User talk:Dammitkevin

Welcome!

Hello, Dammitkevin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Sanchi. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 18:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaliachak Riots

Check the citations, they are merely junk links with no real citation existing. Rajat.kalia (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The citations include The Indian Express, The Telegraph, and India Today. They aren't junk links. Dammitkevin (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Kasay

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Kasay. As you've restored the redirect and reverted again you may want to participate in this AFD. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 17:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

madhan (writer)

pls help me to change the page madhan (writer) to madan (writer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.65.192.84 (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i think you donig right thing wikieditor and thats good choise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chennaiboys (talk • contribs) 03:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki What?

Thanks for your message. The video you referenced in my edits of T.J. Miller is not promotional but a series whose sole goal is to fact check individual's Wikipedia pages. Thank you -- Mrazzle (talk)

@Mrazzle: The edits promote a non notable facebook page. Please read WP:RS. Dammitkevin (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The video is unequivocally notable per the Content Rules—T.J. Miller is fact checking his own Wikipedia page; a new page on 'Wiki What?' was not created. The video is merely cited as a verified and objective reference source. -- Mrazzle (talk)

@Dammitkevin: There is no requirement that citations be to "notable" sources. WP:V just requires "reliable" sources, and WP:RS never includes the word "notable" anywhere. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrazzle: Please cite the "Content Rules" that make this facebook page notable. Dammitkevin (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the opportunity to:

Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia[edit]

Dealing with edits by the subject of the article

Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealing_with_edits_by_the_subject_of_the_article -- Mrazzle (talk)

@Mrazzle: That doesn't in any way make a facebook page notable. Are you admitting that you have a conflict of interest because you are editing on behalf of the article subject? Dammitkevin (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, and it's not a Facebook page. It's a video series that just happens to be airing on Facebook. It's unsettling to think that you are striking revisions without so much as viewing the references cited. I thought the state goal of Wikipedia was "to get it right." -- Mrazzle (talk)

@Mrazzle: Do you or do you not have a connection to the article subject? Dammitkevin (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any connection in any way to the article subject. I've been helping edit his page for the past few months, that is all. -- Mrazzle (talk)

@Mrazzle: You still haven't cited the "Content Rules" that make this facebook page notable. Do you have any connect to it? Dammitkevin (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did, see above:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealing_with_edits_by_the_subject_of_the_article -- Mrazzle (talk)

@Mrazzle: That doesn't in any way make a facebook page notable and it deals with article subjects themselves desiring to edit their own pages. Unless you are claiming to be T.J. Miller that guideline doesn't apply to you or to the facebook page you keep trying to add. And you still didn't answer my second question: Do you have any connect to the facebook page you keep adding to the article? Dammitkevin (talk) 12:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not applicable if T.J. Miller is in the cited source reviewing his Wikipedia page? Again, read closely:

"Edits like this by subjects should not be treated as vandalism; instead, the subject should be invited to explain their concerns. "

The idea that you would dispute objective biographical information and entirely neutral facts that come directly from the subject is unsettling at best. It suggests you are more interested in maintaining control over the page rather than ensuring it is as objective and accurate as possible. I have no connection to the Facebook page as it is not a Facebook page, it is a video, which I have no connection to. It seems you are either too myopic or lacking the ability to comprehend the rules and regulations you yourself cite. -- Mrazzle (talk)

@Mrazzle: It isn't applicable because the policy you link to says nothing about making sources notable. I am not the only one to remove your edits because they are written in a promotional way - you keep linking to the facebook page in multiple places in each edit. I don't care about your petty insults I care about policy and keeping articles clean of fluff. Dammitkevin (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to wade in here and say that the editing that Mrazzle (talk) is doing is not being paid by the subject of the article. He is a comedian being paid by his employer, not by the subject. It would be a different thing if the subject of the Wikipedia article was paying him.

By tagging these articles you are actually hurting the subject and penalizing them, when it is not the subject of the article doing anything wrong. It becomes vandalism, and is really badly done.

Also, this series has the potential to be very positive to engaging editors. So instead of being mean to a new editor, however much it's couched in comedy, maybe a choice might be to have a sense of humor about this whole thing -- or even, god forbid, make edits to the pages and do something constructive here. I shake my head at how bad this tagging makes Wikipedia look.

