User talk:RogerSni

Welcome[edit]

Hello RogerSni and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to David Luchins, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a Help desk, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Help pages
Tutorial
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing?

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, RogerSni. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page David Luchins, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it is true that you have a connection with the subject, you can ask them to look at WP:BIOSELF. What you cannot do is blank articles--the subject shouldn't do that either. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at David Luchins, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not vandalizing, I was asked to remove this by dr Luchins RogerSni (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ThNk you for the advance warning, I do not want to fight, I will move to the discussion talk RogerSni (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The next step[edit]

It is clear now that your suggestion that anyone with a Wikipedia page about them should have the right to have it removed is not getting supported by others in the discussion. As such, if you want to see the David Luchins page removed, the next step is to follow the Articles For Deletion procedure. (Yes, I know you went to that page before, but you then just went and posted on the Talk page there; that's not how the procedure works.) In your deletion request, you should be explaining why the page should be deleted in terms of Wikipedia policy. Likely, what you should rely on is WP:BIODEL -- you should put that name right in your argument. That allows for the deletion of "relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion", so you'll have to argue that Dr. Luchins is "relatively unknown" (for which a reasonable case might be made) "non-public figure" (which I suspect would be a harder case to make, given his political involvement), and that he has requested the deletion (that may or may not be tricky, depending on who involves themselves in the discussion. After all, the discussers at this point only have your word that this deletion is desired by Luchins, and they don't know who you are. Indeed, if I were to ask for the deletion of the Nat Gertler page, I expect someone would ask for verification that I am really Nat Gertler and not just someone who used that as his editing handle.)

Really, what we're getting to is that there are three classes of people when it comes to Wikipedia pages: those who are so notable that we would be derelict if we didn't have a page about them (surely, if you came here and saw we didn't have a Barack Obama page, you'd think it a rather poor modern encyclopedia), those that are so unnotable that it would be wrong to have a page by them (the cook down at Betty's Diner who makes the kielbasa just right doesn't get a page unless there are articles in the Times about his kielbasa-cooking), and a gray area in the middle where there's enough being said about the person in reliable third-party sources that a page is justified, but not necessary. It's that last category that you're going to have to show he's in (there's too much coverage of him for the "unnotable" category.)

If I had to guess in advance, I would say that you are not likely to succeed in this, that he is sufficiently notable and public that editors will believe that we really should have a page about him. However, my guesses are often wrong in this world, and I have the betting slips to prove it. I will keep my eye on this Talk page, and if there's any specific advice you want, respond to this message (don't make a new section.) I will do my best to provide answers within a day. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to what Nat Gertler said, the gray area can be quite difficult. This discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyllis Grant was not, because editors generally thought we shouldn't have that article anyway. However, these discussions were not that easy:

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]