Hi! I thought that concerns about my behavior (in this case re WP:BITE) are better discussed on a talk page, rather than at an AFD.
First, I‘d like to say that I fundamentally agree that it would be a shame if these editors did not continue to contribute to WP. However, my interactions with them were clearly aimed at helping them navigate the complex policies and guidelines.
My very first interaction (after the automated PROD message) was to offer my help. The subsequent misunderstanding regarding WP:PAID was unfortunate, but I think understandable given the wording of their reply. I apologised and informed them of WP:COI, which clearly applies here.
I then [[ offered my help again, and then we had a brief exchange about independence of sources.
I think opening the SPI investigation is clearly explained over there and quite legitimate. While good intentions should be assumed, and I did make that assumption, meatpuppeting is nonetheless inappropriate (and can look very similar to sockpuppeting).
As the PROD was declined and notability issues were not addressed, I think an AFD was quite appropriate.
Again, it really would be a shame if these editors are so discouraged as to not return. But I‘m not sure how I should have handled this better without overstretching AGF beyond reasonability. I‘m open to the idea that I may have messed up; if I have, please tell me what I should have done differently. I appreciate your time with this, thanks for taking a look! :) Actualcpscm ( talk) 12:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
For doing the right thing in multiple places after an initially unpleasant misunderstanding, and for calling me out when you suspected wrongdoing. Actualcpscm ( talk) 19:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC) |
Hi A. B., I saw you had added some additional WikiProject notifications at WP:Articles for deletion/Felix Omobude. Is there a tool that makes adding such notifications easy? S0091 ( talk) 17:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
FWIW several notability criteria have tightened since 2012 (welcome back, btw :) ). NSPORTS and PORNBIO come to mind (the latter was simply deprecated), but also NCORP, which was completely rewritten 5ish years ago. It is a higher standard than GNG now, including e.g. Attention solely from local media ... or media of limited interest and circulation ... is not an indication of notability.
(noticed your comment at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Charter Service (2nd nomination)). I don't know if that one's notable, and probably won't offer a !vote -- just a heads up. :) —
Rhododendrites
talk \\
16:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Outside the AfD discussion, thought you may be interested in this. Could be an opportunity to address the concerns of NCORP and how it is applied. CNMall41 ( talk) 23:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 12:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, A. B..
Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around! Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC) |
A. B. ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am requesting an IP block exemption as a long-time trusted editor with a clean block log. A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 01:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Accept reason:
IPBE granted for a year. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 01:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 01:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello A. B., Just noticed that you will be away on vacation and wanted to wish you a good break. Take care. - Indefensible ( talk) 05:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Make misleading reverts like that. Per WP:DENY and WP:SOCKSTRIKE, we are required not to waste time over requests by block evading socks.
If you have strong feelings over this AfD then start a new DRV on you own. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 17:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I'm sorry, but I don't understand this. In what way is this not unambiguous promotion? It's clear as day. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 06:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
"This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion.
The page was created by a group of people who did it together, hence there were edits by multiple users. Apart from that, does it not appear to be violating CSD A7 and CSD A11 if they are edited by a single group of people? The Activities section wholly looks that way. Requesting a friendly clarification so that I can differentiate the violations clearly in future. Thewikizoomer ( talk) 06:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
"This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability."
"This applies to any article that plainly indicates that the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone the creator personally knows, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify under Wikipedia's notability guidelines."
Hi! I thought that concerns about my behavior (in this case re WP:BITE) are better discussed on a talk page, rather than at an AFD.
First, I‘d like to say that I fundamentally agree that it would be a shame if these editors did not continue to contribute to WP. However, my interactions with them were clearly aimed at helping them navigate the complex policies and guidelines.
My very first interaction (after the automated PROD message) was to offer my help. The subsequent misunderstanding regarding WP:PAID was unfortunate, but I think understandable given the wording of their reply. I apologised and informed them of WP:COI, which clearly applies here.
I then [[ offered my help again, and then we had a brief exchange about independence of sources.
I think opening the SPI investigation is clearly explained over there and quite legitimate. While good intentions should be assumed, and I did make that assumption, meatpuppeting is nonetheless inappropriate (and can look very similar to sockpuppeting).
As the PROD was declined and notability issues were not addressed, I think an AFD was quite appropriate.
Again, it really would be a shame if these editors are so discouraged as to not return. But I‘m not sure how I should have handled this better without overstretching AGF beyond reasonability. I‘m open to the idea that I may have messed up; if I have, please tell me what I should have done differently. I appreciate your time with this, thanks for taking a look! :) Actualcpscm ( talk) 12:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
For doing the right thing in multiple places after an initially unpleasant misunderstanding, and for calling me out when you suspected wrongdoing. Actualcpscm ( talk) 19:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC) |
Hi A. B., I saw you had added some additional WikiProject notifications at WP:Articles for deletion/Felix Omobude. Is there a tool that makes adding such notifications easy? S0091 ( talk) 17:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
FWIW several notability criteria have tightened since 2012 (welcome back, btw :) ). NSPORTS and PORNBIO come to mind (the latter was simply deprecated), but also NCORP, which was completely rewritten 5ish years ago. It is a higher standard than GNG now, including e.g. Attention solely from local media ... or media of limited interest and circulation ... is not an indication of notability.
(noticed your comment at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Charter Service (2nd nomination)). I don't know if that one's notable, and probably won't offer a !vote -- just a heads up. :) —
Rhododendrites
talk \\
16:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Outside the AfD discussion, thought you may be interested in this. Could be an opportunity to address the concerns of NCORP and how it is applied. CNMall41 ( talk) 23:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 12:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, A. B..
Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around! Thanks, Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC) |
A. B. ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am requesting an IP block exemption as a long-time trusted editor with a clean block log. A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 01:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Accept reason:
IPBE granted for a year. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 01:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 01:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello A. B., Just noticed that you will be away on vacation and wanted to wish you a good break. Take care. - Indefensible ( talk) 05:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Make misleading reverts like that. Per WP:DENY and WP:SOCKSTRIKE, we are required not to waste time over requests by block evading socks.
If you have strong feelings over this AfD then start a new DRV on you own. Aman Kumar Goel ( Talk) 17:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello. I'm sorry, but I don't understand this. In what way is this not unambiguous promotion? It's clear as day. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 06:25, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
"This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles, rather than advertisements. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion.
The page was created by a group of people who did it together, hence there were edits by multiple users. Apart from that, does it not appear to be violating CSD A7 and CSD A11 if they are edited by a single group of people? The Activities section wholly looks that way. Requesting a friendly clarification so that I can differentiate the violations clearly in future. Thewikizoomer ( talk) 06:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
"This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability."
"This applies to any article that plainly indicates that the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone the creator personally knows, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify under Wikipedia's notability guidelines."