User talk:Dclemens1971: Difference between revisions

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

I don't understand why you're suggesting the page for deletion. Breen is the CEO of a nonprofit and previously headed a think tank, both of which have their own Wiki entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplewriter (talk • contribs) 14:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the criteria for notability under WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited by virtue of the organization someone is affiliated with but must be independently established by reliable secondary sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed it, and disagree with you -- it is notable when someone, for example, is invited to testify at a congressional hearing and when someone is listed by secondary sources as an expert in his field -- but will try to find a couple more secondary sources. Purplewriter (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dclemens1971, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the new page reviewer user right to your account. This means you now have access to the page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! Hey man im josh (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Hey man im josh! Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You will see that I accepted this. I left a rationale on its talk page. I have also warned the creating editor about ownership of articles.

Thank you for your work to seek to break the deadlock.

I have also found the creating editor almost impervious to advice. I hope they will adopt a more collegial approach over a very short time 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent Thanks. I voted "redirect" only, as the content and sources worth saving have already been merged and it will be a cleaner wrap on the page. The editor can carry on the debate about how much detail to include on the talk page for the church. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they will carry it on for some time. 😇 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Dclemens1971: As you are a long time editor, I want to solicit your opinion about whether I should mention the following information in the ongoing Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Blanes tree discussion.

While browsing the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. David Marx, I noticed the sudden appearance of a new editor who is the only person to support Blanes tree's deletion request: Likisa. When they created their sandbox page shortly after registering last month, Likisa publicly identified themselves in their edit as an "alt of Bloxxer"—an editor still indefinitely site-blocked for misbehavior and for being a sockpuppet of Wagner, likewise indefinitely blocked for abuse and sockpuppetry. Wagner has over 60+ indefinitely blocked alts. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wagner.

Again, it's curious that this brand-new alt account with barely a few edits, created by an editor who has been indefinitely blocked 60+ times for misconduct and sockpuppetry, suddenly appeared to support Blanes tree's deletion request. Should I include this information in the ongoing incident report or do you think this would muddy the waters too much? — Flask (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Flask Mildly suspicious but not dispositive, and the original situation is resolved. If you want to report likisa, I think the best forum is SPI. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're wondering, yes. I'm a alt of Bloxxer. I will say that this is not a sockpuppet. Instead i just fix red links a lot. I may not be that much active. Likisa (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit funny, but, yeah. I'm not a sockpuppet of Wagner. I head of that military thingy called Wagner, but not a actual Wikipedian User (lmao) And 60+ times? I don't remember it LOL.

Also, i apologize for doing that "One Piece is based off a true story" troll. ButcherDoom was just a account I WANTED to get it banned, so theres's that. I will admit it. Likisa (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Blane's deletion request, but he is pretty heckin stupid, outside of it. My user page was clearly bad and i contradict all of it. Bloxxer was a account created by me i think, but i'm not like a Albert Einstein. I will say that, i didn't know that Bloxxer was a sockpuppet account created by Wagner. Likisa (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot what time i made the Bloxxer account, lol. Likisa (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Flask...

Wagner and his socks have not edited here since 2012-2013, and I think it is pretty unlikely they would come back after 11 years and edit in a completely different topic area (video games for Wagner, but Turkish articles for Likisa; just compare the contribs). Likisa also seems to be ESL and so what they meant by alt of Bloxxer could have been BloxxerWhat instead, as they claim in their unblock request. That was simply lost in translation. Them being BloxxerWhat would fit better, as BloxxerWhat also has interest in subject matter related to Turkey.

I'm not sure if @PhilKnight confirmed this by CheckUser, but an SPI case wasn't opened when it should have been. Not really ideal to make blind accusations like this without evidence. If the sockpuppetry was indeed confirmed by CU, then I apologize. But personally, I think the case would fall flat on its face because there simply aren't compelling diffs that would imply WP:DUCK behavior to connect Likisa to Wagner and his socks.

