Archives (Index)

2023/September 2023/December

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Hi Tintinthereporter226! I would like to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome. I appreciate it. Tintinthereporter226 (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Paul Vaurie was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gabriel Agreste and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Vaurie Hi, the draft already has 42 citations. I know that the number doesn't really matter. However, I would suppose that I was able to find a significant amount of passing mentions from reliable sources, would that be sufficient to establish WP:GNG? If a subject is mentioned significantly by notable sources, it should seem reasonable that the character meets notability. Apologies if I am misinterpreting a rule here. Regards, Tintinthereporter226 (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tintinthereporter226. You are correct - WP:GNG states that A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
The issue with the article appears to be that most of the sources do not qualify for GNG.
Sources 1, 17, 22, 23, 26, 30, 36 are not independent of the subject or significant coverage.
Sources 2, 3, 4 are a collection of Tweets and links to Twitter; Twitter is not a reliable source, and Tweets are not significant coverage.
Sources 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 24, 28, 31, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39, 41, 42 are trivial mentions of the character and/or not significant coverage.
Sources 7, 21, 29 make no mention of the character.
Sources 10, 11, 38 are fan websites, forums, or blogs and are not reliable sources.
Sources 25, 27 seem to have some writing about the character, but only talk about things that the character did in the show without giving any analysis. They do not count towards significant coverage and do not add anything new that could be seen by watching the show itself.
Source 32 is not a reliable website (and I was blocked from accessing it anyways).
Source 40 has some information about the character but again, a few sentences is not enough.
I think you can understand the point I'm making. There are practically zero sources on the draft that push the article over the line in terms of WP:GNG. The subject is not even the main character in its show, and much of the information here can be merged to the main article. The two protagonists of the show seem to merit their articles (Adrien Agreste and Marinette Dupain-Cheng), but not the antagonist. I don't think this will ever pass GNG, so I leave it up to you if you want to pursue the article, but personally, I would discourage you from it and suggest you help improve other existing articles about the show, like the two I just mentioned, for example. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Vaurie Alright, I appreciate the advice you've given to me. I'll keep that in mind. I think I was just a bit too hasty in creating the draft, in general. Tintinthereporter226 (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the initial comment you wrote as well. Discussion is important. Happy editing! Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tintinthereporter226! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Black Voices for Trump, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Democratic Party, Fortune and Vox. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Alex Shieh. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tintinthereporter226. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Draft:Alex Shieh, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the ((edit COI)) template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am neither affiliated with Shieh nor the Phillips Academy Poll. If I was intending to edit on Wikipedia with a conflict of interest, I would have disclosed it already per WP:CIO. Tintinthereporter226 05:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that you assumed there was a WP:APPARENTCOI, which there is not. However, per the guidelines provided, I would propose that should be resolved through discussion whenever possible. Tintinthereporter226 06:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is precisely what this is. I posed a question, which you (sort of) answered. So how would you describe your relationship with and/or interest in this subject, if not an 'affiliation'? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned previously, I don't have a relation with Shieh. I have an interest in the Phillips Academy Poll and politics/opinion polls in general, hence why I created the draft entry. I was hoping to create an article in mainspace about him, and I got a bit annoyed that the draft was rejected, and moved it into mainspace without permission. I should not have done that, and I apologise for that. I hope that answers your question. Regards, Tintinthereporter226 06:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @DoubleGrazing, please inform me that there is a sock puppet investigation about me. I wasn't aware until looking at your user contributions. Tintinthereporter226 06:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to inform you. In any case, I didn't open it, I only commented on it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that a checkuser found that I was not related to the case. Next time, I would advise you to not baselessly accuse people you don't like or have a supposed 'conflict of interest' of being a sock. Same goes for the IP. Tintinthereporter226 08:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted the CU result. Thank you.

Even "next time", if and when I feel someone may be socking, I will be reporting them, whether that pleases you or not.

And for the record, I have not accused you of having a COI, I have queried whether you might.

Have a good day. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the template you used appears to add a category to my talk page (Category:User talk pages with conflict of interest notices) I would regard this as an accusation. However, I will intend to maintain WP:CIVIL and hopefully end this conversation with an agreement that we have a difference of opinion.

