User talk:Pulisi/Archive 3: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 07:00, 31 March 2022

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Pulisi. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Speedy deletion nomination of Sher Jehan Mir

Hello Pulisi,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Sher Jehan Mir for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Sher Jehan Mir for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sher Jehan Mir is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sher Jehan Mir until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Central Cee moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Central Cee, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 09:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see User talk:MrsSnoozyTurtle. Thanks, --Pulisi (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of The Hacksmith for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Hacksmith is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hacksmith until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Natalia Garibotto for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Natalia Garibotto is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalia Garibotto until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

GeneralNotability (talk) 14:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Mz7 (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Pulisi,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! Ashley yoursmile! 11:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Ashleyyoursmile, thanks and a happy new year to you! Pulisi (talk) 11:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Shane Codd for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shane Codd is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Codd until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Realjamesh for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Realjamesh is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Realjamesh until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

GRINCHIDICAE🎄 16:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, I'd like you to explain this creation, which is sourced to fabricated statements that are obvious to anyone with a basic ability to read. I'm questioning why you changed this long defunct newspaper to being active just before you created this hoaxy article and how you came across this blatantly photoshopped newspaper. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 16:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Praxidicae, clearly judging by the sheer amount of vandalism this page received I made a mistake in creating an article on someone so controversial! For backround I first heard of James in August 2020 when I was writing the Triller page when a news article came up about him. I noticed him receiving a lot of press over new year and found some of his supposed actions hilarious and thought an article would be within Wikipedia's guidelines, I wasn't entirely sure especialy given the nature of his company and therefore potential paid press content, but the named article in The New York Age led me to actualy move the article. It was initialy reviewed as only having issues with some sources not being reliable, but was indexed anyway. Clearly his fans (or more likely haters) must have found out given the article's now 1st in Google for 'realjamesh'. I found the amount of vandalism overwhelming with multiple edits coming in before I could revert the previous one! I clearly realise my mistake and will be interested for the communitys desicion on this. For now, I'll remove any potentialy unreliable sources and unreferenced content but please ping me if theres anything else I need to help clean up as I realise this has become a mess very quickly. Thanks, Pulisi (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I have some very serious concerns about your editing in this case, as you haven't sufficiently answered my question. How did you find the newspaper image? It does not show up in searches for him and I do not believe you came across it organically. Also the vandalism you speak of, that did not happen until after you published the initial article, which contains the exact same fabrications that I am referring to. The article is a result of your writing, not vandalism. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 16:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Praxidicae, I found the photoshopped article on the second page of Google results for 'realjamesh news', which contains a link to The Internet Archive and the hoax picture. I did not realise it was fake I simply read the headline and put in the article, I should have looked more in detail I now realise, please understand my mistake I didn't know this mess would come of me making one article on someone, I wasn't even aware of previous deletions which have now been brought up at the AfD. I wish to move on from this and let the community decide the articles deletion as this has become too complicated, thanks, Pulisi (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

You and I both know that's bullshit - you used at least one more fake news source that wasn't mentioned - therefore you are now blocked indefinitely. MER-C 17:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Torch Search Engine Homepage Screenshot.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Torch Search Engine Homepage Screenshot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. MER-C 17:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

First, What!
I have been editing Wikipedia for nearly half a year now without a single bit of conflict and much time spent on making pages as best as I can make them, I came here first to create articles on people, then when I saw the opportunity in taxonomy and given my personal interests in the subject I began creating articles around taxonomy.
As explained in the conversation above, I heard of James while researching for the Triller article and saw his 'supposed' boost in press coverage (which I now doubt obviously), and made a page on him, with the New York Age article convincing me he was at least at the baseline of notability, I had no awareness of past actions on Wikipedia relating to him.
I've taken this personally as I feel someone has taken one look and clicked block, sorry if that isn't the case but that's would I assume it is considering all my previous contributions and clear mistakes in the sources I used in James's article. Therefore I request an unblock although I have rather taken a hit from this personally so my future contributions might be limited for some time while I put my time elsewhere. Thanks, Pulisi (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2021 (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.

What's your connection to Yiyeant and Giannobi? Are you and these people part of some paid editing company? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate, I've never heard of either of them so I'm not sure why you suggest a connection, judging by the fact your a CheckUser I would assume we have an IP connection at some point, I edit through my workplace network so I'm aware my IP isn't static, it changes frequently, but I don't see why they would be on the same connection as me as I have no connection with them, you mentioned 'paid editing company', I might as well address this now, I have never accept payments or suggestions for my edits other than public edit requests, this is hopefully evident in my contributions and I find it hilarious that nearly all articles I've created or any AfD I've been in has been tagged or my comments striked. I have never had a connection with any subject of the articles I've made, I've never had or taken done edit requests for articles to be made, including the article on James. So all of this 'paid editing' and 'hidden advertising' is quite frankly rubbish, clearly my contributions have never shown that and the admins that have added these tags clearly havn't looked at the first several revisions of the article from me as its clear I make them from what I find online in sources. I hope this cleared this up. Thanks, Pulisi (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment. I can confirm the fake article does appear in the second page of the Google results.[1] –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It does now but did not before the article was recreated. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 14:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: Do you mean the fake article or the Wikipedia article? If the former, then yes I would assume so. If the latter, then I have no method of verifying that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Is it even relevant at this point? GRINCHIDICAE🎄 18:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no clue. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:List of British English trademarks that have been genericalised

Hello, Pulisi. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of British English trademarks that have been genericalised, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.