User talk:Chicago Smooth

Unspecified source for Image:AlanRCurrie2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AlanRCurrie2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 22:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Roger Currie

Please stop adding the Press Release language to the Alan Roger Currie. It violates NPOV.--Davidwiz (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop modifying the page for Alan Roger Currie. If you have any questions, contact [e-mail] Chicago Smooth (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It violates Wikipedia's policies for a person/company (i.e. you, Alan Roger Currie) to create a page about themselves. The jig is up, Currie.--Davidwiz (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I offered his Email address so you can discuss his biography with him, since you have problems with it (i.e., inserting all of the citations). This is not Alan Roger Currie, although I do know him personally. Many editors have viewed this page, and given approval. This is obviously something personal on behalf of davidwiz Chicago Smooth (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Alan Roger Currie

removed prod. please see the afd.

August 2009

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Alan Roger Currie, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significant conflict of interest on behalf of myself (Chicago Smooth) and the subject of the article (Alan Roger Currie); I am not a relative of Mr. Currie's nor am I an employee of his company; I am simply someone who enjoys his books and believes that he is just as relevant as others in the dating and relationships field, such as Tariq Nasheed, Neil Strauss, Zan Perrion and many other dating coaches and seduction gurus. Chicago Smooth (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

according to your previous words [[1]], you said you were a "close friend" of alan roger currie, and when someone offered to discuss this with you, you offered alan roger currie's email address as a way to get into contact with you. i would suggest that you read the COI guidelines again and just trust that these rules exist to make the encyclopedia better, not to keep good articles out. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I was a "close friend" of Alan Roger Currie. Have I had some Email exchanges with him? Yes. I will confess to that. I've consulted with him about the principles and philosophies in his book. Also, it was my idea to actually feature him on Wikipedia. I told him that I wanted to do so. He was actually very indifferent towards the idea. He just said, "make sure anything you say about me is accurate and valid." The reason I offered his Email address instead of my own was because a particular editor was challenging something about his credentials and background. And I said, if you want to know the facts about his background and credentials, then you should ask him directly. The thing that bothers me about this whole issue is that I've had this article challenged at least two or three times, and each time, it was finally decided to maintain the page, but just make sure it isn't simply "singing his praises" in a biased manner. I've done that. I've adhered to that. Beyond that, this seems very personal. This guy has a major following. He is just as popular, if not more popular, than any person on Wikipedia that is in the field of attraction and seduction or dating and relationships.Chicago Smooth (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i don't know why you think it's personal. i have never heard of the guy. i think if you are feeling protective over the article, which appears to be so, you should check out WP:OWN Theserialcomma (talk) 05:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the past entries of "Davidwiz," he essentially let it be known that his desire to see Alan Roger Currie's page deleted was personal. #1, he threw out accusations that he couldn't back up with fact. Yes, I'm feeling somewhat "protective" of the artice. Why? Because this article has been challenged like three or four times, and each time it's proven to be an invalid challenge. When I first created the article, I even consulted with other editors to see what was appropriate to include and not include. They said that the article was fine. No one even challenged this article for like the first nine - twelve months of it's existence. Then, all of the sudden, challenges came from everywhere. I have adhered to all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Chicago Smooth (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if the article is worthy of staying, it will stay on its own merits. experienced editors will look at it and decide. it won't be up to me, you, or davidwiz, i promise you that. the deletion dialogue and the article will both be viewed by an administrator who will decide what happens. the best you can do is dig up some legitimate (by WP standards) sources to make the article comply with WP:N and WP:RS Theserialcomma (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plain and simply, here is MY OWN criteria for if someone is "notable" or not (and I know my criteria is probably not in line with Wikipedia's criteria, but so be it):

• Has the person been interviewed on national television or national radio at least once? If the answer is "yes," then in my mind, that person is "notable";
• Has the person been mentioned, or had his book, CD, DVD, film, song, product, service, etc., mentioned in a national magazine or national newspaper at least once? If the answer is "yes," then in my mind, that person is "notable";
• Does this person have a "significant presence" on Google? (e.g., when you enter this person's name as a search word, do they have over 100,000 hits?) If the answer is "yes," then in my mind, that person is "notable";
• Does this person have credentials that makes this person a legitmate "expert," "authority" or "celebrity" in their field? If the answer is "yes," then in my mind, that person is "notable"

