User talk:Luke Kindred
|
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Peach Pit (band) for deletion[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peach Pit (band) 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/Peach Pit (band) (2nd nomination) 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. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Peach Pit[edit]
Firstly, I did try to salvage the article by looking for the correct kind of sources before I nominated it — which is precisely why I know that the reason you relied on blogs and student media, which are not types of sources that you're allowed to use to support notability, is because they don't have the depth or range or volume of reliable source coverage they actually need to have to become notable enough for an article. Bands are not automatically notable just because they exist; they have to have reliable source coverage in real media, like major daily newspapers and established music magazines, to support an article with before they're allowed to have one. Blogs and student media aren't personal pecadilloes that I invented myself just to be a contrarian — it's a standard Wikipedia rule decided by community consensus that they are not notability-supporting sources.
Secondly, if you're the one who wants the article to exist, then you're the one with the responsibility to find the correct kind of sources to support that the band is notable in the first place. Not me, you. It's not my responsibility to drop all the much more important work that had to be done today in light of the Manitoba provincial election last night — like the 13 new MLAs who had to get their articles started today, and all the electoral districts whose articles had to be updated today, and on and so forth — in order to help you fix an article about a band that I already know is unfixable because I already searched for good sources and couldn't find any. You don't get to tell anybody else what their editing priorities should be.
Thirdly, if an article is using bad sources that aren't valid support for notability, it's not my responsibility to leave it alone just because not having an article might hurt the band's or the page creator's feelings; my responsibility as a Wikipedia editor is to hold every article I come across to the same standards. If the sourcing isn't what we require, my job is to address that. If the notability claim is weak or nonexistent, my job is to address that. If you use sources that aren't actually supporting the content you're footnoting them with, like when you cited a charting claim to the wrong week, it's my job to notice that and point it out. Again, we're not a PR site on which people or bands are entitled to have articles, no matter how incorrectly sourced they are: it's not what the article says that determines whether they get to have an article or not, such that as long as it says notable-sounding stuff you're allowed to use bad sources to support it; the quality and depth and range of the sources are the notability test.
Even a President of the United States, by definition one of the most important people on earth, would still not get to keep an article if he or she somehow managed to hold the job without being the subject of any reliable media coverage or books — it's not the holding of the title that gets him in the door, it's the reception of reliable source coverage about his work in the role. Bands work the same way: it's not the things the article says that make them notable enough for an article, it's the quality of the references that can be shown to support that the things it says are actually true. And all of this is precisely because people have a tendency to lie about themselves and other people, so we always require anything an article says to be verifiable in reliable, trustworthy media sources that are independent of the subject's own personal control.
So, TLDR, it's not my responsibility to have done or said anything differently than I did. It's not my responsibility to leave improperly sourced articles alone; my responsibility is precisely to tag them for improvement and/or nominate them for deletion, exactly as I did. My responsibility is to Wikipedia, not to you or the band. Bearcat (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- Going on a retaliatory tagging spree against all of the newly-elected Manitoba MLAs, specifically because I mentioned them in my earlier comment, is not appropriate or acceptable.
- There are two different kinds of notability on Wikipedia. There are some types of topics where we know for a fact that reliable source coverage always already exists and more will always come to exist in the future. Holders of notable political offices, for example, got campaign coverage during the election, and are verifiable as having won the election, and will get more coverage in the future because covering politics is the media's job — so for an MLA, as soon as you can find one reliable source which verifies that they won the election, they have automatically become a topic we must have an article about. And because there are a lot of new MLAs whose articles have to be created all at once, we create quick starter articles right away based on that one source so that there's something in place quickly, and then we go back to expand and improve their articles with additional sourcing afterward. They always already have media coverage from their campaigns, and they will always get more media coverage as they do their jobs — so their notability is not dependent on how many sources have already been added to the article right off the bat, but on how many sources are available to get the article expanded with. They are also not violating WP:NOTNEWSPAPER — NOTNEWSPAPER is about issues like whether we should keep an article about every house fire that ever got reported in a local newspaper, whereas having biographical articles about MLAs is always unconditionally mandatory.
- Notability for musicians does not work the same way. Musicians cannot always show reliable source coverage that already exists, and are not always guaranteed to receive more reliable source coverage in the future, so they are not considered "inherently" notable: to make them notable, you have to demonstrate that the correct depth and range and volume and quality of sources already exists.
