User talk:Viktorpp

This is Viktorpp's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kyle Kulinski (March 6)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reasons left by Sulfurboy were: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

Sulfurboy (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Viktorpp! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sulfurboy (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Draft:Kyle Kulinski. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. This article has been outright rejected which means it will not be considered further by the AfC process at this time. Continuing to submit the article is a violation of our rules and considered WP:GAMING the system. This won't be tolerated. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About the Kyle Kulinski draft

Hello,

I've read your message at my talk page, and I appreciate that you've been taking time out of your day to find and cite more reliable sources. I've since reviewed my neutral !vote and decided that I was wrong to invoke WP:TNT to begin with, so I've struck my original comment and my stance is now that the draft should remain in draftspace.

However, I would really appreciate it if you and other involved editors (User:EllenCT and User:Falseinfinity) don't resubmit the draft any time soon. I know that you only submitted once, but I'd like to explain why I wouldn't recommend doing it again. The more {{AFC submission/declined}} templates a draft has from a short span of time, the more likely it is to get rejected again, and the more likely other editors are to feel that deletion is a necessary course of action. Unfortunately, there have been so many deletion discussions for the Kyle Kulinski article in the last few years that most of the involved editors are exhausted. The discussion that got the page deleted was the fourth, and it was less than a month ago. This has left many editors with a sentiment that the article and its copies need to be purged for good, and having four rejected submissions on the same draft in the same week (and less than a month after the page was actually deleted) only emboldens that.

If I were to produce an arbitrary threshold for when the draft can be resubmitted, I would recommend 1) waiting anywhere from 3-6 months to suggest adding it back to mainspace 2) increasing the size of the draft to about 40,000 bytes (or 1.5x the current amount of text), and 3) find a few sources that mention Kulinski in more detail than just a namedrop. Most articles don't need to be that big to be published in mainspace, but if the Kulinski article is large enough and good enough, it would be impossible to make the argument that notability is missing. After looking over the draft as-is more closely, I honestly don't think it's too bad to be in mainspace right now. It has fifty citations, many from reputable outlets, and the recent Jacobin article which was just about Kulinski helps a lot. The biggest obstacle to publishing it is the fact that so many editors are justifiably tired of spending so much time figuring out what to do about this page that we just can't produce a consensus to keep it. I'm sure that'll change one day, but that day won't be today or tomorrow.

Cheers, Vanilla Wizard 💙 22:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I note that there is no policy against new users re-submitting the draft, or any prohibition against asking other editors, new and old alike, to do the same. The sources have established notability. EllenCT (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I appreciate you taking another look at this Falseinfinity (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About Jennifer Rubin (journalist)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Jennifer Rubin (journalist) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Jennifer Rubin (Blogger). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Home Lander (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've done the move now. Viktorpp (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu Can you please share your reason for undoing my edit? What about my reasoning do you disagree with?Viktorpp (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of George Conway and others

Are you planning to do a batch nomination for deletion of all of these articles? If so, it might not be a bad idea to write the nomination first and then tag them. If you're planning to go one at a time, please complete the nomination for one article before moving on to the next. —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred, I think you're AGF in a time that we shouldn't. This is purely disruptive and I will be deleting the AfDs. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MuboshguWhy do you feel this is disruptive? You've blocked me even before I could provide the reasonings in the deletion pages - saw C.Fred's message only after I had created the AfDs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viktorpp (talk • contribs)

@Muboshgu: I was reading the first AfD and considering how to respond. I endorse your block. —C.Fred (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The one AfD nomination you did fill out was patently wrong. You asserted that he worked for media outlets when there was no mention of him working for them in the body of the article. I do not think you were nominating the articles in good faith. —C.Fred (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor, I wasn't born yesterday. I blocked you for disrupting Wikipedia while trying to make a WP:POINT about Kyle Kulinski. Best of luck with your block appeal. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C.FredConway has written for most of the outlets that are cited. If my AfD was wrong then why not respond in the deletion page, or advise me about it? Is blocking me the best response? MuboshguI do not know when you were born and have made no comments regarding your age. I am emphatically not making a WP:POINT. I am learning about WP:POL and their interpretations, through various discussions and WP:Here, through adding, editing, and cleaning up content. See WP:NOTPOINTy Viktorpp (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MuboshguIt's amazing that you would yourself respond to an appeal on a block placed by you. SMH Viktorpp (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Viktorpp, he didn't. He commented in this section and allowed an uninvolved sysop to respond (and decline) your block appeal below. Home Lander (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Viktorpp, yeah, I didn't respond to your block appeal. Why do you think I did? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu It was a (wrong) assumption based on the speed of the decline of appeal, for which I apologise.Viktorpp (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

The block was not necessary. It was in response to a set of AfDs submitted and was placed withing minutes of the AfD submission, before I was able to submit the reasons on the respective delete pages, and before I was able to see C.Fred's helpful message. Viktorpp (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Batch nominating vs. individual nominations of the inappropriate AfDs is the least of the concerns here. Your edits are WP:POINTY and disruptive and the block prevents further time suckage from volunteer admins and editors who have to clean up the mess.Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:11, 5 August 2020 (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.