As far as I'm concerned, Book Author and Talk Radio Host Alan Roger Currie passes all of the above criteria. Again, maybe not by Wikipedia's Draconian criteria, but at minimum, Chicago Smooth's criteria for "notability." Chicago Smooth (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to start www.smoothpedia.com with exactly those criteria. The domain name is available. :-) WP's focus is the dull stuff such as on reliable/independent sources. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Marc, I don't so much have a problem with the criteria on Wikipedia as much as I have a problem with how Wiki's criteria is, or is not, consistently adhered to. In other words, I don't see how approximately one year ago, Currie's article was examined by a number of editors and one or two administrators, and deemed "fine, but in need of an edit." Now, a year later, after more credentials have been added and more citations and references have been added, all of the sudden Currie's article is perceived as "not notable" enough for inclusion. That literally makes no sense to me. Chicago Smooth (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great of there was a Great Wiki Oracle that could instantly pass judgment. For now, we have people with only so much free time to donate to WP. Editor and administrator conclusions are likely to change as they gain more experience with WP policy and guidelines and as they gain more experience with evaluating sources. The long term editors/admins are also likely to be lenient with newer articles. Another issue is that the admins don't want to be the wiki police as that would be WP:OWN of Wikipedia itself. The net result is thousands, if not millions, of articles out there that don't appear to be about notable subjects. They go unchallenged for years until someone takes a hard look for support of notability. I would not call this inconsistency but sheer lack of time to deal with the 40,000 to 60,000 new articles that get added every month. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hey

i don't believe the article's deletion will be overturned, but i am willing to work with you on a new version of the article that conforms to wikipedia's core policies, such as WP:NPOV, WP:N, and WP:RS. If you want to start writing it and adding sources onto this page, i'd help you out with that. we can work on it here, and then when the reliable sources are available to attest to his notability, we can make the actual article. what do you think? Theserialcomma (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC) August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response - Sure thing. Who is this? Chicago Smooth (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, forgot to sign my previous message! Theserialcomma (talk) 20:03, 13

response - Oh, okay. Cool. Just let me know what I need to do. Thank you very much for this suggestion. Chicago Smooth (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

start writing a new version of the article that conforms to wikipedia's core policies i.e. Neutral point of view, Notability, and Reliable sources. i recommend gathering all the reliable sources you can find and putting them here, then writing the article based on the content in the sources. if the content is true but not available in any sources, then it is not usable on wikipedia Theserialcomma (talk) 07:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theserialcomma: I want you to examine the article for Ross Jeffries; Why does Mr. Currie's article need to have so many citations, but I see very few on Jeffries' page?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicago Smooth (talk • contribs) 23:28, 15 August 2009

You may be interested in Wikipedia:How to save an article proposed for deletion and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response to Theserialcomma (from the Deletion Review page) - Theserialcomma, I say to you as Reagan said to Carter in the 1980 debates, "there you go again." You keep trying to insinuate that I am some sort of "employee" for Mr. Currie's Mode One Publishing company, and that is simply not true. Neither you or Davidwiz have ever provided any semblance of evidence to support your invalid accusation. I supplied Mr. Currie's e-mail address to the editor Davidwiz because he kept deleting content on his argument that "how do we know this to be true?" or "show me proof that this is true." My attitude was, if you want to know if anything is true or not about Mr. Currie, why don't you write him yourself? Now, I understand that Mr. Currie could say on his website that he is a multi-millionaire, but that very well could be a lie; so in a situation like that, you would need some sort of "outside verification" to prove it. But for content data such as, the month and year his book was published, or the fact that he lived in Los Angeles for six plus years, those are points that are only going to be able to be verified by him. For whatever it's worth Theserialcomma, I will make it publicly known that I don't care for your style of highly subjective editing. There have been some editors who have disagreed with my comments and opinions, but I could tell it was just procedural in an attempt to adhere to the criteria that Wikipedia encourages; But with editors like you, Davidwiz and one or two others, it seems to be more of a "personal vendetta" to prevent Mr. Currie's article from being included. For example, Davidwiz saying things like "I know you work for Alan Roger Currie!" without any ounce of evidence to prove it. You should remove yourself from this review discussion. Particularly, since you've deleted the content on your talk page that clearly points out that you were the editor who encouraged me to write a new and improved second article. You are clearly inconsistent in your thoughts and actions. Chicago Smooth (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theserialcomman's response: "you've added alan roger currie's name to gary, indiana, indiana university, List of Kappa Alpha Psi brothers, and miller light comedy search even creating that article just to add his name. you are clearly here to promote this person. stop pretending otherwise. you've gotten these other editors to rally behind keeping this article which was deleted once, you immediately recreated it, and keep lying by saying i told you to do so, when i actually told you to USERFY it and WAITuntil it's notable. instead, you just recreated it within 24 hours, and then it was deleted again. this is a waste of everyone's time, and you are abusing wikipedia for promotional purposes. this Currie guy has TRIVIAL degrees of notability at best. the independent coverage is a joke, the reliable sources are not widespread or in depth, just trivial and self promoting. the one article that supposedly was evidence of his notability was just a self promotion, probably written by him."