- The rules work differently in different contexts, because different classes of topic have different degrees of certainty about the existence of appropriate sources — so revenge-tagging a bunch of inherently notable politicians just because you got pushback on a poorly sourced band is not acceptable editing behaviour. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
- There was exactly zero bias in any of the articles at all — I don't write with bias, and you can take that to the bank — and starting an article about a newly elected MLA is not a "breaking news" violation. Just to be clear, if you ever again speak to me with even the slightest hint of snark in your tone I'm reporting you to WP:ANI for violating WP:CIVIL. Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Copyright problem on Bruce Olson[edit]
Some of the content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://christianlifemissions.org/causes/bruce-olson-ministries/, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Check category template[edit]
A possible answer if you feel categories are misapplied is to add {{Check category}}, and someone will overview them all. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Notice of WP:ANI discussion[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
BLP discretionary sanctions alert[edit]
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 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.
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.
NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
September 2019[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.
Hello, Luke, Your reverting was an issue yesterday, not today, but I thought I'd still post a notice stating that edit warring/repeated reverting can be a blockable offense. Try not to do it more than once. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Liz, but it was not I who initiated any of this. Another user reverted my editing instead of trying to talk first and even after I engaged them publicly in several places (and began thorough explaining my work in the edit summaries) they proceeded to revert a large number of edits across a variety of pages (repeatedly) In the end they began to make the changes and improvements discussed (and we collaborated), so while this may have looked like a war, the end results were well discussed improvements to Wikipedia, a highly desirable outcome.--Luke Kindred (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Midnight Sun Brewing Company for deletion[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Midnight Sun Brewing Company 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/Midnight Sun Brewing Company 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. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived[edit]
|
Hi Luke Kindred! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Re: Biting the newcomers - i.e. Snow King Mountain[edit]
First correction: I didn't delete the article. I tagged the article as a copyright violation. That was the extent of my involve in the article's rewrite, and I tagged it as a copyright violation as an alternative to speedy deletion, otherwise you wouldn't be seeing the article at all.
Second, I've been where you are before (here's the proof). The code demands certain things from certain groups, for editors that means original work and not copyright work and for admins that means upholding the policies in the face of pressure from those who believe that the work is acceptable when it clearly isn't or when consensus is that the work is not for Wikipedia.
Wikipedia's contributors have gotten colder over the years I've been here, that I can not argue, but your account is reasonably old enough to reach a point where it undergoes it's trial by fire. If you have the temperament to allow your metal to be tested then it will emerge stronger, though many can not stand the heat and - as you are considering doing - opt to get out of the kitchen. It is one and wholly your call as to whether or not you want to remain, but know that for every editor I drive away in acting to balance the Wikipedia equation the harder my heart becomes. Food for thought. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Addendum: In a look of your contributions I can see you're a little rough around the edges, so I'm leaving you with a link to the Military history WikiProject Academy, its got good information for editors who are inexperienced or poorly experienced in certain Wikipedia-related areas. Its set up for Military history related articles, but there's enough good information present in the academy that I think it'll be of use to you. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Cheers to Tom[edit]
I must say this is the classiest and most respectable response that I have ever received from an admin. Go Tom! Luke Kindred (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
October 2019[edit]
Hello Luke Kindred. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Luke Kindred. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Luke Kindred|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Yunshui 雲水 07:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
It is really inappropriate that you ar making such a serious accusation without a single example, link, or article mention. You could easily be banned from Wikipedia for such careless harassment. If you intent to war you better come with a professional and defensible attack. Don't shoot yourself in the foot.
