This is CNMall41's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Archives

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Can you take a look at Gaurishankaar Chaubey. Obvious UPE involved. It was earlier created by a sock under the title Gaurishankar Chaubey. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thilsebatti:, sorry, was offline a couple days. Looking now. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also going to ping @Wikishovel: as it looks like the original was a sock of Amansharma111. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like it is probably a sock of Amansharma111. I just filed a new SPI with the evidence. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was discovered in the final hours before my flight. I therefore notified DreamRimmer offline as well. Many thanks to you both. Thilsebatti (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Without going through the process for a page move (as far as I can see), you recentlly and unilaterally moved Hotel Constance to Pasadena Hotel & Pool. This article is a about a historic buiding that has been known for a century in the historic perservation world as the "Hotel Constance". The building was purchased in a bankruptucy sale in 2022, and the new owner in 2023 decided to rebrand the hotel that operates in the building as the "Pasadena Hotel & Pool". With historic buildings, we typically seek constancy (no pun intended) in the naming off the historic buildings. We don't change the name every time a new owner comes along and decides to rebrand the business. Accordingly, unless you can point to a formal move request pursuant to which you sought and gained consensus for the renaming, it is my pressent intention to revert the rename. Let me know if you disagree. Cbl62 (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cbl62:, Thanks for the note. I did move it unilaterally per BOLD based on WP:UCRN. I realize that it has a long history in the historic world, but I changed it to what it is recognized as currently according to reliable sources. If you feel otherwise, you are free to move it back of course and we can seek other opinions. Is there anything you can point me to showing that consensus is normally sought for historic buildings? I'll keep in mind for the future. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe there are a few others I have done over the years but need to remember which ones. If it is customary for history buildings to have consensus on name changes I will need to think back as those would need to be reverted as well. Please let me know. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is notable here is the historic building. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a hotel directory. In the case of a historic building, it may change corporate affiliations (Hilton, Sheraton, etc.) or branding dozens of times over the course of its existence. For example, Hotel Constance was rebranded in 2014 as the DusitD2 Constance Pasadena. Yet, we did not change the Wikipedia article name to reflect the corporate rebranding of the hostelry operating within the historic building. Hotel names are rebranded frequently, and we should not be renaming encyclopedia articles on historic buildings every few years due to changes in corporate ownership or marketing strategies.