Ponyo I am emphatically not making a WP:POINT. I am learning about WP:POL and their interpretations, through various discussions and WP:Here, through adding, editing, and cleaning up content. See WP:NOTPOINTy. WP:POINT can't be a catchall for inexplicable blocks of users. I am not being facetious and genuinely believe that based on the policies and guidelines that I have come to understand that my AfDs merit deletion. As for volunteer admins and editors, so am I. Viktorpp (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's because you "genuinely believe that based on the policies and guidelines that [you] have come to understand that [your] AfDs merit deletion" that the block is required as it is preventing further disruption from occurring due to your misunderstanding and misapplication of said guidelines and policies. You're free to make another appeal, which will be reviewed by another admin, but it's clear to me that WP:POINT absolutely applies in this case given that when your pet article was deemed not notable for inclusion despite extensive source-bombing on your part, you retaliated by creating a bunch of unnecessary AfDs and making this ill-advised page move.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo Actually, my genuine belief means my AfD was WP:NOTPOINTy and has nothing to do with disruption. Just because I have made some edits to and argued for keeping an article doesn't make it my "pet article". If it does, why don't you refer to any of my others from the [stats page] as my "pets"? I would exhort you not make presuppositions. Further, kindly explain why the move was ill-advised, and why the reasoning I provided is not sound. Thank you!

From the Edit Summary:

Viktorpp moved page Jennifer Rubin (journalist) to Jennifer Rubin (Blogger): Jennifer Rubin is not a journalist but an opinion columnist. She never went to journalism school and does not do any reporting. Her own Twitter handle and bio identify her as a blogger, not a journalist.

Linking to your hu.wiki stats page when arguing that your edits on en.wiki have not been disruptive is irrelevant. Your account has been registered since 2015 and, up until today's spate of AfD noms, your sole edit unrelated to Kyle Kulinsky (excluding your userpage) was this one. Again, you can make a second appeal which will be reviewed by another admin, but I have no intention of replying further as it is clear that you are convinced that there was anything wrong with your actions and that you stand behind the mass nominations.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo So why not call Certificate authority my "pet article"? Also, no response with respect to the Jennifer Rubin page move? Viktorpp (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, if you are still learning about WP:POL, then diving head-first into deletion nominations and page moves is a Bad Idea. Politics is a contentious area, and American politics even more so. If you are unblocked, I would advise you to steer clear of this topic for a while. In fact, i would not support your unblock unless it included a topic ban from politics and political journalists, columnists, and correspondents, broadly construed. —C.Fred (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

The block was NOT necessary. As the admin who declined previous appeal has mentioned: Batch nominating vs. individual nominations of the inappropriate AfDs was NOT the issue. Rather, I have been rapped for WP:POINT. With respect to that, I'd like to point out that 1. I am not making a WP:POINT. I am learning about WP:POL and their interpretations, through various discussions and here to build an encyclopedia, through adding, editing, and cleaning up content to the best of my ability. The previous admin says that my genuine belief that based on my understanding of the guidelines the article nominated merits deletion means that I should be blocked. My genuine belief makes the AfD markedly WP:NOTPOINTy. So what, then, is the WP:POL reason for the block? 2. Is the best response to a first time WP:POINT offence an indefinite block? 3. The previous admin also referred to a move I made as "ill advised", but didn't explain why it was so, or why my reasoning as explained in the edit summary was incorrect. That doesn't seem very constructive. 4. As I have demonstrated in User talk:Viktorpp#About Jennifer Rubin (journalist), where upon the advice of an editor, I changed my wrong behavior from cut-and-paste move to "Move", I am clearly co-operative and listening to editor advice. Viktorpp (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is too much "it's not me, it's you" in here. The editor's item 1 in this unblock request is convoluted and impossible to follow, unless they are arguing that they were nominating these articles in complete ignorance of just about everything that makes this an encyclopedia. If that is indeed the case, one would expect a bit more of a mea culpa here. But the batch nomination of a dozen articles without a proper explanation is so disruptive that the editor should stop, completely stop, blaming others here. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2020 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Holy moving goalposts, Batman! 2nd reviewer Drmies feels the batch nomination is disruptive, and requires some sort of mea culpa. I agree with that, and if you follow some of the discussion above, you'll see that I have shown contrition and apologized for that. I just did it the wrong way and ended up blocked before I could provide explanations for any of the items. Further, you'll notice that I have also shown that I am willing to learn by changing my behavior, as I did above, on the advice of an editor. But these items are not the focus of my 2nd review request, because the 1st reviewer Jezebel's Ponyo said these were not at issue in the block. Ponyo says I was blocked and continue to be blocked because my edits were POINTy. So my first question is, is the first and best response to a first time POINT offence an indefinite block? Seems excessive to me. Either way, as I have explained in both my previous appeals, I am not trying to be POINTy; rather, I am learning about WP:POL and their interpretations, through various discussions and here to build an encyclopedia, through adding, editing, and cleaning up content to the best of my ability. I learn about the interpretation of policies from the text and discussions. All I tried to do was apply my understanding of a policy from one discussion to other pages - not with the intention of making a point, but with the genuine belief that my edits were warranted and with the intention of improving the encyclopedia. Ponyo says that my genuine belief that based on my understanding of the guidelines the article nominated merits deletion means that I should be blocked. My genuine belief makes the AfD markedly Not POINTy. Ignorant and foolish, perhaps, or even probably, but not pointy. WP:NOTPOINT:"However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point. As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree" Again, to recap, 1. I am not trying to make a point, and 2. I 100% agree with the edits I made. Been receiving feedback that I was wrong in that belief, and I am willing to accept that. 1st reviewer Ponyo counters by saying that my genuine belief that based on my understanding of the guidelines the article nominated merits deletion means that I should be blocked. I disagree. If there is a consensus that my genuine belief and understanding of the policy is wrong, then that means I should invest more time reading discussions and understanding the policy and lay off edits related to this policy. I think that would be reasonable, and allow me to learn while also contributing to the encyclopedia. If the idea is to be punitive, then as C.Fred has suggested, I could be asked to lay off American politics as well. Once again, I am co-operative and listening to editor advice. Viktorpp (talk) 8:04 am, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Socking as User:Stefania0 during this block. only (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2020 (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.

only She's not a sock, but I guess I'll have to wait for that to be resolved before I request unblock again.