My response - If that was true, then why not accuse me of creating "Zane's Sex Chronicles" page just to promote Zane? Why not accuse me of creating the "Diary of a Tired Black Man" page just to promote Tim Alexander? See, you are inconsistent. I am a fan of many African-American public figures who I feel don't get their proper due credit. It's really that simple. And once again, if you're going to call Currie's work and credentials "trivial," then why are you not objective enough to call Ross Jeffries article "weak" and "trivial?" Why not call JDOG's article "weak" and "trivial?" Why not the article for David DeAngelo?? This is why I'm so adamant about Mr. Currie. For most men who are truly familiar with the world of Dating and Relationship authors, Dating Coaches and Seduction Gurus, to even suggest that Ross Jeffries or David DeAngelo are more "notable" than Alan Roger Currie is borderline laughable. Same with Zan Perrion, even though he was interviewed on Currie's radio show, so I won't criticize him too much. But that's why I defend Mr. Currie so much. Because you have allowed other people in his field to remain on here that are not even on his level. The one guy you did now put a deletion challenge on his also African-American (Tariq Nasheed). Tariq has been on Late Night with Conan O'Brien. How is he NOT "notable?" And so you don't think I'm only in favor of other Black public figures, I think Evan Marc Katz should be on here. I think Sherry Argov should be on here. I think Steve Nakamoto should be on here. I think Steve Santagati should be on here. I can name a number of dating and relationship experts, coaches and gurus who should be on here that are not. Your style of editing, as said once before, is very inconsistent and extremely subjective. Chicago Smooth (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

I have posted a question at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Alan_Roger_Currie which you may be able to answer. Can you please return to that discussion to answer it? Stifle (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response - Stifle, what specific question do you need answering? I'm sort of confused about what is needed from me right now. Chicago Smooth (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Version of Alan Roger Currie article

• Theserialcomma - Let me know your feedback on this new proposed page; You can make any edits you need to make this page more in line with the criteria for a good Wikipedia page: /New Alan Roger Currie article

Possibly unfree File:MillerLiteComedyFinalists.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:MillerLiteComedyFinalists.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:FilmmakerTimAlexander.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:FilmmakerTimAlexander.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nominating Alan Roger Currie for deletion again

the whole point of userifying the article and working on it was to wait until notability has been reached. you just made the article again, but the notability is still questionable, so i'm nominating it for deletion again. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be kidding me. I'm not getting this at all. What is "questionable" about the notability, after all of the new citations?? Chicago Smooth (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Chicago Smooth. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mode One

The article Mode One has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Self published book lacking GNEWS and GHits of substance. Written by AfD'd author.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ttonyb1 (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Mode One

I have nominated Mode One, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mode One. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ttonyb1 (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ross JeffriesAfD procedure