I hope you will reconsider. Biographies of Living People are very powerful, and people should have more control over the content. No matter the delivery system, if someone verbally says on camera something is true or not and it's a news article, that's a citation. It should be allowed. And the paid for editing tags should be removed. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link to what is now a citation -- and should resolve the paid editing thing. Again, the comedian / newbie Wikipedian was not paid by the subject of the story. The tag needs to come down.

Bruney, Gabrielle; Gondelman, Josh; Miller, T.J. (3 September 2017). "Watch T.J. Miller Have a Check-Up with the Wikipediatrician" (Includes video). Esquire.

Please see T.J. Miller Talk page for resolution of this issue. This is NOT paid editing, i.e., where subject of article is paying someone to fix page. -- BrillLyle (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DammitKevin - I was asked to look into this stuff. First of all, thanks for watching out for the integrity of WP. To both you and User:BrillLyle, a couple of notes.

DammitKevin you repeated several times the assertion that the Facebook page isn't "notable". This is not valid analysis -- the concept of "notable" is not relevant when we ask if a source is reliable. Again I really appreciate you wanting to help - and raising this up for discussion was great, but your arguments have only added confusion. Please do review WP:RS and please don't discuss whether a source is "notable" in the future. Thanks.

User:BrillLyle most everything you wrote above is not supportable by on-WP diffs, and you have also added a bunch of confusion to this discussion. I will be following up with you elsewhere about that.

All this confusion is ... unfortunate. I get it that everybody is aiming at the greater good, but please be more careful.

Am dealing with Mrazzle's edits and the bigger picture elsewhere - am just kind of clarifying things locally as I go. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Jytdog: I don't think I have done anything wrong here, but your comment above is quite menacing and makes me think that I have. I have done a ton of work to update the entries that Josh worked on, and I am coming from a constructive and positive place. I also do BLPs quite regularly, and try to address entries when people complain about their Wikipedia entries and/or are upset about their Wikipedia entries. I would prefer not to be lectured or followed up with about the free digital labor I am contributing to on the various Wikimedia projects. -- Respectfully, Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no menace. I pinged you at COIN. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Ruchita

Hello Dammitkevin, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Ruchita, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This is a test page created by a brand new editor, usersify would work here. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Anoptimistix (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anoptimistix: G2 exists for a reason: test pages don't need to exist. Dammitkevin (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated it for Afd usersify, the page can simply moved to the subspace of the user without any need of deletion. Also I was concerned about editor retention as the page author is a brand new user. Hope you understand, Have a lovely Day. Anoptimistix (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:BeardyMike

Hello Dammitkevin, I was using that space to store text, I didn't realise it was publically viewable, any chance you can undo your undo so I can grab the text back again?

Thank you. BeardyMike (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BeardyMike: It's in the history. See the "view history" tab near the top of the page? Click that and you will be able to see revisions by date. If you need any more help please let me know. Dammitkevin (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Serhiy Taruta

Hello, I'm Igor. I want to explain the changes that I suggest. The word "oligarch" with reference to the article "Ukrainian oligarchs" can not be applied, because in that article on the list of oligarchs, Sergey Taruta is absent and, moreover, never met the criteria that are used to fall into the list of oligarchs (control of media- resources, influence on state bodies, etc.). Next "Former" - see the link to the football club page. The club no longer exists, hence the "former President". According to Forbes store (2009) - I was wrong - really rated Sergey Taruta had such wealth, but as of 2008. https://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/10/billionaires08_The-Worlds-Billionaires_Rank_18.html Today Sergey Taruta is not included in the rating of billionaires. Please confirm the changes I made. thank you

@Igor Martyniuk: If the sources says "oligarch" and you disagree then you take it to the talk page you don't just delete the sources. Dammitkevin (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dammitkevin: Having studied these sources - I assure you that the references to these sources are incorrect both in terms of justification "Taruta - oligarch" and in terms of the reliability of the confirmation of the word "oligarch". Please do more than two clicks and read about those articles.

I insist on replacing the "oligarch" with a businessman and removing those sources. Do not be formal thank you

Oops

Oops, I'm sorry about this. I think the CMOS battery in my brain has expired. Apologies, and I've removed the "spare" one ... the poor s*d must have felt somewhat piled on! Cheers DBaK (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accidents happen especially when we are all using twinkle :) Dammitkevin (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! DBaK (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

This IP address belongs to a hotel. That may explain the strange editing coming from here.

--182.93.34.10 (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dammitkevin. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFD 2 for Olwen Kelly

I thought you might like to know Olwen Kelly is up for deletion again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olwen Kelly (2nd nomination). You were involved with the article. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]