User talk:Wikipractitioner

This is Wikipractitioner'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.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Yavuz Selim Silay (April 25)

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

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Yavuz Selim Silay and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Yavuz Selim Silay, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

~Styyx^Talk? 11:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Yavuz Selim Silay

Hello, Wikipractitioner. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Yavuz Selim Silay, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Yavuz Selim Silay

Hello, Wikipractitioner. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Yavuz Selim Silay".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ailish Campbell (August 22)

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

Please note that diplomats are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing. That is, the key to getting a diplomat into Wikipedia is not "use directly affiliated primary sources, like press releases from her own present and former employers, to verify that she exists" -- it's "show that she has been the subject of a significant volume of media coverage and analysis about her work in newspapers and magazines and books".

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:Ailish Campbell 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.

Bearcat (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikipractitioner! 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! Bearcat (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bearcat, WP:NPOL is one criterion that ensures that Wikipedia covers major political offices. Diplomats who have served & represented their sovereign countries at international levels would primarily fall into this category, they as well have loads of activities in the news. Their positions represent the position of their home countries and it’ll be wise not to discountenance that fact. For referenced sources, they are not just reliable only, they also do not appear promotional nor support controversial statements, Asides Reference number 4, which like you may identify as the subject’s employer, other references are secondary and reliable sources. Kind regards Wikipractitioner (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wikipedia has established a clear consensus that diplomats are not covered by NPOL — NPOL covers elected offices, like legislators and mayors, and the only accepted notability standard for diplomats is that they're shown to pass WP:GNG on substantial reliable source coverage.

Footnote #4, further, is not the only primary source in the draft — every single footnote besides #1 is a primary source. Reliable sourcing means media coverage and/or books, and is never, ever covered off by the self-published website of any non-media organization that is directly affiliated with the statement, so the "Canadian Ambassadors Alumni Association" is a primary source, Carleton University is a primary source, and the Innovators & Entrepreneurs Foundation is a primary source. GNG requires analytical coverage about her work in media and books, independently verifying the newsworthiness and/or historical significance of her work, and cannot be established by turning to content self-published by organizations directly affiliated with her. But GNG also requires a lot more than just one valid source, so the Hill Times article (the only valid or GNG-worthy source in the draft at present) is not enough all by itself either. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ailish Campbell (August 30)

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

You've still only added more primary sources rather than notability-building WP:GNG-worthy coverage in real media.
As I explained to you on your talk page already, diplomats are not considered to get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, because ambassadorships are not a political office, and GNG is built by media coverage, not by the self-published websites of non-media organizations that are directly affiliated with the claims.
Notability, for Wikipedia purposes, is not "did a thing", it's "journalists treated the thing they did as newsworthy enough to do secondary coverage and analysis about". For instance, a person is not notable as a "recipient of the Startup Canada policy innovation award" on the basis of the Startup Canada policy innovation award self-publishing its own website about itself -- awards only count as notability claims if media outlets (e.g. CBC, CTV or the Globe and Mail) consider that award to be significant enough to cover the award presentation as a news story.

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:Ailish Campbell 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.

Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bearcat, thanks again for your work here, I also have earned a critical knowledge on sources with this conversation. I have resubmitted the article, taking a leaf from your last comment, I have added footnotes #2, #4, #6, #9 & #10. I hope it passes this time. Kind regards. Wikipractitioner (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Hello, I'm Wesoree. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to James Cartmell (actor)—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 21:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Behmen Doğu

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Behmen Doğu, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. iMahesh (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies, I would want to ask a couple of questions as regards this deletion. Was it wrong to write a few non feature details of product(s) which the subject is notable for? What phrases or details of the work were promotional to affect section G11 ? I humbly request a retrieval in order to improve on it where need be. I would also ask for your review on Ailish Campbell. Please be aware I am not employed with, expecting from, or enjoy any benefits from the any subject of BLPs I start or contribute to. Kind regards. Wikipractitioner (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nail Olpak for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nail Olpak 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/Nail Olpak 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 until the discussion has finished.

