(talk page watcher) In such instances, nominating both make sense but it is helpful to explicitly state that only one logo should be deleted and also recommend which should be kept and which should be deleted. -- Whpq (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppetry
Sir, I have serious complain regarding continuous vandalism on several film article by an editor using multiple accounts. Kindly check here by the user Joressa, here by one Paul is describing and here by one Master of all cinemalovers. Inspite of repeated warning, the user again and again deleted the reliable sources along with relevant data by disruptive editing while reverting! Pinakpani (talk) 05:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I tried to start a new wiki page for my rugby club a while back, got a few things wrong and so was never published, i have time now to try again and fix it, do it right. My sandbox seems to have been deleted or achieved , i just wanted to double check if that was recoverable before i start again? cheers Kiwiwomble (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kiwiwomble. This was explained to you on your talk page. Paid or not, you still appear to be a representative from the club, and the deleted text confirms this. Promotional/Publicity pieces are not permitted on Wikipedia. Please be advised that repeated violations of this rule will result in loss of editing privileges. Thanks, Fastily00:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thats seems a little aggressive, apologies thought as i had missed that was the most resent issue, originally it was due to not producing original text re the history but just referencing existing sources, i did not intent it to be a promotion of the club but just record its history, am i forever prohibited from doing it or if i leave the club will i be free too create a page Kiwiwomble (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher)(Non-administrator comment)@Kiwiwomble: Fastily's tone might seem harsh to you but whether you or anyone else can create an article about this particular team is going to enitrely depend upon whether the team meets Wikipedia:Notability; if it's not able to meet that guideline, then there's pretty much no chance of an article about the team ever being created. I mean someone could "create" such an article so to speak, but it would very likely and perhaps very quickly end up being WP:DELETED. You could try creating a WP:DRAFT and then submitting it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation for review, but you've already done that once but the draft was declined and then subsequently deleted another administrator per speedy deletion criterion G11. For reference, drafts typically have to be pretty bad and beyond hope to end deleted for that reason. So, if your user sandbox had bascially the same issues as the draft, then it's not surprising it also ended up deleted.Anyway, ideally the best person to try and create an article about the team would be someone who's familiar with ow Wikipedia works, understands how to create proper Wikipedia articles about rugby teams, but who also has no connection to the team. Perhaps you should try asking about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union because that's where you're going to find Wikipedians interested in rugby who might be able to assess the team's Wikipedia notability.If you find that nobody feels the team is Wikipedia notable, then you're best bet might be to look at WP:ALTERNATIVE to see whether some other site might work best for you. Of course, your interest in Wikipedia goes beyond simply creating an article for this particular team,then becoming a member a WikProject might help you figure out ways you can to help improve Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, thats much more useful advice than what i have received previously, i will try and reach out to the Rugby Project for advice, i was trying to learn how to contribute to wiki but it seems its a bit if IYKYK and if you dont then too bad, for the record i based my first attempt on the code for other clubs in the same competition so things like it must have been pretty bad or dont meet the notability criteria do seem VERY subjective. Kiwiwomble (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has over six million articles. Many articles never received a proper vetting and probably should've never been created in the first place. So, just because something exists doesn't mean it should exist or that something similar to it should exist. There is no professional staff when it comes to editing or monitoring Wikipedia, which means its basically an honor system that hopes everyone follows relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Lots of people sincerely try to do so, but many don't either because they don't want to or because they don't know any better. When that happens, the hope is the other more experienced editors will notice (ideally sooner rather than later) and set things straight.Since basically pretty much any edit can go live as soon as "Publish changes" is clicked, a lot of problem articles have been created over the years and have simply flown under the radar until they're noticed for some reason. So, in general, trying to argue that a Wikipedia article about "your" rugby team should exist simply because articles about other similar rugby teams exist is generally not going to get you very far. You're much better off establishing what makes your rugby team Wikipedia notable because that's what's going to be assessed if an article you create ends up being nominated or tagged for deletion. In other words, whether those other rugby teams are Wikipedia notable or whether they were created by someone associated with the team are perhaps concerns relevant to discussing whether those articles should be deleted, but such things aren't really relevant to whether an Wikipedia article about your team should be created.Finally, having a connection to the subject doesn't mean you cannot create or edit content about the subject on Wikipedia. As long as you comply with relevant policies and guidelines, you can do both. However, such editing tends to be viewed suspiciously and highly discouraged because those involved can tend to be more WP:NOTHERE than WP:HERE, which can lead to some serious problems. People who are connected to a particular subject in perhaps more than a casual way might subconciously alawys want to skew content about the subject a certain way, and find it hard to step outside themselves and view things neutrally from a WP:HERE perspective. You can try to create another draft about the team if you think you can do a better job than what you did before, but I strongly suggest you follow the guidance in WP:COI and submit the draft to Wikipedia Articles for Creation for review if you do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the idea of notability (now at least) and or the lack of, i dont think it was completely out of line to think if several other clubs have them that another in the same completion might have one too. It really just feels too hard to get involved, kind of felt starting with something i knew a little about (before learning how suspiciously that is viewed) would be a good starting point, lesson learnt. Re the idea of having new articles reviewed, thats what i thought my sandbox was, thought it was where i could work on new things, another lesson learnt Kiwiwomble (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher)(Non-administrator comment)@Un assiolo: This person appears to be a new user who might be trying to follow the advice given to them here by Deb in good faith. Bolierplate CSD notifications can often be hard for new users, particularly non-native English speakers, to understand. Maybe blanking the page and adding a more personalized "final warning" message to their user talk with links to WP:UPYES and WP:NOTWEBHOST could work better here than a block? If they recreate the page after that, then blocking seems more appropriate. Just a suggestion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: I'm sorry, but this person is clearly WP:NOTHERE. The comment by User:Deb is unfortunate as it seemingly left open the possibility of a promotional userpage. It should have been made more explicit that Wikipedia is not for promotion and is not a social network and that this kind of content is not welcome anywhere on the site, under any circumstances. But if it wasn't clear from the three separate promotional pages this person had created (draft+sandbox+userpage), it's clear now that they have no intention of actually contributing. --Un assiolo (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Un assiolo: You're quite right about them deserving a block and I've done so. I use that particular message in cases where I think the person might be innocently trying to create a user page and not understand our rules. It almost always has the desired effect - they realise they are in the wrong place and they just go away. In this case it hasn't worked. Deb (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
