User talk:Defunkedmaster

Hello and welcome to my talk page on Wikipedia! I'm glad you stopped by. Here, we can discuss anything related to my contributions to Wikipedia, whether it's about content I've added or edited, questions about my editing practices, or suggestions for future edits. I believe that collaboration is key to making Wikipedia a reliable source of information, so I welcome your feedback and ideas. Let's work together to create and maintain accurate and informative content on this platform.

February 2023

Howdy - I've moved the article you created in to draft space here: Draft:B Major (Bjorn Martin). I've removed many of the bad sources - we can't use blogs like Opera, or google search results. It's probably best to get feedback there; it's likely to get deleted from mainspace and having it in draft will give you time to improve it. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru Howdy to you friend! thank you for your contributions towards the Encyclopedia. it's highly appreciated coming from a person who loves to read.. I see you marked my citations as self published work by the subject, I can assure you that as an South African The Publication IOL News are the biggest news publication online and word of mouth and they are trusted and highly ranked on google. and every Public News Paper such as Daily Voice which I use and will use a lot as citation is actually under the same ownership just divided into different divisions. they are the head publishers of articles , everything goes through them first and then other Printing papers such as Daily voice and the "People's post" does rewrites and follows up on the articles published by IOL if it's a topic worth mentioning, because the publication makes money from all sides of their divisions, also to make my point abit stronger at least 90% of articles from south africa on the live space has IOL articles and HypeMagazine as a Citation.. these publications mentioned are the papers we read every day in South Africa. and all the information found on IOL has been put their first before it really goes to the daily news papers. so please consider moving the page back to the live space, if my article gets tagged for deletions I will take full responsibility and do my best to better the article. Opera News has been mentioned many times by Trusted and Reliable sources such as IOL and Daily voice newspaper.. those are printing establishments who prints hard copy paper every day. they wouldn't risk their names to put non-verfied information in their papers. because they have a policy that if anyone feels offended and is mentioned in a certain article they are more than welcome to reach out and have them remove any publication made about a certain person including sueing the writer for misused information. all these claims and information in the article is verifiable and reliable as it is not related to the subject at all and shows the contributions of the subject.

kind regards!

Defunkedmaster (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru the IOL owns the following newspapers in South Africa

THE STAR

CAPE ARGUS

WEEKEND ARGUS

DAILY NEWS

CAPE TIMES

THE MERCURY

PRETORIA NEWS

SATURDAY STAR

THE INDEPENDENT ON SATURDAY

SUNDAY TRIBUNE

SUNDAY INDEPENDENT

DFA

THE POST

DAILY VOICE

ISOLEZWE

BUSINESS REPORT

PERSONAL FINANCE

Most popular articles from South African celebrities are using these trusted, reliable and independent sources as citations..

verify this information by visiting their official website https://iol.co.za and do your own research if you'd like.

Defunkedmaster (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Opera News" is complete garbage - it's just an open blog posting platform with zero editorial control and not suitable for anything here, at all. Sorry. As for IOL, "word of mouth" and "highly ranked on google" are not terribly meaningful phrases here. My concern is that if a publication is using that kind of sourcing, it's a good indicator that this may not be the top of the journalism profession. For example, the phase "Speaking to Opera News" is a fairly weak attempt to sound authoritative, but the correct phase would be "An anonymous blog poster calling themselves 'LemonMagazine' posted screenshots of a chat conversation in a press release format". I don't see this as substantial coverage of the artist in any way, but I see your point that it at least supports the "controversy" section - since this is a WP:BLP, the sourcing, especially for material like that, needs to be top notch.

Similarly, 'Hype Magazine' looks weak. They sell interviews and features outright, and there are many ads for "unmarked guest posts". This looks more like a PR mill than an actual reliable source. It appears you've added other sources that are likely to be removed the next time I run through the list: 'Infofamouspeople' is a scraper or user-generated junk site. We can't use user-generated sites like IMDB for statements of fact, and Allmusic needs to be sued with caution as well. I'll take another look later today and see if I can clarify anything. I realize the genre itself is difficult to source reliably. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru i hear what you're saying.. if that is the case than all articles with IOL links and Daily Voice Links, AllMusic, Gazeti.AfroCharts, Sunday Times, etc including any other newspaper owned by IOL need to be removed or marked for speedy deletion which would be 90% of articles from South African celebrities. I think you're understanding it wrong.. I know the opera news seems like "not" top of the journalism profession but that's how It is in South Africa. news first gets verified by The IOL as they reach out to all people they write about before making a publication. if that is not editorial editing than I really don't know what is? they have an outstanding rating and trust from the people. I read many article there and I can say they make sure what ever is being published to news papers is real and verifiable and the saying "speaking to opera news" means that the subject had an interview with the publisher LemonMagazine which is most probably a Sub division of Opera News just like IOL and Daily Voice relationship.

90% of articles online from South africa uses these links because every person living in South Africa knows these publications and trust them because they have been correct and accurate for the past 10-15 years with no Controversies or claims on suing.