- Since you've chosen this road, you are now indefinitely blocked; you may no longer edit Wikipedia in any capacity. I have ample evidence, screenshotted from your Upwork account - it is available on request to any administrator who wishes to review the block. Yunshui 雲水 08:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Yunshui 雲水 08:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Luke Kindred (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I deeply regret not giving my full attention to Yunshui. I was very busy, in a very bad mood, dealing with literal children, and utterly unaware that I was being questioned by the Wikipedia Angel of Death (whose fearsome hand often unleashes as many as five blocks-per-minute). I apologize for not regarding their demand with the utmost respect and urgency. Please allow me to explain myself. I believe clarification will allow the restoration of my account privileges: :Since December of 2018 I have done a little over 500 edits to a total of 137 pages. When I look at this history, it doesn't scream PAID ADVOCACY because I know that these are all familiar topics for me (places I've lived, travels, books on my shelf, music I enjoy, drinks in my fridge, etc. The reference to my entire Wikipedia history as some kind of smoking-gun for WP:COI or WP:Spam seemed like patent nonsense. The initial message makes zero mention of specific concern. Because of this it was received as trigger-happy tagging and uncritical harassment. I didn't take it seriously, and Yunshui chose to offer the specific reason and some sort of evidence AFTER blocking me. It looked like a case of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" *Again, the demand that I take the time to post a mandatory disclosure without a word about where the concern existed led me to believe that I was being bullied and harassed - not being procedural directed to comply with policy.* I did receive $50 to investigate Articles for deletion/MealEnders back in my first month as a user. I was unaware of Wikipedia's COI policy at that time but I took it as the excellent learning opportunity. I learned that the subject was garbage and actually voted in support of Wikipedia, and not a paid interest: DELETE - I rescued this article because I thought it might be salvageable. I did the research and came up empty handed. Sorry to waste anyone's time. Luke Kindred (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC) I read through COI and genuinely thought that I was complying with WP policy from then on. When I read through WP:PAID just now I found that I had completely missed one sentence regarding this policy: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Linking_to_external_advertising_accounts I understand why I have been blocked and I see how my Upwork account is involved. I swear that the single $50 issue was the only paid work which I have ever done on Wikipedia. I had planned, wrongly, that is was acceptable to post official paid disclosure Once I had ACTUALLY been hired - which I have never been since MealEnders. I see now that this was wrong and a clear violation of the policy. I have been soliciting paid Wikipedia editing on Upwork (along with many other legitimate jobs unrelated to WP) and providing links to significant contributions I have made here. There were not paid contributions, they were just some of my better work - plain and simple. I love Wikipedia and value it greatly as a resource. Several months of soliciting on Upwork has actually helped me better understand and identify spam and COI and I have deleted a significant number of articles, promotional language, and propaganda as a volunteer improving the encyclopedia. I firmly believe that Wikipedia is always self-correcting and I have no desire or intention to add anything to the site which does not build its value, accuracy, and interest. I would never submit paid work outside of the official articles of creation process. Paid doesn't have to mean promotional spam. Please consider restoring my account. I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you Luke Kindred (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC) I want to continue as an editor. If I need kill my Upwork activities to do so, fine. I would prefer to post a paid disclosure and openly indicate editing that takes place outside of me just volunteering my interests.
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.
Please concisely tell us what you did wrong and what you will do going forward. -- Deepfriedokra 03:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
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.
- @Luke Kindred: Prior to filing another unblock request, if that's what you intend to do, can you first
Can youexplain the circumstances by which you came to write Cannon Beach Christian Conference Center? (The sources are rather obscure [and generally unreliable] and the first sentence is an almost verbatim copy/paste of the center's website sell text.) Also, were you paid to contribute to Snow King Mountain? (I ask because several editors have identified it as having WP:PROMOTIONAL language.) Chetsford (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC); edited 02:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
It is frustrating that in order to answer your questions and restore my account I am called on to reveal personal information about myself which could directly be used for identity theft and other frauds... Please delete this information as soon as possible.
- I'm not sure if you watching this page, but I want to call your attention to two things: 1) It is very unusual for user talk pages to be deleted, so its unlikely that the page here will be deleted and even if the information provided is removed it'll be in the article's history now and forever most likely - unless its over-sighted, which is a higher form of a deletion that admins like me can't preform (we need to request it) but it can only be done under specific circumstances, and to be hoonest with you this situation doesn't really fit the circumstantial mold. 2) Based on Very hard learned lessons Wikipedia has a hair trigger on COI-related editing, so its never a good idea to withhold the information from us cause when it comes out it can make the entire project shake one end to the other (here's the proof). If you want back on you'll need to unilaterally and unconditionally declare what it is you were being paid to edit and then stay away form it to the best of your ability. It may also behoove you to consider requesting mentorship or putting yourself up for adoption as a show of good faith. Just putting that out there... TomStar81 (Talk) 23:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)