User talk:Deepfriedokra: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:08, 13 September 2021

Start a new discussion thread

User talk:Deepfriedokra/archives

Blackmailing article posted

Hi someone published my client name and added a false article that was written as a blackmail. The even in the story never happened and if you read the comments people are make on it you will notice that he is not the only victim to the writers quest for money. Pls help, ‘ Chukwuka Samuel Chibueze’ Sinleads (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sinleads: You need to raise concerns about the content at WP:BLPN. You need to email the WMF about the blackmail-- ca(_AT_)wikimedia.org . Hope that helps.

@Sinleads: I removed and revdel'd the poorly sourced negative WP:BLP. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks —— Sinleads (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Defence - Thanks

Thanks for the page protection, and for revdeling the edit! BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sangbad Pratidin

Sangbad Pratidin was not moved by admin Liz. It was done as an act of vandalism. See logs [1]. Andlol17 has done that since Draft:Ranaghat News ‎ was declined (see [2] and [3]) and in revenge. See proof [4] for Bartaman and [5] for Sangbad Pratidin. Also @Titodutta: for views. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @Titodutta:. damn tremorsInterested in your views as this clearly has not been shown to meet WP:NCORP, and 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 looks like they have a WP:COI. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdrqaz: You moved another page that looks dratifiable. Need your input. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: I having nothing to do, I came across Sangbad Pratidin as part of my school project info, and now found its gone and moved to draft. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to report Andlol17 at WP:ANI. Awaiting more feed back. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am Andlol17 reporting at WP:ANI. Its really a shame how a person is removing articles since their drafts Draft:Ranaghat News got rejected 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was just in the process of writing up an ANI report when the other IP decided to ping a load of other people, I'll post something in a minute. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@192.76.8.74: I am waiting for my fellow IP editor to post a complaint. This is ridiculous. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a minuite, I'm getting the diffs together. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@192.76.8.74: please go ahead and report. Also, @Deepfriedokra: Andlol17 is operating one more account Weboproj by removing your comments (proof) and working on Draft:Ranaghat News. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Andlol17, disruptive editing and out of process draftifications 192.76.8.74 (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume we're talking about my move of Bartaman. Per WP:DRAFTIFY, draftifications should only be carried out in a few instances: following an AfD, when the creator has a COI, or during new page patrol. Given the page had been in the mainspace since 2005 and none of them applied (okay, maybe the creator had a COI going off Special:Diff/23752861, but so many people have edited it since that it's basically moot), it's far more desirable to put it through AfD than draftify it and probably get it deleted after half a year. For me, the same applies to Sangbad Pratidin – it's been in the mainspace since 2006 and the ship has sailed long ago as far as NPP is concerned. Also relevant but ignored by most NPPers: WP:DRAFTOBJECT states that if an editor raises an objection to draftification it should be moved back to mainspace and AfD should be used. I'd argue that doesn't hold for COI and paid editors (their work really should go through AfC), but that doesn't come into play for Bartaman and Sangbad Pratidin. I'd advocate keeping it in the mainspace, especially given how long it's been there. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdrqaz: thanks for a through and logical explanation. I don't know how to report at WP:ANI. One of the fellow IP editor 192.76.8.74 said he/she will do it. Also,Andlol17 is operating one more account Weboproj and fooling us. That needs to be stopped. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I need to give you one of these even though it was your suggestion to take it to ANI:

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.192.76.8.74 (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hello, thanks for your messages (actually I have not received the ping notifications yet for some reason). Let's note: there are two things: a) article notability— I feel, the article meets notability, and yes, the article needs sourcing improvement. There are several/many works on Google Books Pratidin newspaper, Sangbad Pratidin etc. Other than English sources, we can also see Bengali sources. So, notability is one thing. 2) the move by the editor — whether it is disruptive edit/vandalism. The article was moved after a local newspaper (not regional) draft was not accepted. Hopefully we will come to a consensus here that will solve #1, which will make things easier. --Titodutta (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Titodutta: I have notified you of the ANI discussion. 2409:4061:2C85:9787:51F7:1B0B:9DAC:9466 (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to everyone. I am an idiot. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, As I see some wikipage has nominal citeation and ref that page is going to mark as draft for improving. I've not delete the page/article, I just marked it as draft because of nominal citeation as newspaper. Yes, I am first time to create a page but removed to draft because of nominal citeation as same.