Regards, Tintinthereporter226 11:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tintinthereporter226! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Draft:Alex Shieh several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Draft talk:Alex Shieh, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed it appropriately at the talk page. I am reverting it because the IP user has failed to provide evidence of the draft's bias when asked about it in both his talk page, the draft talk page, and the edit summary. Tintinthereporter226 09:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I am making you aware of the policy on edit warring, before you get yourself blocked. You're welcome. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the edit war policy. I have not violated the 3 revert guideline, and as mentioned I have raised the issue on the talk page. I also do not appreciate your passive aggressive tone against me, intentional or not. Tintinthereporter226 09:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also advise you to read WP:PASSIVE.

Regards, Tintinthereporter226 09:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos, you seem to have excellent knowledge of Wikipedia's policies, especially for someone who has only been editing for five weeks. Or have you previously edited under another account? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not previously edited under a previous account, this is my first. If I had, I would have disclosed that information. Tintinthereporter226 09:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I also enquire as to why you seem so passive aggressive to me? I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but it's not appreciated regardless and I would like you to stop that, please.

Regards, Tintinthereporter226 12:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Alex Shieh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have contested this speedy deletion at the article's talk page. Tintinthereporter226 06:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will be recreating the draft since it has been inappropriately deleted.

Regards, Tintinthereporter226 14:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the Afd you mentioned, the draft is quite different to the one that was nominated for deletion. For instance, the Time source which was identified as not having WP:SIGCOV has been removed, along with the unsourced addition of Shieh's middle name. Tintinthereporter226 15:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tintinthereporter226,

This article was deleted through an AFD deletion discusion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Shieh, quite recently. This requires you to submit your draft for review to Articles for Creation. This step is necessary to make sure that the new version of the article can overcome the problems that led to the older version being deleted. Moving this draft directly into the main space of the project could result in it being tagged for speedy deletion, CSDC G4, as the recreation of an article deleted through an AFD. Good luck with your draft. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the Afd discussion. Thank you. Tintinthereporter226 20:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Tintinthereporter226, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 19:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested. Thank you for the offer. Tintinthereporter226 20:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Utopes was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Recently deleted via Articles for Deletion. All the points of coverage are mainly about Shieh's polling, to which Shieh happens to be involved in. There's not enough significant coverage to warrant an article on his own right. This target could probably be discussed more appropriately at the Phillips Academy Poll section under the Phillips Academy article.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Alex Shieh and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the Afd. I'm not sure why people keep informing me of it when I was aware of it before I even started the draft. Tintinthereporter226 10:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shieh also is featured in the New Yorker and his opinions are sourced from WP:RS. It's not entirely about Shieh's polling either - a large section of the article is dedicated to his positions on affirmative action. Tintinthereporter226 22:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tintinthereporter226. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Draft:Alex Shieh, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the ((edit COI)) template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Stop reverting additions. This is the last warning before you are brought to WP:COIN by either myself or another user. It's getting ridiculous. Thank you. Stanmarsh97 (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Stanmarsh97 (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your block notice was delivered here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Tintinthereporter226 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Not a sock. I did use the Stanmarsh97 account, that is quite obvious, and was done intentionally with the mistake of failing to link it with the Alternate account template. I wasn't editing disruptively with that account, not causing drama, not voting in the same thing, not creating an illusion of support, so I'm not sure what rule I violated. Furthermore, I was not loutsocking with the IP address and had not voted on anything that could possibly be construed as related to me. Voting on some Afds is not forbidden in any way shape or form. I had most likely forgotten to log into my account. At the very least, there could have been an SPI conducted first to properly investigate everything.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

((Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Not a sock. I did use the Stanmarsh97 account, that is quite obvious, and was done intentionally with the mistake of failing to link it with the Alternate account template. I wasn't editing disruptively with that account, not causing drama, not voting in the same thing, not creating an illusion of support, so I'm not sure what rule I violated. Furthermore, I was not loutsocking with the IP address and had not voted on ''anything'' that could possibly be construed as related to me. Voting on some Afds is not forbidden in any way shape or form. I had most likely forgotten to log into my account. At the very least, there could have been an SPI conducted first to ''properly'' investigate everything. |3 = ~~~~))