The biggest news papers and online publishers would never post about a guy who most probably is rich and famous with the chance of ruining their name and getting sued. as for AllMusic I don't know much about the site at all, just that there are millions of articles using this as a reference. if 3 huge news papers and publications publish the same article than the news must be real and verifiable. meaning they got the info from the people themselves like Draft:B Major (Bjorn Martin) and YoungstaCPT.

from my neutral point view, I consider this article to be a start-class article. the same goes with my article about Nina Hastie and my Draft page Draft:DJ Ready D

These people are well known figures who have achieved a lot at a young age already, that to me is important and history in the South African books. i think they deserve to have a spot on the South African Encyclopedia as start-class articles.

Defunkedmaster (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I've looked at it again and noticed the deleted edits and massive socking that's occurred here. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru Yes! this is insane. I don't know why that is, yesterday the article of Draft:B Major (Bjorn Martin) got moved to draft and when I went to check the page it had administrator creation tag on? what does this really mean?? I know I can't create the page without administration rights but Its just abit strange. it's my first time writing about any of the topics I'm covering..

I've been double checking my info on Nina Hastie and Draft:DJ Ready D to make sure those don't get taken down.. I been writing these articles for 2 months now.

is there anyway I can see if there are any other troubled pages on wiki before I create new topics and waste my time? Defunkedmaster (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how can I fix this? Defunkedmaster (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Defunkedmaster, this has all been discussed before. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B Major (record producer) for previous responses to arguments like yours. Largoplazo (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo wow! I see many users tried adding the topic to wikipedia and failed, man I wish I knew this before starting with it. could you recommend me some tools I can use to get notifications about things like these? @HammerSoft mentioned there are tools but didn't give me the names.

Also so this means that the article in the state it is now, is not suitable for live space? or I'm just not allow to create it? I can't see the old articles created by those sockpuppet users but I'm sure they couldn't have wrote exactly what I wrote about the person? or how do we see the old articles? Defunkedmaster (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo why are you trying to make me look like I am the guy?? when I have done nothing wrong since joining the Encyclopedia?? you do know that I got my name from winning a tournaments me and my friends did back in 07 for the Defunct video game and I was name the defunct master because I won almost every where we friends came together and played. I just spell it defunked because it has the word Funk In it and I listen to funk music. man you are really trying to make things worst for me.. I'm laughing so hard at how you guys are trying to make me seem like the culprit. but In reality you are blocking the wrong person and that is bad quality service here on wikipedia. I am not who you think I am Defunkedmaster (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't that I'm making you look like you are, it's that you look like you are. If you looked at what I wrote on the sockpuppet investigation page, you saw that I originally wrote my report to put you on the radar, as there were signs but it wasn't all that clear, and that I later supplied further reasons to believe you might not be an associated person. But then there were more signs and more signs. I mean, here, another one: You wrote here "I'm laughing so hard", a phrase I instantly remembered having seen just yesterday here. Also, "trusted and reliable source": here. (By the way, saying a source is "trusted" doesn't help, as trust can be misplaced.) In addition, in your version of the article, it appears that the #1 most important thing about B Major is his feud with YoungstaCPT, as conveyed by the fact that 50% of the article's content was about the feud. A previous incarnation of the article gave that feud similar emphasis. It just seems odd that two unrelated people would find that feud to be the significant thing to write about. Largoplazo (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd meant to add the observation that you, like StephenWilliams021 in that other discussion, go back and forth between "newspaper" and "news paper". Largoplazo (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Bmusique99 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmusique99. 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.

Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi there checkuser/admin I'm not associated to those people, it is unfortunate that It has been brought to my attention too late this being after I moved that article to the live space, An admin apologized for letting it slip past admin protection. That was not my fault as I should've been warned beforehand that I cant create the article. So when I started with that article I searched "B Major" in the wikipedia search bar and clicked enter. it immediately took me to the B major wikipedia for the musical scale. indicating it's used already then I proceeded to name the wiki article B Major (Bjorn Martin) in brackets because you can get more info about him since it's the second most popular name for the topic. I found coverage and Google knowledge panel for B Major and the name Bjorn Martin and it had the IMDB linked to the knowledge panel. Then i added the link to the wikipedia article and decided to call the article B Major (Bjorn Martin) because I received more online presence & information about the topic when searching his name.. I named the article B Major (Bjorn Martin) thinking people on wiki also would type the name (Bjorn Martin) in Google search and see the info presented. I will not say I'm somebody who I'm not and if I have to be blocked indefinitely because of writing an article I had no idea had bad sockpuppeting in the past which I think should've been visible to anyone writing about that subject. I will take my block because I will not stand up for something I didn't do, I'll just continue writing my articles and throwing it away because this is not about status and pushing an agenda, It's about my passion for writing. And gaining knowledge. If you consider unblocking me ill continue to go on with my other articles on wikipedia and forget about this topic and apply wikipedia rules and regulations always.If you check all my contributions since I started to all articles I edited you will see it is not stupid stuff or vandalism because I'm trying to better the Encyclopedia whereever I can. As I have more time on my hands since retirement, it was a set out to be my next hobby/job and this dilemma really crushed my spirit today. Defunkedmaster (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed to a slew of sockpuppet accounts, including Scoutmaestro, SouthAfricaFinest, SnoopHere, MentionMe47. As far as the technical evidence goes, this is straight-forward and clear. Yamla (talk) 11:32, 20 February 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.

