User talk:HearthHOTS

Welcome!

Hello, HearthHOTS! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Peaceray (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Theagingmuscles

The article Theagingmuscles has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article subject lacks notability or significant coverage from reliable sources

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mewnst (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theagingmuscles moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Theagingmuscles, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Curbon7 (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Sorry for nominating your first article for deletion, but if you are interested in correcting systemic misogyny in Wikipedia, consider contributing to the WikiProject Women in Red. Articles on women are grossly underrepresented. Mewnst (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Hello, I'm NotReallySoroka. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Subway Surfers, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please note that, on Wikipedia, YouTube is considered unreliable. Also, please refrain from adding fancruft. NotReallySoroka (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited January 6 United States Capitol attack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FOIA. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Theagingmuscles

Hello, HearthHOTS. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Theagingmuscles, 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) 03:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Choushoujo Asuka

Hello, HearthHOTS,

Thank you for creating Choushoujo Asuka.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

I'm tagging notability and one source. Per WP:GNG we need multiple independent, reliable, and usually secondary sources that demonstrate significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV). Currently there's only one source that might not be WP:SIGCOV, my search found no sources contributing to notability, but due to the language barrier my search might be inadequate. Therefore, if you could find more sources that would be great! (Note that there are also additional criteria at WP:NBOOK but they are not met here IMO.) Still, thanks for the article!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|VickKiang}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

VickKiang (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Do not cite unreliable sources, especially in biographical content regarding living people. Cullen328 (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are citing Gypsy Taub's own writings as if they were a reliable source. That is incorrect. She is a convicted sex offender and only statements by her which have been vetted by actually reliable sources should be used. Please be very careful to cite only indisputably reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 05:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Due to your repeated violations of the policy on Biographies of living people and your repeated use of unreliable sources, you have been indefinitely blocked from editing Attack on Paul Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi, Gypsy Taub and their associated talk pages. You were informed and warned but persisted. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I would like to shorten the bans on these three pages from indefinite. The concerns highlighted to me, if valid, regard not just these topics but a wider scope, so I want to rectify I understand policy and what provoked these bans before editing in general, lest the problem repeat itself elsewhere. Cullen has not gone into specifics as to what the "repeated violations" are, which is phrased here as a distinct thing from "repeated use of reliable sources". I would appreciate if Cullen could provide a timeline of specifics. I will review what I can recall of my behavior and interactions and how I have attempted to learn from them. #October 30th at special:diff/111900261 my addition of the info about a BLM flag banner on Gypsy Taub's home (and interviewing Taub's neighbor Trish) cited from New York Post was reverted, Cullen informed me that New York Post is on a list of unreliable sources #as a result, on Talk:Attack_on_Paul_Pelosi#Trish_inclusion I cited a more reliable source - NBC News, who also interviewed Trish I think this sequence shows I have made an effort to cite more reliable sources - I paid attention to the list of disreputable sites and hope I can remember to check that in future if there is a dispute. The subsequent dispute between Cullen and myself is I think due to a misunderstanding. I cited Taub's own writings, from her "My Naked Truth" blog. I do not consider Taub to be a reliable source for anything - she believes in "Lemuria" and reincarnation, for example - I am not a believer in those things. Taub's writings do however, seem to serve as a reliable source that "Taub said X" since we seem in agreement she operates My Naked Truth. User_talk:Cullen328#Gypsy_Taub_writings is where I attempted to explain this, and Cullen replied once seemingly ignoring what I said, and did not reply a 2nd time when I attempted to explain myself in other words. "can never be used as references for assertions about any other living person" is something I do not read as applying because Taubis not an "other" living person" - she the writer is the -same- living person as the subject, so the statement would not apply to her. A person's own words can be used to assert that a person said those words. If this is not correct then I don't think Cullen paraphrased this rule to me correctly, or it needs to be rephrased to be clearer. I would also request a 3rd party's involvement because Cullen had told me he would not be sanctioning me due to his involvement in this topic, yet then proceeded to inform me of a topic ban. This is confusing and inconsistent. I want to hear from someone who is responding to the content of my rebuttal and not glossing over it. HearthHOTS (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is abundantly clear that you do not understand what Cullen328 has carefully and clearly explained to you, and do not understand what the problems with your editing were, so you are unlikely to be able to avoid making similar mistakes again. (At present this makes no difference, as this account is globally locked, but we may as well have on record an actual decline of your unblock request, rather than just a procedural close, in case you are ever released from the lock.) JBW (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2022 (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.

For the benefit of any administrator considering an unblock from these three articles and their talk pages, I just want to say that my goal was to stop the disruption and WP:BLP policy violations, and nothing more. Initially, I thought that an indefinite block from the entire encyclopedia might be necessary, and that was the basis for my wording at that time. HearthHOTS's fundamental misunderstanding in the dispute that motivated that warning has to do with WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:ABOUTSELF, which says quite clearly that self-published content is allowed only if it does not involve claims about third parties and is not unduly self-serving. In this case, the dispute was about statements that Gypsy Taub, an imprisoned convicted sex felon, made about David DePape, who is accused of attacking Paul Pelosi. Taub is (perhaps understandably) trying to curry favor with the Pelosi camp, saying that she supports Nancy Pelosi despite her vigorous opposition to the Democratic Party in the past. She is describing DePape as an Obama supporter, at least the early years of Obama's presidency, which was many years ago. That may or not be true (I do not know) but it seems crystal clear to me that policy prohibits the use of any self serving self-published source produced by Gypsy Taub about a third party living person like David Pape or anyone else. It was disconcerting that the replies by HearthHOTS indicated that they did not understand and take to heart my warnings about the policy language or its critical importance. At that point, I hoped that they would understand the policy or at least desist from BLP policy violations. Instead, they started advocating on Talk:Attack on Paul Pelosi for discussion of Malcolm Lubliner in the article. Lubliner is the owner of a house in Richmond, California where DePape rented a garage studio for the last two or three years. Is there any reasonable basis under the sun for mentioning Lubliner in that article? None has emerged so far, but HearthHOTS has has a bizarre theory to spin. Lubliner (like hundreds of thousands of people in the Bay Area) was a Grateful Dead fan who took some published photos of that band, and ALSO! the colorful figure Gypsy Taub (like hundreds of thousands of people in the Bay Area) was a fan of that band. Never mind that the relationship between Taub and DePape came to a definitive end about seven years ago, and that she cannot possibly be a reliable source for DePape's current mental state, or the utterly irrelevant opinions of other people regarding the artistry and fandom of the Grateful Dead. This music fandom discussion had zero genuine connection with these topics, and was extemely off topic to serious discussion of a highly controversial article. That was the basis for my limited page blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NCHS

Hello. Your recent edit to North Cobb High School appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Meters (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Theagingmuscles

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

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. If 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!} 22:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Philip Anderson (activist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Philip Anderson (activist) 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/Philip Anderson (activist) 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.

VQuakr (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]