Jump to content

User talk:Gene93k/Archives 2021

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives 2020Archives 2021Archives 2022

Happy New Year!

Gene93k,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! North America1000 05:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.


Nomination of Box Springs, California for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Box Springs, California, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Box Springs, California until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic data Saint Lucia Again

Hello - I see we have a disagreement on recoveries. I think you may need to factor in the 4 "Number of COVID-19 Repatriations from Saint Lucia"? We still have a disagreement of one from the two sources mention. Personally I would trust the official government source over the local news. But either way it must be supported by an inline citation. Keep up the great work Simuliid talk 12:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  • @Simuliid: The Loop News article is a government source (press release) published through a press site. The author is the Ministry of Health and Wellness. I use loopslu.com, because MoH releases to the press before they post on their own site. Here are the missing five recoveries from the horse's mouth. "The Ministry of Health also reported a total of five recoveries for today, January 9, 2021. This brings the total number of active cases presently in country to 119." You will notice that the text matches verbatim. The dashboard said 309 on 8 January (and the numbers added up). The 309 figure is unchanged since then despite the 5 recoveries reported 9 January. As for repatriations, the dashboard number has not been maintained for months, and the dashboard has counted recovered repatriated patients as recovered since March 2020. Again, all numbers come from the Ministry. A press release is on a news platform is the author speaking. The ministry updates the dashboard number like we update the Wikipedia numbers, and you have seen the obvious mistakes they've made. Total - Active - Dead = Active added up on 8 January. The math has been off by 5 since then, as Total and Active are regularly reported. The 5 Dead figure reported in December has not changed since then. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Simuliid: The dashboard numbers have been erratic since 11 December and they have been especially sloppy since the holiday shutdown. When there is a discrepancy, I have cited a Ministry of Health press release in the main pandemic article as a source of firmer numbers. The 314 figure comes from arithmetic of cited numbers. At the risk of citation overkill, this is where it also can be derived:

Saint Lucia COVID-19 reports 6 January 2021 through 9 January 2021

  • Given: 5 dead reported 17 December
  • 6 January - 294 reported
    • With all numbers except deaths reported, 382 total - 294 recovered - 5 deaths = 83 active[1]
  • 7 January +9 recoveries
    • Note 383 Total - 294 recoveries - 9 recoveries - 5 dead = 75 active[2]
  • 8 January +6 recoveries
    • Here's where we get 309 recoveries (294 + 9 + 6)
    • Note that 395 total - 309 recoveries - 5 dead = 81 active[3]
  • 9 January +5 recoveries not on the dashboard
    • This is where 314 comes from (294 + 9 + 6 + 5)
    • Saturday reported a day late: 438 total - 314 recovered - 5 dead = 119 active[4]

References

  1. ^ "Saint Lucia records cases #381 and #382 of COVID-19" (Press release). Ministry of Health. 6 January 2021. total of 294 recoveries to date
  2. ^ "Saint Lucia records case #383 of COVID-19" (Press release). Ministry of Health. 7 January 2021. Ministry of Health has reported a total of nine recoveries for today
  3. ^ "Saint Lucia records cases #384 to #395 of COVID-19" (Press release). Ministry of Health. 8 January 2021. Ministry of Health has reported a total of six recoveries for today
  4. ^ "Saint Lucia records cases #396 to #438 of COVID-19" (Press release). Ministry of Health. 10 January 2021. Ministry of Health also reported a total of five recoveries for today, January 9
  • Weight of evidence: MoH goofed on the dashboard numbers again. The Ministry of Health and Wellness is the sources of all COVID-19 data in Saint Lucia. They conduct COVID-19 testing in daily batches, usually reported daily. The dashboard is a scoreboard for convenience. When the dashboard numbers don't add up, the MoH press releases should take precedence. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Stephen Paddock

Hey, I changed the word ¨terrorist¨ to ¨mass murderer¨ (because terrorism is political or religious). I know the difference. Why did you revert my edit? Koridas 📣 15:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case

