User talk:CNMall41

This is CNMall41's talk page, where you can send them 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.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Archives

Separate Movie soundtrack pages

There are IPs creating separate pages for movie soundtracks like these Hi Nanna (soundtrack), Jersey (soundtrack), Salaar: Part 1 – Ceasefire (soundtrack), Sita Ramam (soundtrack) and a Draft:Hanu Man (soundtrack). Should this be allowed when the movie pages of all these soundtracks already have a Music segment which lists all the needed content on soundtracks? RangersRus (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RangersRus:, I believe the proper link would be WP:FORK. If they qualify for pages, then it would be allowed but I would remove the intricate details of it from the main movie page. If any do NOT qualify under notability guidelines, they recommending them for deletion would be the best option. Note that WP:NALBUM #5 seems to state that soundtracks are notable if they are part of notable films. However, it also states "if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article" as the album must meet notability on its own and not inherent. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RangersRus:, some of this is definitely WP:LOUTSOCKing in my opinion. Keeping track of the breadcrumbs as it will tie together for another SPI I am working on filing shortly. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I come across any other similar soundtrack page that possibly could be from socks, I will bring to your attention. Cheers! RangersRus (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked reason

Why You are blocking me. I say hundreds of times that I'm not a Sock puppet user. I was Just clarifying my situation on the Investigation Page. M.Nauman123 (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't block you. You are a SOCK of Nauman335 so stop playing games. GTFOH and stop leaving messages on my talk page. We've had this discussion before. Remember many months ago when you vowed to never leave?? Welcome back. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you feel I am not acting appropriately, please report me. I am always subject to sanctions just as you have been. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but the Warring for blocks afraid me and my Contributions to Wikipedia, in which i work hard. M.Nauman123 (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care. Your attempted appear to sympathy is about as much as a failure as your UPE edits. It's comical how many breadcrumbs you leave and still attempt to deny being a sock. I am done entertaining you here though. Feel free to report me but final warning to stay off my talk page. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kavya Kishor

I want to improve this Draft, please suggest me that how can improve it? Miladitb (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Hi, CNMall41. Thanks for patrolling new pages. I've declined your deletion request for a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to read the new tutorial for patrollers, criteria for speedy deletion, and particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Thanks! 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:3169:7F63:F77F:3B81 (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming this is Nauman335 WP:LOUTSOCK. Thanks for stopping by. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't meant to be a "badge of shame". If an article has no issues, there's no reason to keep the tag there. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am very aware. The ones tagged are the ones that I am tired of cleaning up after UPE and SOCK editing so instead of wasting my time I simply tagged to allow someone else to do so. So the issues are prevalent as stated in the edit summaries and if an uninvolved editor decides to review and cleanup then so be it. That's the exact reason for tags. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this is fair (and I appreciate your efforts in dealing with that sort of disruption, I know it can be exhausting). It's deleted now, but I'd previously removed the tag at List of programs broadcast by Green Entertainment before you readded it (which is why I reached out here). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Sorry as I tagged quite a few and likely just assumed it was an SPA or sock removing the tag. My apologies for not looking close enough. I guess its a good reminder to slow down when frustrated. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli @CNMall41

Hi y'all, hope it's okay to join this thread with a very relevant note!

Elli, I think it was me that you reverted with that tag, which was totally fine (helped me realize I should take a break from editing instead of continuing to bang my head against the wall of a promotion-only account). Apologies if my addition of it was a misstep, I'll ask for your review of my reasoning below so I can adjust my understanding if needed :-)

==Undisclosed paid wrt (overly) active current contributors to an article?==

While there was not promotional content within that page at that moment, I placed the tag because the now-blocked user was right then actively copying content into the article from a related one that had just been AfD'd jand linking it to all their other articles. (The AfD'd article was "Green Entertainment", the one you and I crossed paths at was "List of yadada from Green Entertainment", and they had placed a link within the first directing readers to the second, so essentially trying to start "hiding" contested content in that location. Which is at least creative, in a totally terrible way.)

I explain all this not to argue (especially as it's a moot point for now) but to ask for clarification on al the assumption I made in placing that tag at that time. You are both way more experienced here than me, so I'd love your take: is the tag *only* applicable to the written content, or to the context of the current state of a page?

