User talk:Twotwofourtysix/Archives/2021/July

Autoclicker

I have no idea about that edit. I just refreshed my IP and was assigned this IP. I assume it was someone else. 136.158.57.143 (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright, see the template on top of your user talk page. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 11:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Your recent nominations for Speedy Deletion

Hi, only 2 Minutes after creation of an article is by far too quick for speedy deletion, like you did here Georg Hinrichsen - we usually have to wait per Wikipedia:NPP Policy 10 minutes, some sysops say better 15-30 minutes before nominating. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for letting me know. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 08:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello Twotwofourtysix. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that there is consensus that we shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created, as you did at Georg Hinrichsen. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), patent nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course still be tagged and deleted immediately. Warning myself, with a proper template. Hopefully I don't forget about WP:NPPCSD —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 08:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Dunedin stabbings

Hey mate, thanks for helping me finish the article on the 2021 Dunedin Countdown stabbing. Just a heads up- there have been no deaths confirmed yet, so we'll hold off adding it to the category for deaths by stabbing, shall we? Cheers.--Aubernas (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Aubernas: Ah, I'm sorry. Also, can you please reinstate the other edits I made regarding the addition of reflist and merging of citations? I figure it'd still be helpful. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 14:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

reFill app going wrong

The WP:REFILL app is apparently not going towards your standards which is why the edit to Doki Doki Literature Club! seems to be so "wrong". Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Or mine, rather. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Chase Community Independents Group

A tag has been placed on Chase Community Independents Group requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

unambiguous promo, not notable

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Tame (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tamingimpala: Thanks for the notice but, unfortunately, I am not the author of that page, Pierce spacem is.

Looking forward to seeing if we can work out a consensus

Hello,

I saw some edits made to a new page I created. I respectfully understand some of the issues brought up and do want to give respect to an editor such as yourself who has been working at this longer than I have. I wish to invite you to have a discussion with me so that we can come to a consensus (giving full respect to the definition) with regards to what changes can be respectfully made to the article while being fully understood on the competent points I make. I tried to improve additional sources and even included one that is not conservative to show explicitly that not all my sources will be biased. The big reason for my biased sources is finding that most sources covering him are biased (which if we are fair applies to most news in certain topics or aspects). I also read the article on Reliable Sources/Perennial sources that make valid some of my points. Once again, I hope we can come to a consensus, work out a compromise, praise the other on good points brought up, willing to admit when we are wrong, and work together to create an even better page :)

Thank you for taking the time to read this Updatewithfacts (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you referring to Red Eagle Politics? I haven't seen many independent, reliable sources talking about him, so it may not comply with the notability guideline. There also seems to be many sources from Red Eagle Politics himself, which should be avoided as much as possible. Although, I'm not too interested in it at the moment so I can't work too much on it right now. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 01:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Yep, that was the article. I understand if you are not interested. I wanted to let the record show that I have been issuing invitations to editors and trying to work out a consensus. I think a lot of the points you have brought up in your reply make sense, though I did make a valid point with regards to GNG on a breaking story he made. I am learning and growing as an editor and I do want to stay on working with Wikipedia if I feel like my voice is heard, valid points acknowledged, and apologies issued when wrong or corrections made. So far it really has been a mixed bag but mostly negative, unfortunately. I do wish to emphasis that you have not been included so far in that when I mention having negative experiences. I did make an effort to look for independent sources and Wikipedia has mentioned the exceptions when it comes to self-published, unreliable, no consensus and other matters. My goal is to see if Wikipedia will be an appropriate environment for me to edit; if I continue to have bad experiences and accountability isn't made by other editors, I might quit and work with another online encyclopedia. Still trying to figure that out. Anywho: I apologize for this being so long. I wanted to give a much fuller context on the events going on. Thank you again for reading this and regardless of how my article's future goes, thank you for respectfully reading my responses and reading over the valid points I brought up :) Updatewithfacts (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

TolumiDE note

Show me how "the author of the only substantial content has requested deletion and/or blanked the page in good faith." --A21sauce (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you blanked the page because you created the page in error which is why I requested speedy deletion under G7. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 13:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, it seems that you're looking for WP:DRV. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 13:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, so I haven't looked at the logs and history of this page. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 23:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Delete Article

Emil Şahin, delete the deletion process, we made corrections in the article and gave references, please keep this in mindRza835 (talk) 09:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

If you contest the deletion, please click the button on the page yourself. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 09:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, please do not start the deletion processRza835 (talk) 09:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

And also, please do not log out and remove the speedy deletion template. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 10:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Twotwofourtysix, I'm doing an ANI regarding this since this is literally the 5th occurrence of this exact situation. Curbon7 (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding TruthUnfold

As I got the request from you regarding the deletion of the page TruthUnfold which you claimed to be the self beneficiary. However, google allowed me as the renowned founder of the news agency. The news agency is however in my interest but the reason for the article was to serve the interaction of media with the audience and Wikipedia is the source that helps best. Also, it does not fall under the given guidelines of Wikipedia until or unless it just benefits me. It is in the interest of every reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Israr Ahmad 07 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Still, Wikipedia isn't for promotion and you should not create articles where the subject is your own company, because that is a conflict of interest. I am not, by the way, the "self beneficiary" of that page's deletion, I only requested that page's deletion because it meets Wikpiedia's criteria for sppedy deletion on promotions and I don't personally benefit from the deletion. I don't know what you mean by "google allowed me as the renowned founder of the news agency", Google doesn't have anything to do with any of this. If what you mean is the copyright situation of the website, which I also requested the deletion under, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Thank you. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 08:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Speedy Delete For Dixon Novel The Victim

I did not get the Description rom Amazon. It was actually the Original Description from The Novel's Author, Thomas Dixon Jr. Written in 1916.

I placed it there so I could have Time to Write the Summary.

The Page did not violate Copyright Law as the Description is in The Public Domain.

SKWills (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@SKWills: Alright, sorry for that. Although, I suggest that you use the draftspace if it's still in the works. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 00:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Deletion template

Hello Twotwofourtysix I hope, you're doing well. I came across these article Amaatiikhan. While I believe the person is not notable, so I have replaced the prod template with csd. If you think, I did a mistake, feel free to undo my edit. Thanks, stay safe. --C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 13:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Hello! Thank you for reaching out. I work for this specific candidate and they would prefer to at least have his most recent elected position listed instead of the 2017 candidacy. I attempted to cite it with an outside source previously, as I made changes earlier in the week, but I am really new at this, so I apologize for the confusion and if it inconvenienced you in any way. This is the link showing that he is the Treasurer of the Cuyahoga Soil & Water Conservation District:. I can go back and change it or find another source if necessary. I appreciate any help you can provide! Aubreykitty4 (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Aubreykitty4: Hello. First off, seeing as you work for the candidate, then you have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia has a guideline on people with conflicts of interest, whereby you should not edit the article in which you have a conflict of interest with, in this case the one about the election that the candidate you work with is in, and you should use the {{request edit}} template on the article talk page instead. Please read more on the guideline page linked above. As to the source you provided above, I will check it later. Thanks. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 13:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

References

@Twotwofourtysix: Thank you for the advice. Just to clarify, I should have said that I am just a volunteer for them, not paid, but I will use the Request Edit template to avoid any further conflict. Once again, I appreciate your help! Aubreykitty4 (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)