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi Drmies, Admins. This account has done no abuse or violation. Activities include creation of 5 new pages recently, they include an AfC submission of Draft:Ailish Campbell, AfD nominated Nail Olpak with responses to , Vedat Işıkhan and Ayyüce Türkeş Taş and speedily deleted Behmen Doğu. Other contributions include AfD participations on kept Faruk Kaymakcı, kept James Cartmell (actor) and still undicided Murat Karagöz. I appeal that this account is unblocked as there’s no violation to which a ban is fair. Wikipractitioner (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for violating WP:SOCK but don't mention this at all. Yamla (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Yamla, I ran the range, which is already a problematic one, and blocked a set of accounts that match this. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Drmies. Fortunately, I do not in any way, have any relationship with the accounts listed as associated to this account, please make further findings as I do not in any way know those accounts until this block. I also hope noticed that those accounts created particularly a Nigerian profile, and that’s never my niche or area of interest. I am more interested in Wikiproject Turkey, WomenInRed, Bilateral relations & AfDs. Kind regards. These 4 niches are my primary areas of contribution. Thanks. Wikipractitioner (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Hi Drmies, Yamla, All Admins. This account has done no abuse or violation. The following accounts are listed as sockpuppets of my account: User:Johnken21, User:Michaelbrownson567, User:Morganking345, User:Samsonfriday526, User:Yakubu6611. I have no relationship with any of these accounts, neither do I know of their existence before now. Like I wrote on my earlier appeal, the contributions I have done with my account include creation of 5 new pages recently, they include an AfC submission of Draft:Ailish Campbell, AfD nominated Nail Olpak with resplies too, Vedat Işıkhan and Ayyüce Türkeş Taş and speedily deleted Behmen Doğu. Other contributions include AfD participations on kept Faruk Kaymakcı, kept James Cartmell (actor) and still undecided Murat Karagöz. This block asides being unwarranted, also doesn’t seem to be in good faith. I appeal that this account is unblocked as there’s no violation to which a ban is for true reason. I do not own or work with any of those accounts. Not any of them. A further investigation should please be considered. Sincere Regards.Wikipractitioner (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

You know what, I'll take it. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Drmies, I appreciate the reconsideration, Can I as well ask for your consideration on Draft:Ailish Campbell on AfC, Kind regards. Wikipractitioner (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your allegations of a conspiracy

Greetings. During the course of this AfD discussion you made a very serious allegation against fellow Wikipedia contributors. Specifically, you wrote: "I suspect a deliberate collaboration from some editors in bringing works down and thereby not surprised at some of the submissions." In other words, you claim that a number of Wikipedia editors collaborate with the purpose of bringing down articles in a concerted effort, without you stating to what purpose that malign activity takes place. Since I was part of that discussion, I ask you to either retract these claims or support them with evidence. As you know, we are meant to assume good faith on the part of our colleagues here and refrain from personal attacks. These are policies and guidelines the contravention of which is regarded as serious and may result in penalties. In case you have a significant complaint, amply supported by evidence, you may choose to take matters to the incidents section of the administrators' noticeboard. Your move. -The Gnome (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you The Gnome, Yes I did make that assertion and still believe such to exist, See my talkpage and observe a block was just lifted and why. My move for now is continuing to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith and monitor the activities of user accounts I suspect and hopefully it remains my suspicion. Until then, thank you so much for your sincere concern. I wouldn’t want to appeal blocks again. Thanks for having the backs of fellow editors. Kind regards Wikipractitioner (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have the backs of anyone else. And my question remains: Do you insist in the serious accusation you made? It cannot be allowed to stand and be ignored. As to your past history here, it is irrelevant. I am taking my Wikipedia work seriously so I strongly recommend you take some time out to get away from any emotional agitation and consider retracting your accusations of a conspiracy. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ailish Campbell (September 28)

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

This is still based too heavily on primary sources that are not support for notability, and still doesn't cite enough WP:GNG-worthy reliable sources.

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:Ailish Campbell 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.

Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After conference, it has become clear to me that you've been deceptive. You did, in fact, collude with another editor, with whom you are now confirmed: User:TEB001. In addition, the origin story of this account, which I won't repeat here, is so fishy that a block via WP:COMPROMISED is practically mandatory. On a way forward, if there is one, I'll comment on the other talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Ailish Campbell

Hello, Wikipractitioner. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ailish Campbell, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Ailish Campbell

Hello, Wikipractitioner. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ailish Campbell".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]