I had (perhaps mis)understood that if contention around undisclosed paid status was active regarding a current contributor to an article (who, as in this case, was refusing to honor other editors' requests to pause their editing and answer COI/PAID questions) then the tag was appropriate as well. Only seeing your post here made me realize that might not be the case!

==Original reason for coming here: Thanks CNMall41!==

Anyhow, I originally clicked over to this talk page to thank you, CNMall41, for bringing me into the loop about what was going on. This was my first encounter with a "sock farm" situation in action, and it kind of freaked me out- even before it was clear what was going on, the brash urgency and generic dismissal I perceived from that editor put me on edge. It felt like dealing with scammers on the phone who are trying to urge you into going along with some scheme, I probably took it a bit too personal and argued with the person a bit.

On that note, I'm vaguely aware of WP:DENY as a thing and should probably go read it in depth this week; in practical terms it basically means don't feed the trolls, and just pursue administrative solutions to the distribution once you suspect you're dealing with a sock?

Do you have any advice for situations like mine earlier today, where an editor finds behavior really suspicious but doesn't have the en.wiki-wisdom to connect it to a specific LTA account? I'm wondering if bringing it to an admin's attention would be appropriate or if you have to assume good faith a bit longer and just keep an eye out.

(In this case I'm talking not about clear vandalism or conduct issues, which I have a vague idea on how to report. Rather things like this whole mess, where someone is contributing so aggressively and single-mindedly at high volume to push things into the encyclopedia which are not appropriate, but not quite audacious.)

Thanks in advance for any advice, our brief interaction has me really looking up to you and I imagine if I learn more, I could be a good contributor in this area of protecting the encyclopedia someday. I helped run a consensus-based hackerspace for 7 years, and we had allll these same commons-based problems, just in meatspace 😅

People would secretly live there, try to run for-profit startups out of there, and basically miss the point of a community education space altogether. I was a bit of a "bouncer" socially for that space, and feel the same protective instincts towards lovely en.wiki.... I just have to learn all the important bits first in order to be effective like you are! Cheers 🙌🤠 Chiselinccc (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lot of questions so hopefully I hit the most important ones for you. If not, just ask for clarification and I will be happy to opine. The fist is about tagging. Elli is correct that tags are NEVER to be used as badges of shame. In fact, I know of an editor who is now community banned for getting too aggressive with COI editors and this is one of the conducts they were engaged in. It is kind of a judgement call if you feel the page is promotional or has COI editing. I normally look through and if there is some promotional tone or is written from non-neutral POV (an example is a company page with a list of industry awards), then the tag would be appropriate. Of course, you should (although not required) attempt to clean it up yourself as most issues can be addressed rather quickly. In this case, I was tired of the amount of cleanup so simply tagged many and left it to other experienced editors to do so. This shouldn't be done in all cases however so it really is a judgement call based on experience. With that in mind, do not take my advise as the law as it is just what I do. Also, at this point, I am no longer required to WP:AGF with this farm as they are relentless. I will gladly face ANI for reverting their edits.

That brings me to DENY. This is also a tricky one as you are NOT required to revert SOCK edits. There are many times when I don't as they may actually improve the page or are minor housekeeping edits which are useful to Wikipedia. Sometimes I will mass revert just because of the bludgeoning they are doing. In the case of UPE, it is likely the farm is not paid unless their edits are live so reverting does cause some harm to them which I don't really care about it. In fact, I hope it does as all they need to do is disclose and we could move forward peacefully. So again, judgement call and this is just my experience.

For advice on what to do with potential socks, I would advice going to the main SPI page and looking through all of the cases. You can then follow the edit histories of the accounts named and be able to see what experienced editors see when doing their investigations. Will also help you understand the type of evidence admins and CU's will require for when you file one. There is also a talk page there so you can ask any questions if you need help.

Finally, for issues with trouble users (such as edit warring), there are noticeboards you can use including ANI and COIN. Make sure you follow proper etiquette first such as discussing with the editor, leaving appropriate warning if necessary, and engaging in any talk page discussion if applicable. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 apologies for the cascade of questions, and thank you for your thorough response- you've absolutely covered the bases here! It's one thing to read a bunch of policy pages, or even to peruse noticeboards as an observer, but it's another thing to decide what to do in the midst of a stressful situation. I feel better equipped for the future with the overview you've provided.

