This is Viktorpp's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Hello, Viktorpp!
Having an article 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! Sulfurboy (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
|
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Draft:Kyle Kulinski. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. This article has been outright rejected which means it will not be considered further by the AfC process at this time. Continuing to submit the article is a violation of our rules and considered WP:GAMING the system. This won't be tolerated. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I've read your message at my talk page, and I appreciate that you've been taking time out of your day to find and cite more reliable sources. I've since reviewed my neutral !vote and decided that I was wrong to invoke WP:TNT to begin with, so I've struck my original comment and my stance is now that the draft should remain in draftspace.
However, I would really appreciate it if you and other involved editors (User:EllenCT and User:Falseinfinity) don't resubmit the draft any time soon. I know that you only submitted once, but I'd like to explain why I wouldn't recommend doing it again. The more ((AFC submission/declined)) templates a draft has from a short span of time, the more likely it is to get rejected again, and the more likely other editors are to feel that deletion is a necessary course of action. Unfortunately, there have been so many deletion discussions for the Kyle Kulinski article in the last few years that most of the involved editors are exhausted. The discussion that got the page deleted was the fourth, and it was less than a month ago. This has left many editors with a sentiment that the article and its copies need to be purged for good, and having four rejected submissions on the same draft in the same week (and less than a month after the page was actually deleted) only emboldens that.
If I were to produce an arbitrary threshold for when the draft can be resubmitted, I would recommend 1) waiting anywhere from 3-6 months to suggest adding it back to mainspace 2) increasing the size of the draft to about 40,000 bytes (or 1.5x the current amount of text), and 3) find a few sources that mention Kulinski in more detail than just a namedrop. Most articles don't need to be that big to be published in mainspace, but if the Kulinski article is large enough and good enough, it would be impossible to make the argument that notability is missing. After looking over the draft as-is more closely, I honestly don't think it's too bad to be in mainspace right now. It has fifty citations, many from reputable outlets, and the recent Jacobin article which was just about Kulinski helps a lot. The biggest obstacle to publishing it is the fact that so many editors are justifiably tired of spending so much time figuring out what to do about this page that we just can't produce a consensus to keep it. I'm sure that'll change one day, but that day won't be today or tomorrow.
Cheers, Vanilla Wizard 💙 22:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I note that there is no policy against new users re-submitting the draft, or any prohibition against asking other editors, new and old alike, to do the same. The sources have established notability. EllenCT (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I appreciate you taking another look at this Falseinfinity (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Jennifer Rubin (journalist) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Jennifer Rubin (Blogger). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Home Lander (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Are you planning to do a batch nomination for deletion of all of these articles? If so, it might not be a bad idea to write the nomination first and then tag them. If you're planning to go one at a time, please complete the nomination for one article before moving on to the next. —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Viktorpp (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The block was not necessary. It was in response to a set of AfDs submitted and was placed withing minutes of the AfD submission, before I was able to submit the reasons on the respective delete pages, and before I was able to see C.Fred's helpful message. Viktorpp (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Batch nominating vs. individual nominations of the inappropriate AfDs is the least of the concerns here. Your edits are WP:POINTY and disruptive and the block prevents further time suckage from volunteer admins and editors who have to clean up the mess.Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Viktorpp (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The block was NOT necessary. As the admin who declined previous appeal has mentioned: Batch nominating vs. individual nominations of the inappropriate AfDs was NOT the issue. Rather, I have been rapped for WP:POINT. With respect to that, I'd like to point out that 1. I am not making a WP:POINT. I am learning about WP:POL and their interpretations, through various discussions and here to build an encyclopedia, through adding, editing, and cleaning up content to the best of my ability. The previous admin says that my genuine belief that based on my understanding of the guidelines the article nominated merits deletion means that I should be blocked. My genuine belief makes the AfD markedly WP:NOTPOINTy. So what, then, is the WP:POL reason for the block? 2. Is the best response to a first time WP:POINT offence an indefinite block? 3. The previous admin also referred to a move I made as "ill advised", but didn't explain why it was so, or why my reasoning as explained in the edit summary was incorrect. That doesn't seem very constructive. 4. As I have demonstrated in User talk:Viktorpp#About Jennifer Rubin (journalist), where upon the advice of an editor, I changed my wrong behavior from cut-and-paste move to "Move", I am clearly co-operative and listening to editor advice. Viktorpp (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
There is too much "it's not me, it's you" in here. The editor's item 1 in this unblock request is convoluted and impossible to follow, unless they are arguing that they were nominating these articles in complete ignorance of just about everything that makes this an encyclopedia. If that is indeed the case, one would expect a bit more of a mea culpa here. But the batch nomination of a dozen articles without a proper explanation is so disruptive that the editor should stop, completely stop, blaming others here. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Viktorpp (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Holy moving goalposts, Batman! 2nd reviewer Drmies feels the batch nomination is disruptive, and requires some sort of mea culpa. I agree with that, and if you follow some of the discussion above, you'll see that I have shown contrition and apologized for that. I just did it the wrong way and ended up blocked before I could provide explanations for any of the items. Further, you'll notice that I have also shown that I am willing to learn by changing my behavior, as I did above, on the advice of an editor. But these items are not the focus of my 2nd review request, because the 1st reviewer Jezebel's Ponyo said these were not at issue in the block. Ponyo says I was blocked and continue to be blocked because my edits were POINTy. So my first question is, is the first and best response to a first time POINT offence an indefinite block? Seems excessive to me. Either way, as I have explained in both my previous appeals, I am not trying to be POINTy; rather, I am learning about WP:POL and their interpretations, through various discussions and here to build an encyclopedia, through adding, editing, and cleaning up content to the best of my ability. I learn about the interpretation of policies from the text and discussions. All I tried to do was apply my understanding of a policy from one discussion to other pages - not with the intention of making a point, but with the genuine belief that my edits were warranted and with the intention of improving the encyclopedia. Ponyo says that my genuine belief that based on my understanding of the guidelines the article nominated merits deletion means that I should be blocked. My genuine belief makes the AfD markedly Not POINTy. Ignorant and foolish, perhaps, or even probably, but not pointy. WP:NOTPOINT:"However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point. As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree" Again, to recap, 1. I am not trying to make a point, and 2. I 100% agree with the edits I made. Been receiving feedback that I was wrong in that belief, and I am willing to accept that. 1st reviewer Ponyo counters by saying that my genuine belief that based on my understanding of the guidelines the article nominated merits deletion means that I should be blocked. I disagree. If there is a consensus that my genuine belief and understanding of the policy is wrong, then that means I should invest more time reading discussions and understanding the policy and lay off edits related to this policy. I think that would be reasonable, and allow me to learn while also contributing to the encyclopedia. If the idea is to be punitive, then as C.Fred has suggested, I could be asked to lay off American politics as well. Once again, I am co-operative and listening to editor advice. Viktorpp (talk) 8:04 am, Today (UTC−4)
Decline reason:
Socking as User:Stefania0 during this block. only (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.