With regard to WP:COMMONNAME, a search of Newspapers.com turns up 5,610 hits for "Hotel Constance" and zero hits for "Pasadena Hotel & Pool". Cbl62 (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure if you mean the tone but it isn't coming across well. I have been here for a while so I know Wikipedia is not a hotel directory. I honestly don't give a crap who owns it or what they want to rebrand it as or their reasoning behind it. My view when I changed it (and if you read my replies to you above I have no issue with you changing it until we can get a consensus if needed) is that it may meet notability guidelines as a historic building, but it is notable as a hotel. I treated it as a company, not a historic building which is why I asked for clarification (which I am hoping you are still able to provide). --CNMall41 (talk) 10:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not personal, and I did not mean it to come across that way. But I thought I did provide clarification by addressing WP:COMMONNAME. The building has been commonly known as the "Hotel Constance" for a century. One of the tools we use to evaluate common name is to see how it has been referred to in mainstream media. Newspapers.com is a useful tool to gauge this. As noted above, a search of Newspapers.com turns up 5,610 hits for "Hotel Constance" and 0 hits for "Pasadena Hotel & Pool". Cbl62 (talk) 10:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for addressing the tone. That is why I said I didn't know if you meant it. It just seemed like you were speaking to me as if I was the hotel owner here to change the name for my own benefit. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I am also not trying to debate or convince you that the move should stay under the current name, only trying to provide you with my thought process for the move so you know it wasn't done in jest. I saw this notable as a hotel (aka "company" for Wikipedia purposes), not a historic building so using COMMONNAME I changed it. Similar to how HBO Max was changed to Max (streaming service) (and note that discussion wasn't for a name change, it was for NOT splitting out a separate page for the new brand). That is why I was asking if there was anything you could point me to (a discussion on a noticeboard or anything) to help me in the future. As far as NEWSPAPERS.COM, of course it is going to return a ton of results as its an old hotel and it this one was just re-opened. I used Google when I searched as again, I am looking for what it is currently going to be commonly known by. Searching the new name brought up results for the new name. Searching the old name brought up results for both. Using what we normally do for companies, I changed the name to the new one. Again, that's just my reasoning so you can have a better understand of my thought process. It's Wikipedia. You don't need my agreement to do what you feel is within guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there, I just wanted to drop by and thank you for all the work you're doing in maintaining the quality of Indian-film related articles, even if there are slight disagreements at times. :) It's often a losing war trying to do so, when there's so much sock-puppetry, fancruft, paid editing, and vandalism to deal with. But I highly appreciate the ones who try anyway! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I don't mind disagreements as I am sure there are some things I can be heavier-handed at sometimes. All about checks and balances. I know it is a losing battle, but if I can frustrate the hell out of the enemy while not disrupting Wikipedia (as they are), then its a good day. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Damn right, haha! May you emerge victorious! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haha. I wish. I just want to go back to editing company pages but they keep distracting me. Now leave me alone!!!! Lol. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there, just curious about the revision to the change on the DoorDash page from "Philanthropy" to "Public Relations". Doesn't philanthropy imply positive bias? 2603:8000:3302:9729:F5E6:11F:D790:494C (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How so?--CNMall41 (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Philanthropy implies generous motive behind the action of giving. The giving itself, especially from a large company (in this case, DoorDash), is simply public relations. 2603:8000:3302:9729:F5E6:11F:D790:494C (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All philanthropy conducted by companies has a public relations component (they all get recognition for doing it). However, it is still philanthropy, regardless of a company's motive. I would suggest using the talk page there to get consensus if you feel it needs changed. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, CNMall41. Thank you for your work on Zak Pelaccio. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|SunDawn)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Attribution is necessary because the content you split was not created by you [and subsequently not significantly edited by others] on the main page Humayun Saeed. Thanks — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 21:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there @CNMall41. This article Amjed Ullah Khan of a local politician is so badly written with original writing, bad citations and promotional paragraphs. I and few others have tried to change it and nominate it for deletion but it gets reverted by the same people who wrote the article. It was even worse before (see previous History) and is slightly better now but I fear it may be reverted to the same state in a few days.

Can you do something about it? I am not that qualified to successfully delete the article and my changes keep getting reversed. Please help.

With regards Rasalghul1711 (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rasalghul1711:, it appears the original user you are referring to is now a blocked sock. Their edits also appear to have been reverted so it is not eligible for speedy deletion based on being overly promotional. If you feel it does not meet notability guidelines, you can always create an AfD discussion where editors can opine if they agree with your assessment or not. Hope that helps. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please help me if you got the time Your assessment could help delete the article Rasalghul1711 (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not a topic that I would be interested in jumping down the rabbit hole for. I would advice going here where you can post the request and receive feedback from more editors as opposed to just myself. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you feel articles on future films must not be, why don't you start nominating American films for deletion? Sometimes even a film in development hell (or production hell) merits an article. Like Megalopolis, Marudhanayagam or Indian 2. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kailash29792:, it is sometimes difficult to judge tone in talk page messages but this appears to be an accusation of WP:BIAS. Hope that is not the case, but would be happy to answer your question if you can clarify. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it fair to re-list an article in a deletion request just because it didn't get the votes an admin wants, as has been done here? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Krimuk2.0:, hard to know. I will say, I rarely see a WP:Supervote and don't think this is one. Sometimes an admin doesn't see strong policy arguments in their opinion so will re-list at least one time to get a clearer consensus. I am glad to see they clarified their reason for re-listing. I would say to ping them or reach out on talk and ask for clarification. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Egyptian companies established in 2020 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 12:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]