Which does not mean I take revange on it. If I make page move to draft is my fault then I am really sorry about it.

My intention was to improve wikipage and information that's it. Andlol17 (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I didn't think I'd be disappointed with your reply at ANI, but nor did I expect to be so thoroughly impressed. This reply makes me want to RFA you all over again just to draw attention to it. The self-reflection, abundance of caution, and constant referral back to the community are exactly what we hope to see from admins. Keep up the outstanding work. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stalwart111: Thanks. Every admin action I take, I take as an obligation to express the will of the Community, and I reflect upon it as such.. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

your protection of Draft:Dario Bisso Sabàdin

Article has been declined or rejected 14 times. Protection expired, IPs have resubmitted it with zero changes to the article, and deleted the previous failed submissions twice. Meters (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC) @Meters: Let's keep it as a honeypot. I'll watch it and can take action against the socks. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK Meters (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters: Is there any hope for the thing? WP:MfD? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this comes under WP:DIRECTOR and WP:NMUSIC, since he's both. Not my area but I'm not seeing any real claim to notability, and some of the sources are just weak mentions in passing ("Sabàdin and his orchestra are playing here on such and such a date" type mentions). The unsourced comments that he "met" the notables Zubin Mehta and Lorin Maazel are telling. If unsourced trivia about him having met other conductors is the best we have, there's no point in continuing this. After 15 failed submissions, some with no changes at all, this is disruptive. Meters (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds MFDable. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick search and found no usable news coverage but, as I said, music is not my area so others with more experience there may be able to dig up something. Meters (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say that drafts are not subject to MFD on notability grounds. Meters (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should have reread the thing. It continues with "A draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy." so it's still a possibility. Meters (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed.

I thought after five rejections, they become MfDable. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC) @Meters: How do you like it now? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 5 rejections and you're out rule could well be. I find MFD to be rather strange (compared to AFD) so I don't spend much time there, and I don't know the ins and outs. For the life of me I still can't understand why we should redirect rather than delete a two or three-line stub draft on something we already have in article space.

The 12 month semi would have let it time out if no confirmed editors took it on, but the straight deletion works too. Thanks. Meters (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at ArbE

Hi there! Just FYI, Boodlesthecat previously described a usage of she/her pronouns as misgendering, and you may want to rephrase your comment at ArbE. Thanks, Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: Thanks. How is one to know? When I mouse over, it does not say. And the "penises" comment really confused me. I saw no indicator on Boodles talk page. What is Boodles pronoun of choice? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know either! I figure "not she/her" is the most info we have right now. Your comment still has one "her", FYI. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block on Boodlesthecat

Hello,

In your comment at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussionBoodlesthecat, you wrote I think the "penises" comment quoted above shows 1) Boodles is emotionally engaged with this issue and therefore 2) has an insurmountable WP:COI in this subject area due to Boodles visceral response. The more visceral the response we have in content matters, (apart from SPAM, I guess) the more circumspect we must be in editing an encyclopedia. This being a visceral response, it is probably uncontrollable, so Boodles should edit in other areas. At this point, I do not think Boodles is capable of doing that without Community support-- a TBAN, or partial block, or both

I find this attribution to some supposed emotional state on my part offensive. I have made fact based arguments for every edit I have made, discussed at length on the talk pages, and have engaged with editors who are obstinate in preferring their POV rather than simple facts.

My offending "penises" comment, if you read what I wrote in the talk page, was in the context of the use of the term "TERF" as being seen as a slur by some. I gave the example of it being tossed at an apolitical biological woman who simply has an abhorrence to be naked and vulnerable in the presence of penises in spaces which she expects not to be. Are you saying such women don't exist? Or if they exist, we cannot describe them in simple English because the very words used to describe this woman is somehow offensive to some? How would you describe such a woman? Perhaps one who is a rape survivor who is triggered by penises/male genitalia?

