User talk:Kandreyev

Nomination of Key-objects for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Key-objects 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/Key-objects until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Boleyn (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Structured Search for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Structured Search 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/Structured Search until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of "Structured search"[edit]

A page you created, Structured search, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it has no content\, other than external links\, categories\, "see also" sections\, rephrasing of the title\, and/or chat-like comments.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Structured search[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Structured search, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jinkinson talk to me 01:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kandreyev. Thank you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am striking you Tokyogirl79. This is wrongful accusation. I do not have multiple accounts. What make you think that I have more than one? --Kandreyev (talk) 05:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)kandreyev[reply]

I'm unstriking it, but even if it's striked through it doesn't really make a difference because a SPI confirmed that they were your sockpuppets. The reason I suspected you of sockpuppetry is because all of the arguments are the same and they were all written in such a similar style that it made me suspicious. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain yourself - what facts and evidence do you have? Are you the person who completed SPI you are referenced to? Where the link to this SPI? --Kandreyev (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)kandreyev[reply]

It's in the link above (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kandreyev), although it's since been [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kandreyev/Archive|archived]]. As I said, the evidence is that we suddenly had an influx of new accounts that wrote arguments very similar to the one that you wrote- a common element of sockpuppetry. If you have any further questions about what goes into an SPI, feel free to take it up with User:JamesBWatson, who closed the SPI and has posted several comments on here about sockpuppetry and possible canvassing. I do have to say though, even if you didn't do sockpuppetry right now the only way to keep the article is to provide the reliable sources that people are asking for on the AfD page. Getting upset over being accused of sockpuppetry won't really accomplish much at this point in time and making statements that assume that this is being done because of a battle between the US and Europe will not accomplish anything either. The only way to save the article is to provide those sources that people have been asking for. (IE, the ones that talk specifically about structured searches as opposed to pulling out articles that deal with similar themes but do not specifically state anything about structured searches.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically if you want an example of what you should be using as a source, this Multiagent System Technologies journal entry is an excellent example. Not only does it specifically mention structured search in great detail, but it's in a journal that I believe is peer-reviewed and would make it an excellent source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of multiple accounts, and editing without logging in[edit]

Attempting to give a misleading impression at an "Articles for deletion" discussion is almost always futile, because the outcome is decided not by counting numbers of comments, but by assessment of the strength of the arguments. Ten people giving reasons which carry very little weight, and which are not based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, will have little if any more impact than one person giving the same reasons. Indeed, if anything, the impression of trying to fix the outcome may antagonise other editors, and make them take less notice of the arguments put forward. However, more important is the fact that you need to realise that abuse of multiple accounts and/or IP addresses, either to attempt to give the impression of a number of different editors supporting an opinion, or for any other unacceptable purposes, can lead to being blocked from editing. The full details of Wikipedia's policy on abuse of multiple accounts is at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

James, I am absolutely agree with you that the outcome must be decided by assessment of the strength of the arguments but not the number of comments, but I do not see any reasonable arguments.

James, I do not use multiple accounts - I have only one. Unfortunately I could not provide any proof but you could not provide any proof neither. Please stop blocking peoples opinion. This discussion look like a battle between US and Europe to me. Kandreyev (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)kandreyev[reply]

Structured Search[edit]

Thanks for inviting Kadreyev. What do you want to discuss? BTW, how does this discussion work on Wikipedia Djoerd Hiemstra (talk) 8:15, 31 October 2014

Thank you for your interest, Djoerd. Just read the article Structured Search and leave your opinion delete or not on the discussion page: Structured search discussion Kandreyev (talk) 07:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)kandreyev[reply]

Possible canvassing[edit]

When making edits such as this and this, you need to be aware of Wikipedia's policy on canvassing. I don't know how you selected the people to contact, but please make sure you don't do so in a way that might give the impression of trying to influence the outcome of the discussion in favour of the position you hold. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]
James, according to wikipedia guidelines I can invite other people to participate in discussion and it is not a canvassing: In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.