of references shouldn't be there. I am currently a student at NPPSchool by Rosguill, hope to be an experienced New Page Reviewer like you someday in the future. Will keep in touch. Cheers! ^_^ AngusMEOW (chatter • paw trail) 20:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Thepharoah17. There is currently a backlog of over 8,000 articles waiting for review so some are not being reviewed as quickly as would be ideal. I've marked the page as reviewed. Regards --John B123 (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
It appears FilmFuture wasn’t really deleted via an AFD discussion but was speedied under A7 for websites so I’m not really sure how a G4 would play out but definitely the article is still the exact same way it was when it got A7 deleted. Literally nothing changed, just thought to let you know. Celestina00700:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
If you press the "Contest this speedy deletion" button and then give your reason the administrator dealing with this will take that into account. Regards --John B123 (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi John B123 and thanks for all the time you spend at reviewing my translations. I made a wrong move this morning and lost all my templates ! It will take time before I can gather some of them. In the meantime, could you please give me the template that spots all the occurences of an article not linked yet. Thanks in advance. LouisAlain (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi my friend check this draft user after rejecting the re-application published it himself I deleted the next user picked up my sticker please take action to remove it--Editor3342 (Talk)03:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Editor3342. The AfC rejection was for a blank page not for the content of the article. Another reviewer has rejected your request for deletion twice. It would be inappropriate for me to delete it now. Regards --John B123 (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
You moved this page from article space to draft space earlier on 19 September 2020 with the edit summary, "Undersourced, incubate in draft space".
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Anti-Saudi_Arabian_sentiment&oldid=979182202
I agree with the action, and am really going to use this as the basis for criticizing the script that you used, because the script defaulted to an edit summary that is completely wrong. I think that the article should not have been in article space, but you and I can both see that it is not undersourced. It has been reference-bombed with 78 sources, mostly of low quality. My primary criticism is that the script that you used to move the article to draft space defaults to a reason that is sometimes the reason for draftifying, but is often used for draftifying for other reasons. An article can be draftified for reasons of verifiability, or concerns of notability as such, or reasons of tone. The default from the script, "undersourced", is only applicable sometimes. I think that you had tone issues. I sometimes draftify an article because it doesn't establish notability. I am going to use this example to criticize the incorrect edit summary. I agree with your action. I hope that you, as an experienced reviewer, understand what I am saying.
Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Correction
After writing this, I see that your draftification logged, on the talk page of an unregistered editor, that it was not written in a formal, encyclopedic tone. So you did what I said the script should have allowed you to do. You did change the message, and I agree with the message and the action. So the lesson should be that reviewers should be careful to use the right explanation, as you were careful, rather than defaulting. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Robert McClenon, whilst the script does have its limitations/peculiarities, it is useful and yes it does need to be used with care. I've found most of the scripts used on WP have shortcoming, for example reFill uses the no longer supported |deadurl= rather than |url-status=, fails to add |archive-date= for archive.today urls etc.
I have learnt something from this conversation, the default "Undersourced, incubate in draft space", or whatever you change it to, is used as the edit summary. The wording on the form led me to believe it was for my draftify log, User:John B123/Draftify log, which I virtually never look at so I haven't been bothering to change it. Now that I realise I'll change it when needed. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Well, I also have the idea that we may have gone a little too far in focusing on verifiability, which is necessary but not sufficient. The advocates of articles on run-of-the-mill companies or their leaders, or on garage bands, often think that after their drafts are declined, they just need to add more sources and resubmit. Sources are necessary but not sufficient. Enough said for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
You've looked at quite a few of my mayors lists. First of all how many references do you recommended giving? Second of all I'd like my Lakewood mayors to transfer over to Lakewood wikipedia page as you requested. If you could do that for it be it would be much appreciated. Scottlinehan (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Scottlinehan, All content should be verifiable by references. If in the case of lists the references covers the whole list, then that is ok but adding a second reference is desirable. Once a page has been tagged for merging, it's usual to leave it a week before merging in case any other editors want to make a comment. Regards --John B123 (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Draft:Andrew Pollard (vaccinologist)
Hello John B. An article I started, Draft:Andrew Pollard (vaccinologist), which was started in mainspace but which another editor felt needed work in draftspace, has since the move to draftspace been greatly augmented. I feel it is now ready to be moved back into mainspace. Since I notice your patrolling of my many redirect pages, and you seem to be a sympathetic administrator, I thought maybe I could interest you in helping the Pollard page back into mainspace. Thanks in advance! Magnovvig (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Magnovvig. I see you have already submitted the article for AfD. As I'm not an AfD reviewer it would be inappropriate for me to get involved, sorry. (I'm not an administrator either) Regards --John B123 (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @John B123 and Magnovvig: I think you both mean AfC rather than AfD! But given what a disaster area AfC is, why not just move it across, John? Rather than leave a promising article sunk in quagmire for a couple of months. (I'm surprised that DGG draftified it, as it seems short but perfectly sourced...) PamD15:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@PamD:, you're right about AfC not AfD! Having looked at the article I have no doubt it would pass AfD AfC, and given the backlog at AfD AfC, I'll move the article accross. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi John - Belt Publishing was originally set to redirect to Belt Magazine, which is incorrect as they are separate entities: one is a book publisher, one is a magazine. I removed the redirect and created a base page in the style of the Belt Magazine page. You reverted the changes, calling them "promotional"; the Belt Magazine page I used as a template does include some praise/comments from media sources that could be perceived as promotional so I didn't think that was out of line. I'm going to put back a smaller version of the page and remove some potentially offending text. Let me know if this is still insufficient. Thanks. -- Stahlish (talk) 13:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the followup info. I agree that the Belt Mag/Belt Pub are not accurately described as "sister publications", which is why I started this project in the first place. I added a new cite that I think meets notability requirements, and I will put in some more work on this over the coming week or two to help clear it up further to build this out the way it deserves. -- Stahlish (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Noticed the tag on the page, added additional sources and a reasoning in the edit summary that I believe adds additional information about the biography in that regard. When you get around to it, would you please take another look at it and let me know if that helped and if not what else would you recommend me adding to fix any problems with the article. Cheers --BestOnLifeform (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
P.S. - for additional proof of notoriety within micronationalism, please take a look at the MicroWiki biography for him listed on the page under "external links", cheers (again) --BestOnLifeform (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi BestOnLifeform. That looks fine now. My initial concern was more that the article, through its references, didn't verify his notability rather than he wasn't notable. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Alright, thank you very much for the review and thank you for giving me the chance to add additional citation, have a great rest of your day --BestOnLifeform (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@DESiegel: I disagree. Apart from He played in the Persepolis Cup and was Ararat's most successful striker by scoring 13 goals being unsourced, I've no idea what the Persepolis Cup is. Searching the term on Google brings up no results, so presumable it's not a competition of any significance. F.C. Ararat Tehran play in the Tehran Province League, which is the 5th tier of Iranian football, so nowhere near meeting WP:NFOOTY. --John B123 (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Something does not need to meet an SNG such as NFOOTY to be enoiugh og a claim to avoid an A7, deletion John B123. Anything which indicates a reasonable chance, say 1 in 10, tat there is coverage which would establish notability is sufficient, in my view. It also depends on limited analysis of what is in the article already, and I so not normally do web searches and only sometimes follow citations in evaluating an A7 tag. If I AM IN DOUBT, I DECLINE. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs20:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Equally, I do not add A7, or any other speedy delete tag, lightly. If there is a chance the article can be salvaged into something with notability then I'll add an appropriate {{notability}} tag, even if, as written, A7's No indication of importance applies. Also if I'm in any doubt then I will tag with notability rather than nominate for deletion. --John B123 (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate that. I did not (and do not) question that you tagged in good faith, and with awareness of the policy and guideline involved. It may well be that the article in question should in fact be deleted. FYI, after an exchange with the creating editor, I have moved it to draft space for further development. See Draft talk:Zaven Anbarchian if you are interested. Perhaps I am too ready to decline speedy tags. It is a judgement call. Many editors are, in my view, over-ready to tag for CSD, but I am not putting you in that group. Perhaps I should look a little more into sports claims specifically in future. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs21:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I noticed you'd moved the article to draft. You're right about certain editors being overzealous with the CSD tag (and I include in that tagging a couple of minutes after the article has been created) so understand your caution when dealing with the tagged article. It's not just CSD, there are also a handful or editors who seem to want to use every maintenance tag they can on articles. Regards --John B123 (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
User:John B123 - I usually disagree with User:DESiegel, whom I think is too willing to leave things in draft space as possibly notable some day. In this case I agree. The statement that someone played in the Persepolis Cup is a credible claim of significance. I don't have to know what it is. I know that there are named cups in association football, and some of them have some meaning, and some do not. It almost certainly doesn't satisfy association football notability, but that doesn't matter. If it almost certainly doesn't satisfy the guideline, there is the outside chance that it does satisfy it, and that it enough to let an AFD decide. If a BLP says that someone is a Nigerian king, that is a credible claim of significance. (We know that there are minor Nigerian kingship titles.) If a BLP says that someone invented a bread slicer, that is a credible claim of significance. If a BLP says that someone invented sliced bread, that is an incredible claim of significance. A7 it. If a BLP says that someone is the king of Nigeria, that is an incredible claim of significance. We know that Nigeria has presidents. A7 it. A trivial claim is still a claim. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: That seems subjective based on personal knowledge a particular subject. A lot of people will know Nigeria has a president, but fewer will know it has a number of minor kings. The subtlety between King of Nigeria and Nigerian king may also be missing from the article. Otto Frederick Rohwedder is generally accepted to have invented the bread slicer. If you know that then an unsubstantiated claim of inventing the bread slicer is incredible, if you don't then it's credible. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes. It is subjective. Therefore if you aren't sure if the claim of significance is credible, you should assume that it may be credible based on knowledge that you don't have. If there is even a minor doubt as to whether it is A7, it isn't A7, and the AFD can decide. Yes. That is my point. One should not decide, based on one's personal knowledge, that a claim is not credible. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Isn't that exactly what If a BLP says that someone is the king of Nigeria, that is an incredible claim of significance. We know that Nigeria has presidents is? I don't see that you can dismiss any claim of credibility without personal knowledge, without it we have to accept things like "people from Peru have three legs" as credible. Regards --John B123 (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Use common sense. As to Nigeria, if you don't know anything about Nigeria, don't tag a Nigerian BLP as A7, unless it just says something like that someone is a university student in Lagos. If you aren't sure if a claim is credible, you should consider it credible rather than tagging it as A7. (And I know how many legs my sister-in-law and my niece have, both conventionally beautiful ladies, so make that Paraguay.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