Defunkedmaster, you have been attempting for two years to get an article published on Wikipedia about Bjorn Martin. Such efforts have categorically failed. Time and time again you've been told you need reliable sources to support such an article. Yet, you keep persisting in using extremely weak sourcing such as YouTube, Instagram, IMDB and more. You can't keep on creating sockpuppet accounts in a vain attempt to get around sourcing requirements. Just because you create a new account and try to pass it off as just a random person who showed up to write about Bjorn Martin doesn't mean the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline doesn't apply. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. You can either choose to comply with our policies and guidelines or choose to forever have your sockpuppet accounts blocked and every variation you come up with for an article name for this person being salted against recreation.

If you want to stop this silly charade, you need to go back to your original User:Bmusique99 account and request an unblock. The block of that account applies to you personally...regardless of what account or IP address you are using. You are blocked, not just any accounts you make. If you are unable to log into that account, then requesting an unblock on your current sockpuppet account is the pathway forward. But, such a request will have to abjectly acknowledge your past history, lay out your intentions to comply with our policies and guidelines moving forward, and lay out what it is you intend to do once you are unblocked. Please, don't make protestations this account of yours isn't a sockpuppet account. The evidence is clear, blatant, and confirmed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmusique99. Enough, please, Stop this silliness. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft I'm not who you think I am, how can wikipedia mistaken me for another person who got blocked 2 years ago? the fact that use guys can make this mistake really makes me see that it is not as safe as I would assume. all my arguments against people on here was made due to research, I was told IOL news links cant be used but everyone who is celebrity from Africa and on wikipedia has these IOL news linked to their wiki pages and AllMusic. why isn't anything done about that?? I assumed that it's reliable and verifiable because at least 80% of South African articles are using these as citations in their wiki.. I'm very disappointed. you guys just ruined my spirit completely. Defunkedmaster (talk) 06:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't responsible for the fact that you were given incorrect information, you should have just asked us directly. If 80% of articles related to South Africa use inappropriate sources then 80% of articles from South Africa are wrong. This doesn't justify more inappropriate content being added, see other stuff exists. You just claiming it isn't you is just wasting your own time, never mind that of others. I'm sorry you feel bad, but Hammersoft has provided you with the way forward. You will either take it, or not. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Defunked, I asked you not to make protestations that you aren't part of this large sockpuppet farm. Yet, you chose to do so anyway. If this is supposed to inspire faith in us that you have good intentions here, you failed. In fact, you've made it worse. We've now had two checkusers that determined that you are the same person as those sockpuppets. You are trying to argue with us that water isn't wet. You've been caught In flagrante delicto. Denying this is absolutely useless. Please, stop wasting your time and ours on this.

Moving on; you've asked us, via creation, to believe that Bjorn Martin is notable enough for inclusion. As proof of this, the very first citation you used in this latest attempt of yours points us to Martin's YouTube page. This is a primary source and is absolutely useless to establish notability. You're asking us to believe Martin is notable because Martin says they're notable. Seriously? This is also a horrible way to begin because Martin's YouTube channel has 24 subscribers. 24! Then you move on to allmusic.com. Sure, allmusic.com is used as a citation all across Wikipedia. But, to use it to establish notability? No, that is very bad form. Our advice on this clearly says "Listings without accompanying prose do not count toward notability." Yet, you persist in using it to establish notability anyway. Then you moved on to Hype Magazine noting awards for local talent, where B Major was nominated...not won, nominated. Local talent rarely rises to the level of a broader spotlight. Martin is mentioned precisely once in the article. The article is not about Martin, and would have nothing to do with Martin at all except for the bare mention of the nomination. Then you moved on to the Apple Music listing. This is a meaningless source. It doesn't discuss the artist in any respect. It's just a listing. Anybody can have a listing on Apple Music. It doesn't take much. You then used a blog as a citation. Then you used allmusic.com again. Then in another case of "I'm notable because I say so!", you used Martin's instagram account as a citation [1]. I mean come on, what are we supposed to do? How can we do anything other than conclude there's insufficient notability here reinforced with bad sourcing?

I'm going to make a direct appeal here. Whether you are Martin himself or an ardent fan of Martin, you need to understand the following: Wikipedia is one of the top ten websites in the entire world. Your actions here are being seen by people around the world. This persistent attempt lasting two years to get an article about Martin is actually harming the reputation of Martin, not helping it. If anyone did have an interest about Martin, what they would find here is a long list of attempts and sockpuppets to try to improve the fame of this person. This is bad, do you understand? Martin needs to become notable and then a Wikipedia article happens, not the otherway around. If you are Martin or you care about Martin the best thing you can do is STOP THIS SILLY CHARADE. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]