Similar, ideological/personal biases of other editors insist on blocking simple, factual mention that the LAPD has both considered the suspect to be a male, and cannot confirm their gender identity. So, due to biases of editors, we supposedly cannot say something like "the LAPD has described the suspect as male" even though it is a naked fact, and entirely pertinent to the police claim that the suspect pretends to be trans to commit sex crimes in women's spaces, and likely hints at what the prosecution will be claiming. I've simply countered, through discussion, the reality that we can't change actual salient facts (LAPD is claiming the suspect is male) simply because someone doesn't like that. That's something to take up with the LAPD. Changing facts in WP is not the way to for these "emotionally engaged" editors to deal with their feelings. I would appreciate it if people commenting on this case and recommending some sort of sanctions would deal with the facts, rather than their own "visceral" "emotionally engaged" responses before supporting arbitrary, one side actions. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 96: / Line 96: @@
 :{{yo|Firefangledfeathers}} Thanks. How is one to know? When I mouse over, it does not say. And the "penises" comment really confused me. I saw no indicator on Boodles talk page. What is Boodles pronoun of choice?  --<b>[[User:Deepfriedokra|<span style="color:black">Deep</span><span style="color:red">fried</span><span style="color:DarkOrange">okra</span>]] [[User talk:Deepfriedokra|(<span style="color:black">talk</span>)]]</b> 17:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 ::I don't know either! I figure "not she/her" is the most info we have right now. Your comment still has one "her", FYI. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]]) 17:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
+== Block on Boodlesthecat ==
+Hello,
+In your comment at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Boodlesthecat|Boodlesthecat]], you wrote ''I think the "penises" comment quoted above shows 1) Boodles is emotionally engaged with this issue and therefore 2) has an insurmountable WP:COI in this subject area due to Boodles visceral response. The more visceral the response we have in content matters, (apart from SPAM, I guess) the more circumspect we must be in editing an encyclopedia. This being a visceral response, it is probably uncontrollable, so Boodles should edit in other areas. At this point, I do not think Boodles is capable of doing that without Community support-- a TBAN, or partial block, or both''
+I find this attribution to some supposed emotional state on my part offensive. I have made fact based arguments for every edit I have made, discussed at length on the talk pages, and have engaged with editors who are obstinate in preferring their POV rather than simple facts.
+My offending "penises" comment, if you read what I wrote in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wi_Spa_controversy#TERF_is_considered_by_some_to_be_derogatory|in the talk page], was in the context of the use of the term "TERF" as being seen as a slur by some. I gave the example of it being tossed at ''an apolitical biological woman who simply has an abhorrence to be naked and vulnerable in the presence of penises in spaces which she expects not to be.'' Are you saying such women don't exist? Or if they exist, we cannot describe them in simple English because the very words used to describe this woman is somehow offensive to some? How would you describe such a woman? Perhaps one who is a rape survivor who is triggered by penises/male genitalia?
+Similar, ideological/personal biases of ''other'' editors insist on blocking simple, factual mention that the LAPD has both considered the suspect to be a male, and cannot confirm their gender identity. So, due to biases of editors, we supposedly cannot say something like "the LAPD has described the suspect as male" even though it is a naked fact, and entirely pertinent to the police claim that the suspect pretends to be trans to commit sex crimes in women's spaces, and likely hints at what the prosecution will be claiming. I've simply countered, through discussion, the reality that we can't change actual salient facts (LAPD is claiming the suspect is male) simply because someone doesn't like that. That's something to take up with the LAPD. Changing facts in WP is not the way to for these "emotionally engaged" editors to deal with their feelings.
+I would appreciate it if people commenting on this case and recommending some sort of sanctions would deal with the facts, rather than their own "visceral" "emotionally engaged" responses before supporting arbitrary, one side actions. [[User:Boodlesthecat|Boodlesthecat]] <sup>''[[User talk:Boodlesthecat|Meow?]]''</sup> 18:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)