An article you may be interested in, Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case, has just been undeleted. Any help you could give to this, included BLP-related edits, would be very much appreciated. --Bangalamania (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2011 in Saba

A tag has been placed on Category:2011 in Saba requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz Read! Talk! 16:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft Denial - Alexa Nova

Hi Gene93k, I saw you had declined my draft submission for Alexa Nova wiki page. I've only ever had one PR person who put out articles for me early in my career, and at the end of every one, the name of PR agency was disclosed. You can obviously tell which are paid for by PR companies that way. I did not use any link references that were self-published (besides my Steemit blog for my list of scenes) nor did I use any re-published press releases. XXXBios biography was written about me without my knowledge, wasn't paid for whatsoever, even though it was based on interviews with me, is that not considered independent coverage?
Are only pornographic actors/actress that have crossed over to mainstream eligible for a wiki page? Since there doesn't seem to be any references that are able to be used.
In process of drafting, I was consulting with an admin that told me iafd links can be used as a basic info reference (such as birthdate), is that not correct?
According to WP:ENT, the qualification is, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Being one of the performers ('significant role') in a nominated scene ('other production') more than once, wouldn't that qualify as notability as far as Wikipedia's standards? The only online proof of prior years' AVN/XBIZ nominations that exist are award roster lists. I don't see why they wouldn't be an acceptable reference, so I would appreciate any explanation or suggestion of how it might be possible to prove past nominations for notability. I looked at other porn performer's wiki pages (such as James Deen), to help me draft this submission and get examples of what acceptable reference links for adult industry would look like. IAFD/AVN/XBIZ links are often used as references in all the porn performer wiki pages I have seen. The AVN pornstar page of me, was not self-published or a re-published press release. The award nomination rosters is what should prove notability, where else would you suggest I find references of nominations that you would consider acceptable? Do you not consider multiple past AVN nominations enough notability?
The definition that is in place by wiki, as I had quoted above, seems to be vague enough to include multiple award nominations as notability.Alexanovatv (talk) 22:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

  • @Alexanovatv: First of all, Wikipedia's general guidance about autobiographical articles is don't do it. At least one other editor has already advised you about this. Conflict of interest, even if properly disclosed, is strongly discouraged. A closer look at the AVN citations are cast listings, non-significant coverage. Articles like "Wicked Pictures, Axel Braun Celebrate 'Shades of Red'" are promotional material from the film companies. Wicked Pictures and Asylum.com are not independent of the actors. Databases like IMDb and IAFD may verify some basic facts, but they don't count as significant coverage, and they don't establish notability. Wikipedia stopped presuming porn award winners notable in 2019. Porn award nominations were discounted in the early 2010s. Award roster listings like XBIZ do not count as significant coverage. As for WP:ENT or WP:ANYBIO, all claims need to be supported by references to independent reliable sources. Porn press rarely satisfies this requirement. Finally, since you mention James Deen, please note that he gets significant coverage from sources like GQ, The Daily Beast, Vanity Fair, etc. No such coverage is evident in the draft. A straight news article from AVN or XBIZ would improved the draft, but that may not be enough. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)



Thanks for the response. Yes, I'm aware James has articles like that because he is famous in mainstream as well, partially due to scandals. So I guess that answers my question about how adult performers can't be considered notable unless we crossover to mainstream it seems, since "porn press" is rarely considered an independent reliable source, as you said. The context of the references provided for the DVDs listed, are just to prove the existence of the movie and show the box cover image, it's not to promote those movies. Being on the cover of a DVD isn't considered playing a significant role in that production? An AVN pornstar page doesn't prove any notability either? That wasn't paid for by me at all. I thought AVN could be considered a reliable source if it's not a paid promotional article?Alexanovatv (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  • @Alexanovatv: Mainstream crossover is not required for notability, but key requirementa are acknowledgement from sources with good reputations for fact checking and the depth of that coverage. The Pornography WikiProject does give some guidance about reliable sources here. While AVN is listed as a reliable news source, the guidance cautions readers to distinguish factual news reporting from unlabeled press releases. It also warns that AVN porn star profiles are unreliable. The references for the DVDs listed don't count as significant coverage, even for the featured performer. The porn trade press coverage for them is too routine in nature. They might prove existence, but not significance. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Acid Witch albums

A tag has been placed on Category:Acid Witch albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz Read! Talk! 19:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:The Lead albums

A tag has been placed on Category:The Lead albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz Read! Talk! 18:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

About Brahman.