I'm sorry, but until it is proven otherwise, this was simply a bad block based on unfounded accusations. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Flask @That Coptic Guy @Likisa As I said above, I don't think there was anything dispositive here and I was only pointing out that SPI is the place to raise that question, not AN/I. I have no opinion on this block and would appreciate it if users could move this off my talk page to a different forum. Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello how are you? can you check this topic and what is your opinion ?

Ilovethehistory9 (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the query and I am not sure why you are spamming lots of talk pages with the same message. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the inconvenience, I'm asking about the topic and I think there should be a page about it if you're interested Ilovethehistory9 (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That subject is not notable for a Wikipedia entry. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why ? We have reliable and comprehensive coverage in several languages ​​from well-known local newspapers

from Anadolu Agency - TRT World - daily sabah and in turkish - yeni safak - aksam and more in turkish and arabic Ilovethehistory9 (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, create a draft and submit it at Articles for Creation. If you have good sources, then it will be accepted. It you have general questions, please visit the Teahouse. Asking random editors for their opinion on hypothetical articles will not help get an article written and reviewed. Have a nice day! Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They won't be able to create a draft, as they are once again blocked for block evasion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ohnoitsjamie, did not know the history on this particular sockmaster. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. 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) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up about the page Death of Ruth Perry. Now if you check the page history you'll see that I created it as a redirect, not as an article. While it's notable enough as a redirect I agree it certainly isn't notable enough as an article. My suggestion is changing it back to a redirect. Might I also suggest checking more thoroughly in future, and reading up on when is appropriate to use user warnings. Thank you, This is Paul (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See that now. Thanks and sorry for the tag -- it was to notify the page creator that it had been redirected. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, This is Paul (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why you delete CDE Entertainment and Embracer Freemode Alsadyee215 (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alsadyee215 -- I did not delete them. I restored redirects to their notable parent companies. The subsidiaries do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards for companies (see WP:NCORP and the requirements there). If you can add sources that are secondary, reliable, independent and provide WP:SIGCOV of these subsidiaries, then they can be restored as standalone articles, but if you remove the redirects without adding acceptable sources, I will nominate the page(s) for deletion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Today I de-orphaned this article by adding a link at Arecibo, Puerto Rico article, Notable people section. I also removed Two orphan tags; first from "May 2024"; second from "September 2024". After two months, the Orphan tag becomes "invisible" so only way to check (Edit-lead) or page bottom (All visible Categories).

Help to de-orphan articles. 1. WikiProject Orphanage - working to reduce the article backlog. 2. Wikipedia:Orphan - the complete How-to Guide for Orphaned articles. » De-orphaning articles is an important aspect of building the web.

Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how are you? I would like to request that you give me advice on how to publish this Article that I have in my workshop and that twice a user has been transferring it to me when deleting it because according to him the article does not meet the requirements of musical relevance, I The article seems confusing. I have carefully structured it so that it meets the notoriety requirements. I have searched for credible, independent and well-known sources such as Rolling Stone, The Times of India, Samaa TV, Bollywood Hungama, Music Business Worldwide. Among others from his country, the singer has also participated in the Coca Cola television program Coke Studio Pakistan season 15 and has recently also been listed as the most listened to musical artist on Spotify Pakistan and India. I don't know what more relevance it should have apart from of everything mentioned, thanks for your attention. --Alon9393 (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alon9393 You can follow the processes to submit to WP:AFC. If the sources are appropriate, the reviewers there will accept it for publication. If they don't, you need to consider their reasoning for why. It looks like it has a lot of tabloid news sources, which do not contribute to notability per WP:SBST. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone is not a sensationalist source, it is a magazine dedicated to music and popular culture in a professional way since 1967. Do you have the same opinion as the user who sent me a draft of this article, who I assume has not read the sources or the context? historical but well I will continue looking for that advice because this article is relevant, the AFD was recently there and the result was maintain I do not understand why Saquiq sends it to the draft persistently there are articles much less relevant than this one, and there are Fasl-ı Cedid. --Alon9393 (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alon9393 You didn't cite Rolling Stone, you cited Rolling Stone India, which is not the same. RS India has licensed the brand from the parent publication. Many Indian news sources have major problems with paid news (see WP:NEWSORGINDIA). In this case, it doesn't appear to be paid (since it's a critical review), but many of your other sources may be. This one is signed "Entertainment Desk", and this one is signed "Web Desk"; unbylined articles are more likely not to be reliable. As for Saqib's draftification of your two drafts, he clearly thinks your sources don't support the notability of this subject. HOWEVER, his is not the last word on this. Read WP:DRAFTOBJECT: "Other editors, including the author of the page, but excluding editors with a conflict of interest, have a right to object to draftifying the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and, if necessary, list it at AfD. A page may only be moved unilaterally to the draftspace a single time. If anyone objects, it is no longer an uncontroversial move, and the page needs to be handled through other processes, such as deletion, stubbing, tagging, etc." If you truly object, just tell him so on his talk page. He may move the page back to mainspace, or you can. He will likely nominate the article for deletion, at which point the broader Wikipedia community will have eyes on it and weigh in. Good luck. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alon9393 Heck, if you object to the draftification, tell me here and I'll move it back to mainspace and notify Saqib. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me in that aspect, I sincerely do not want to talk to that user. You could contact him and request that you analyze the article even though I have a hard time believing that the last word is his. please. Alon9393 (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, please don't move that to mainspace. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies I have no comment on whether it should stay there. It's clear from this user though that the draftification is controversial and thus should be reverted and an AfD process ensue. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies A user made the decision to keep the article and Sadiq did everything possible to delete the article and return it to the Draft. that's arbitrary. Alon9393 (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alon9393 Liz kept the article procedurally because you made an inappropriate AfD nomination. It was not a complete discussion with a "keep" result. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be moved to mainspace because the creator doesn't like it in mainspace. Drmies (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear from thread that the user wants it in mainspace. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant "doesn't want it in mainspace". And moving it to mainspace so we can put it up for deletion, that seems like a weird idea to me. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you already moved it. Well. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the procedure under WP:DRAFTOBJECT. The page creator objected to Saqib's draftification. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But come on there are bands Fasl-ı Cedid musicals/musical artists who do not present the relevance and notoriety that is required but are published in the main space without any objections or obstacles. Why the article I was creating about the Pakistani musician Abdul Hannan? It cannot be in the main space if, in addition to having coverage of more than 23 references, it has been highlighted a lot. Why? The issue here of notoriety is not because of the references that another background will exist. Alon9393 (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Dclemens1971 Hello, I inform you that Saqib opened an AFD in Abdul Hannan (singer) it seems that this user does not want the article by pop singer Abdul Hannan to exist and even though in his PD he indicates that he helps the articles of his country. Pakistan but in what way, no idea. As I mentioned before, the way it is practiced against that article is evident from my side, that article meets the requirements of musical notoriety, but we will see what decision the community as a whole makes. Alon9393 (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alon9393, he indicates that he helps the articles of his country. Pakistan It doesn’t mean I’ll allow garbage to remain. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib At no time have I said to vote for the article in this comment, I leave this question to the community that Whoever decides, from now on I will refrain from making any comments and participating in the vote that you just opened. Alon9393 (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alon9393, You should have trusted the AFC review process and submitted the draft for review, rather than insisting on moving it directly to the main namespace. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib By the way, Abdul Hannan is one of the artists most listened to by young people in your country, or maybe you are not Pakistani where you are from then so as not to knowing that and his music is not garbage, he has participated in the COKE STUDIO of COCA COLA. Alon9393 (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Hope you're doing well. Just checking if you can review a page I wrote - Rusha & Blizza. Thank you. LaraKapoor (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]