While I didn't intend the tag as a "badge of shame," I now get that my intention of "tagging an active disruption" was still not ideal, as it just added one more element of engagement with the suspected (then confirmed) UPE. By reverting their tag removals and tagging the page they started moving their content to, I was trying to draw their attention to their talk page, and while it worked it also created a bunch of unnecessary heat and drama.

I guess the urgency I detected in the editor's flurry of content addition sparked a similar urgency in me, hence feeling freaked out. Your explanation here has helped me contextualize that the "Wikipedia has no deadline" concept applies not just to article content consensus, but to matters like this as well. I will study the SPI archives and procedures a bit more, so that I better know what to do if I'm concerned about such matters in the future.

For now, just the understanding that trying to flag disruption the wrong way becomes disruptive itself is a really useful takeaway. I purposely stay away from editing content I'm attached enough to potentially argue over, but now I see that even my passion to protect from COI/PROMO/PUFFERY can lead me to edit war, which is never okay. Assuming good faith, and then once that runs out ensuring the situation makes it to the right set of eyes, is the way to go.

Thanks again, happy editing, and I hope to see you around the way! Like a number of other experienced editors, you've really made me feel welcome and better-oriented to successfully contribute long-term 🙌 Chiselinccc (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember there is never a deadline in Wikipedia. Things will always get corrected even if they are disruptive in the short term so even edit wars can be reported and then sit back and wait. I find myself getting frustrated at times as well and have to remember that this is not real life, its only Wikipedia. Cheers!!!--CNMall41 (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiselinccc: I don't have much more to say as CNMall41's answer here is pretty much what I'd go with as well. Thanks for reaching out and also for your work dealing with disruption here. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say I'm not a SOCK

I'm not a SOCK why you are disappointing me Jishnu Raghav (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of politely saying this so let me put it like this. Stay the fuck off my talk page! Feel free to make your case here. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously I'm not SOCK you had added me in the SOCK list Jishnu Raghav (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yah I can understand that around 10-11 sock users had attempted to create that article I had that link which you had provided. So, I cannot say that u cannot suspect me. But I'm an Innocent moreover that is, not my Favourite article please. Jishnu Raghav (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You created your account the same day another one was blocked. Last warning. Stay the fuck off my talk page. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever still u r not believe me anyways it's ok but mind your tongue. Jishnu Raghav (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about, stay the fuck off my talk page and you won't have to worry about my tongue. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Hai, it's not siddharth , it's not related to assume it's coi, iam not siddharth menon , iam siddharth shankar Siddharthmenon2121 (talk) 07:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Then address the MANY warnings on your talk page and stay off of mine. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suno Chanda 2

Hello, CNMall41,

Just a reminder that it might be time for you to review WP:DRAFTIFY to see when it is appropriate to move a main space article to Draft space. This option is for recently created articles and this article was created in 2018 so definitely not recently created. Additionally, an article should only be moved to Draft space once. If another editor moves it back to main space then it is time to find other solutions like improving the article, tagging it for problems or pursuing another deletion process. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had in fact responded to this earlier. I am very familiar with the policy. Was done in a rush. Mistakes happen and this was one of them but definitely not a competency issue. --CNMall41 (talk) 10:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GrowUp page draft

Hi there, Thanks for your feedback on the draft. I have thoroughly reviewed the comments from the previous editors and so did more than remove the link to the company website before resubmitting. I removed the information sourced from the company website rather than simply removing the reference (although in some places it refers to facts like dates, so have kept those in as per the referencing guidelines). I also double-checked my sources, removed any duplicates, and took out anything that linked to press releases. The sources that remain are all industry-specific, neutral, non-company-related news publications like The Grocer, iNews, and the BBC. Furthermore, I have made the relevant declaration of COI.

Please could I have some further information about what's wrong with the sources included so I can make further adjustments? Given the subject matter it's not possible to cite from academic journals and I haven't seen anything to suggest news articles aren't acceptable if they're from reputable sources, but I know there are lots of intricacies I might not be aware of. Thanks for your help. Charlotteem15 (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]