Brahman does not refer to Krishna or Vishnu in Hinduism, it is considered formless absolute. Hellobunny001 (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, got it. About Brahman- Hinduism has many sects, Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, literally all of the sects associate their deities Vishnu/Shiva/Shakti with Brahman. And all the sects have countless articles to support their claim. Hence, it is better to maintain neutrality. Hellobunny001 (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, It will be better if the page related "Brahman" can be made semi protected. I don't know how to apply for it, I'm new here. Hellobunny001 (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Here, https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/beliefs/intro_1.shtml All of the sects have scriptural references to associate their specific deities to Brahman.

I think under such circumstances, going with neutrality will be the best option.

And if possible, please make the page semi protected. Hellobunny001 (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

  • @Hellobunny001: You appear to be seeking protection to enforce your assertions in a content dispute. The page's edit history show no obvious signs of significant vandalism or disruptive editing. Semi-protection would only block anonymous and newly-registered editors, including yourself. A protection request at WP:RFPP will likely go nowhere. Moreover, your edits are repeating the assertions at Talk:Love Jihad and reinstating an edit made by a blocked sockpuppet account. As for sources, the BBC page you cite is not the only view found at BBC.com regarding Hinduism. Final point, Wikipedia does not consider scriptures, even when cited, as reliable references for facts. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for talking to me. May be I will have to know more about these Wikipedia edits. It seems quite puzzling at this moment.

The topic related Brahman was always neutral before someone actually cited sources from his particular sect & changed it, that's why I asked for a protection. Anyway, it's fine as long as it's neutrality doesn't get vandalised.

Thank you again. Hellobunny001 (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC WP:Notability people

I made an RFC here can you add some comments? Not sure if I created it correctly either--Cs california (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

BLP:CRIME

Thank you for your attention to my edits on Jake Paul. What do you think of using my previous verbiage to describe the accusation with the new sources? Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Dear Gene93k, thanks for your comments, I did not delete information from Cecilia Gessa's biography but I have tried to UPDATE her profession, since she is no longer dedicated to pornography but focuses her career on the production and direction of works by theater, however in the section on Cinematographic career I have maintained its past as a pornographic artist. Thank you very much for understanding and for your contributions. Gllrmurgiles (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)gllrmurgiles [1] [2]

References

  1. ^ https://www.madridesnoticia.es/2020/11/cecilia-gessa-fahrenheit-108-entrevista/
  2. ^ https://citeyoco.com/2020/11/23/teatro-fahrenheit-108-la-nueva-propuesta-teatral-de-cecilia-gessa-en-el-teatro-lara/

Jelani Caine

Hey, just a head's up that this editor looks to be very young and is on the spectrum, per their user page. I don't know if they'll stick around, but just wanted to let you know. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Assist

Hi you just posted on my page at swwiki. In many years I have not been in deletion stuff at enwiki, just went thru the list because someone at swwiki wants to translate articles from a school list at enwiki and I checked the choices. So help me to understand: what is nowadays in enwiki the difference between putting the Prod-tag and entering an article into the Afd-list? I assumed the tag would do that (and think, it was like this formerly, probably long ago, because at swwiki we copied procedures from en and with us it works that way) Kipala (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  • @Kipala: English Wikipedia deletion policy (in place since the mid-2000s) gives 3 deletion mechanisms: 1. Speedy (no applicable here); 2. PROposed Deletion for routine, uncontroversial and uncontested deletion. If the deletion is contested in any way, deletion must go through community discussion, 3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion: The article is nominated for in-process deletion in a debate that typically runs 7 days to allow a consensus to form. The link describes the 4-step procedure. I can help you through the process, if you want. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Gene93k:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1100 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Help With Allen Chastanet Political offices Box

Hey Gene can you help fix Allen Chastanet Political offices Box I simply did a basic edit and it shows funny. Thanks in Advance. Akim Ernest (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2021 Saint Lucian general election

On 29 July 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Saint Lucian general election, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 01:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

HEY

@Gene93k:

Hey i dont really know how to use this, but i would like to get a chat with you regarding an edit!

