User talk:Notablepeopleandplaces

Notablepeopleandplaces, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Notablepeopleandplaces! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi Notablepeopleandplaces! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your "user" page

I moved your user page, User:Notablepeopleandplaces, to User:Notablepeopleandplaces/sandbox. Your user page is meant to tell other editors about your activities on Wikipedia. You can leave it blank if you choose. It is not for draft articles. Draft articles should be created as "user sub-pages" or as pages whose name starts with Draft:. For more information on user pages and user sub-pages, read Wikipedia:User pages. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit this sandbox until after the "history split" in the discussion below is complete. Once it is complete, you can continue drafting the "split off" page at its new home, Draft:Kobenz (musician). Once the page has been "split off," you should either blank the sandbox request that it be deleted by putting {{db-author}} on it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edits made to Kobenz have been deleted. If you wish to continue drafting this topic, continue with User:Notablepeopleandplaces/sandbox. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kobenz history split

This is to both Soundcloudlegends and Notablepeopleandplaces and will be re-posted to both of your user talk pages. Courtesy pings to Rodw and Slykos as your edits are affected as well.

This page Kobenz is for the municipality in Austria.

I have requested that the "edit history" of the page be split and that the edits that deal with the musician be moved to a new page, Draft:Kobenz (musician). PLEASE DO NOT EDIT EITHER PAGE UNTIL THE HISTORY-SPLIT IS COMPLETE. You will know it is complete because the page history of the draft[1] will contain 25-30 edits instead of none. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidwr: I see no reason to oppose this, and there is rationale, since one's a municipality and one's a musician, so totally support this. Slykos (talk • contribs • rights) 21:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The edits made to Kobenz have been deleted and will not be restored. See above. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Notablepeopleandplaces. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page User:Notablepeopleandplaces/sandbox, 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 or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} 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 WP:Spam);
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. — Jeff G. ツ 03:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any relationship to the client Notablepeopleandplaces (talk) 12:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The client"? Your client? Someone else's client? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My English is not great. I meant “individual” Notablepeopleandplaces (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kobenz (musician) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Kobenz (musician), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Praxidicae (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve re-read the guidelines, and this person meets the requirements of being notable. Upon looking over all sources that have been added, it appears that these appear independent, and confirmed by multiple outlets. The general topics are verified on multiple sources and the artist is verified as an artist on Google, Spotify, and a few other sites that were listed. I’m looking to start doing more content writing on alternative/dark artists of all kind, and this is my first article. I would appreciate all suggestions, for reliable outlets to gather information, and advice of at what point someone becomes notable as the requirements are highly subjective. I’ve spent a lot of time reading the guidelines, before moving this article to main space. I was also considering adding search ability as a source. Wouldn’t a figure that shares a name with a city or territory and comes up beforehand be considered notable? How would one cite that? People should know the difference between the two as the fact that they are colliding would be considered notable and cause a need for disambiguation. Notablepeopleandplaces (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kobenz (musician) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kobenz (musician) 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/Kobenz (musician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 15:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed as Soundcloudlegends.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Notablepeopleandplaces (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not this person???? Please provide some sort of explanation. This is ridiculous! Notablepeopleandplaces (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is a checkuser block, supported by technical evidence, so the connection to other accounts is not in doubt. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

For the sake of this message, I am going to assume you are right, and that you have no connection to the editors which you have been connected to.

I'm not a checkuser, I'm not an administrator, but common sense says that in rare cases, the technical evidence is deceiving. It's even rarer that the technical evidence and behavioral evidence are both deceiving at the same time. But in the nearly 20-year history of Wikipedia, I'm sure it's happened more than once.

My assumption - again, I don't have any "inside information" to support this - is that this is so rare that, barring compelling evidence of a mistake, it's an accepted "cost." That is, Wikipedia accepts the cost of losing a good editor due to him being "indistinguishable from" an account of a known-bad-actor in exchange for not having many "bad actors" slip through.

Common sense also says Wikipedia is not alone in this "we occasionally declare persons persona non grata by mistake because we can't tell them from someone we know to be a problem." It's a fact of life we all have to live with. I've been on the wrong end of being judged incorrectly without any reasonable method to appeal since the person doing the judging was convinced they were right and "that was the end of the discussion." It's frustrating. But it's life. I learned to live with it.

My best guess is that the only way back to Wikipedia will be if neither you nor the person behind the other account attempts to edit Wikipedia for 6 months, in which case you might be able to come back under WP:Standard offer. However, to avoid any possible confusion, it would be best if you stayed away from any topics remotely related to any topic you have edited about before being blocked AND avoid editing in any topics remotely related to any topic the other accounts have edited about. See this and its archives for a list of accounts. Click on the "contribs" and "logs" entries for each accounts to see what topics to avoid. If new names are added to that page, just assume the 6-month clock has started over. If the person behind the other accounts is persistent, it may mean you can never come back. Frustrating, yes. Unfair, yes. Any way around it that won't cause more grief for you in the end? Not that I can think of.

Again, for the sake of this message I am assuming that you are being on the level. If I'm wrong, if you are deceiving me and everyone else, then the above message does not apply to you. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 16:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidwr: please stop involving yourself in unblock discussions. Your involvement here is unhelpful and could even be incorrectly interpretated as providing unblock conditions when you're clearly not in any position to unblock. Nick (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidwr: I am not whoever I am being accused of. I have no affiliation to anyone but myself. I think it’s very unfortunate and disheartening that I’ve received so much grief for trying to write my first article on someone less then an A list celebrity. I thought maybe I could contribute by finding interesting people with some potential and notability to write about. I spent a lot of time working on this article. My next article was going to be about a Russian alternative social media influencer. The first in her country. However, I’ll accept the ban, and I’ll move on. I just figured this could be a neat hobby as I have a passion for content writing. I really hope I didn’t hinder the persons I was writing about. I saw that the article began to get interest from others that’s what kept me going with it. Best of luck to you all! Notablepeopleandplaces (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]