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting ((subst:Decline reason here)) with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

((unblock reviewed |1=Not a sock. I did use the Stanmarsh97 account, that is quite obvious, and was done intentionally with the mistake of failing to link it with the Alternate account template. I wasn't editing disruptively with that account, not causing drama, not voting in the same thing, not creating an illusion of support, so I'm not sure what rule I violated. Furthermore, I was not loutsocking with the IP address and had not voted on ''anything'' that could possibly be construed as related to me. Voting on some Afds is not forbidden in any way shape or form. I had most likely forgotten to log into my account. At the very least, there could have been an SPI conducted first to ''properly'' investigate everything. |decline = ((subst:Decline reason here)) ~~~~))

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

((unblock reviewed |1=Not a sock. I did use the Stanmarsh97 account, that is quite obvious, and was done intentionally with the mistake of failing to link it with the Alternate account template. I wasn't editing disruptively with that account, not causing drama, not voting in the same thing, not creating an illusion of support, so I'm not sure what rule I violated. Furthermore, I was not loutsocking with the IP address and had not voted on ''anything'' that could possibly be construed as related to me. Voting on some Afds is not forbidden in any way shape or form. I had most likely forgotten to log into my account. At the very least, there could have been an SPI conducted first to ''properly'' investigate everything. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~))

Tintinthereporter226 16:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I notice also that a global block request has been requested against me. I'm not sure for what apparent "block avoidance" reason this is, but I am confident that nothing will be found against me. Tintinthereporter226 17:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, I'll get some popcorn... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that this user has placed multiple unjustified notices on my account and has accused me of multiple unsubstantiated allegations, including being a sockpuppet. Tintinthereporter226 17:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you were socking, so... -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the false sock allegation you had of me being a sock of TylerKutschbach. And, quite frankly, I'm entirely confused as to how both you and the IP had that unsubstantiated opinion. Tintinthereporter226 17:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, funny. I say you robbed bank A, and your 'defence' is that no you didn't, you robbed bank B instead. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a defense of my action. As mentioned, I have admitted to usage of the Stanmarsh97 account and I am merely requesting that the block notice about the incorrect allegation of me being a sockpuppet to Pohjamadesse1 be removed. Tintinthereporter226 17:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Someone independent will have a look at this request, and they have my full authority to do with it anything they see fit, but I'm standing by what I've already said about it (linked above). If I may clarify a couple of points, to help you better address any relevant issues. The loutsocking didn't really form part of this block, though I do officially frown at it. One major issue is that you are User:Pohjamadesse1 and related accounts.[1] You admit it, then you don't. Another large issue is that you were talking to yourself, creating entire drafts along with noticeboard discussions about yourself. If that's not drama I don't know what it is. You ask for an SPI to 'properly' investigate; I think this undervalues the scrutiny your accounts have already received. Was I wrong to think WP:OFFER might work? This request isn't promising. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you are allowed to stand by your claims. I don't have an issue with that. I'm merely appealing the block as I believe I am not a sockpuppet of this account. Tintinthereporter226 17:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly confused by what you're saying. Which accounts are not yours? Stanmarsh97 or Pohjamadesse1? Or are you redefining the term 'sockpuppet' in some novel way? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly admitted to using the Stanmarsh97 account. It's obvious from the CU data that it is. My main point of focus is that I am not a sockpuppet of Pohjamadesse1. Tintinthereporter226 17:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is hence why I have requested the block be changed and the incorrect reason of me being a sock of a globally locked account removed, and replaced. Tintinthereporter226 17:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The revision you linked to links to a mention of global locks about Pohjamadesse1, not me. Tintinthereporter226 17:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well good luck with that. In terms of reviewing this checkuser block, there seems to me to be 2 options. Admins might decide to reject it out of hand on prima facie merits (the Stanmarsh97 vs Tintinthereporter226 disputing yourself thing). For the Pohjamadesse1 aspect, reviewing checkusers (and I dare say stewards) will find all the information they need right there in the checkuser log. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]