Thank you!

Have a nice day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andresgvz2021 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Cyrus Ahanchian

I am following the directions on WP:DRV which advise attempting to discuss a deletion with the closer. The bio was deleted in December 2010 due to lack of notability. I believe this to have been a mistake due to the number of sources found on A Google search using the term ahanchian vs xenon some of which date back to November 2010. Please could you tell me if you were aware of these sources at the time of deletion? Amirah talk 06:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

  • @AmirahBreen: My only involvement was alerting the Actors and Filmmakers task force that a relevant AfD debate was open. I was neither the closer nor a material participant. That said, the Google search does not show significant, non-routine coverage by independent reliable media sources. First off, a raw Google search is never proof of WP:RS coverage. In this instance, the Google hits yield only routine coverage of the Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures court case. Court reports from sites like justia.com, govinfo.gov or casetext.com don't count as significant or independent coverage. An independent search yields only a 2010 news report about an appeals court ruling. The coverage is routine in nature and does not discuss Amir Ahanchian with any biographical depth. Cannot see the content of the deleted article, but there is very little to demonstrate notability for this person. • Gene93k (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Gene93k,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
  • On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

About the article "Kristen Scott"

Hello @Gene93k:

I take the liberty of writing to you regarding your decision not to publish my article. First of all, I would like to clarify that I am a user of French Wikipedia. I use Wikipedia in English in order to be able to make available to English-speaking readers my articles which do not appear in English but which nevertheless concern American personalities.

To come back to the article, I am surprised at your decision not to publish the article since it exists in French. It was I who created it and its admission and the interest of the article was not questioned (of course, each article is never finished and it can always be improved). Is it possible to reconsider your decision?

Regards --Hemerocalle40 (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  • @Hemerocalle40: French Wikipedia and English Wikipedia have independent and different notability guidelines for inclusion. That said, fr:Kristen Scott is tagged for a lack of secondary sources, the very reason the corresponding page was removed from English Wikipedia. You are free to resubmit the draft for another editor to review. However, the article is likely to be renominated for deletion if it is published without substantial improvement. I declined the submission for an obvious lack of objective notability, but the draft's promotional tone (especially multiple poorly supported superlatives) is equally unacceptable. The Charlotte Stokely article you created has many of the same problems. It was also removed from English Wikipedia by editor consensus, and I see that the page has been nominated for deletion again. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Gene93k: If I may, the banner is only there to inform that the article lacks secondary or tertiary sources (according to wikipedia France) and that readers are invited to add more if they have any. I prefer to specify it. But this in no way calls into question the admissibility of the article on wikipedia Fr, and fortunately. I know United States has an English Puritan tradition, but I find it a shame and disappointing that these actresses do not belong to English Wikipedia.--Hemerocalle40 (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Reliable secondary source coverage is the basis of notability. Editors at English Wikipedia concluded that the missing secondary coverage did not exist and that the notability problem was therefore insurmountable. This isn't because English speakers don't like pornography. For the longest time, porn star biographies enjoyed a special exemption from general requirements for significant secondary source coverage (WP:PORNBIO). English Wikipedia editors eventually agreed to close that loophole. Since English Wikipedia notability guidelines were tightened in 2019, editors have conducted an ongoing house cleaning. Porn industry sources tend to be crap, and articles the solely rely on such sources get purged. Finally, logs for fr.Kristen Scott indicate that the French Wikipedia article was also deleted in 2017. The history indicates that you recently recreated the page from a redirect. I suspect that maintenance tag is only the beginning of a longer process. • Gene93k (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Boo!

Happy Halloween!
Hello Gene93k:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gene93k/Archives_2021&oldid=1252037204"