I have removed the AfD from Ross Jeffries. It was created pointing to a previously closed AfD. Please follow the instructions in WP:AFDHOWTO. Pay particular attention to the use of {{subst:afdx}} instead of {{subst:afd1}}. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks... ttonyb1 (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I don't really care if the article for Ross Jeffries remains or is deleted; My argument is, if the article for Book Author and Dating Expert Alan Roger Currie is considered "questionable," then there is no doubt in my mind that the article for Ross Jeffries is just as "questionable," if not more so. Chicago Smooth (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, friend - you don't want to run afoul of WP:Point. If you think the articles you've written deserve to be in Wikipedia, the best way to do it is to marshal your arguments, make them cogently, and help other people see your point. JohnInDC (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice JohnInDC. I will take heed to it. Chicago Smooth (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Alan Roger Currie

I have nominated Alan Roger Currie, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Roger Currie (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:ZanesSexChronicles.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:ZanesSexChronicles.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

alan roger currie afd

please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Roger_Currie_%282nd_nomination%29. it was recently deleted, and you voted either delete or keep, and it has since been recreated. i am messaging all previous voters to see if they wish to vote again. please do not take this as canvassing, as i have attempted to contact all voters Theserialcomma (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth ... I know you mean well, but please, keep your promise to Hobit. If you drown the AFD again, it will not go well. If you must make a comment, keep it short, give just the facts. If you want to make a reply to someone, make it a reply to what they said. The Walt Love comment is better off being added to your statement, not to a rebuttal to Theserialcomma ... and keep it short. You may also want to add it directly to the article (where you use it as a reference; "In a 2009 interview with Walt Love, Currie claimed to be on the short list for the Nobel Prize for Medicine (ref)...mp3(/ref))". Otherwise you're giving Theserialcomma the opportunity to avoid answering my question by going off on a tangent about whether the Love interview is non-trivial and a Wikipedia:Reliable source. --GRuban (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I echo these sentiments. Establish notability directly, by pointing to references, articles, etc. that fit within WP:Bio. Inferential arguments ("if he wasn't notable then how come the article stayed up for a year" and "so-and-so only interviews 'notable' people") won't work, because they are, finally, beside the point. JohnInDC (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you GRuban and JohnInDC for the solid and valid advice. My apologies. Chicago Smooth (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:AuthorAlanRogerCurrie.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:AuthorAlanRogerCurrie.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sherool (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

You're welcome, but just so you know, I don't care too much about the subject but I do have issues with things being deleted "outside of process" which I feel this was. Hobit (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. Appreciate your honesty. And again, I appreciate you defending what you believe is "right" and "not right." Chicago Smooth (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Chicago Smooth. You have new messages at Marc Kupper's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Marc Kupper|talk 00:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DrV

I'd suggest you update your comment in the DrV to "Contrary to what's being implied above, I'm not an employee of XXX. Anyone interested in further discussion of this can go to Thxxxxx's talk page" and bring this discussion there rather than the DrV (which this will derail). Hobit (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the advice. Chicago Smooth (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tim Alexander (filmmaker)

The article Tim Alexander (filmmaker) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non notable, no third party, reliable sources

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response - Theserialcomma, you are out-of-control. Seriously. Chicago Smooth (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry that you feel that way. if you add some third party, reliable sources, then it won't be AFD'd. currently there are none Theserialcomma (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:ModeOnePhoto4.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ModeOnePhoto4.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Skier Dude (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Medium cover.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Medium cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Skier Dude (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Tim Alexander (filmmaker)

I have nominated Tim Alexander (filmmaker), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Alexander (filmmaker). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Jeffries, JDOG

I'm moving part of a thread from User talk:Theserialcomma here to continue it. Chicago Smooth wrote the following:

response - Marc, I am not nominating articles for deletion out of "spite" or in a "vindictive" spirit. I just honestly, genuinely don't believe that the Seduction Guru Ross Jeffries or Mystery Method's "sidekick" JDOG are notable. Especially, if these editors consider Alan Roger Currie as non-notable. I've never seen Jeffries or JDOG on a nationally televised morning talk show. Jeffries is almost considered a joke and a caricature of a dating coach these days. I just honestly don't feel like neither are notable enough to be included on here, especially with the deletion of a more notable dating and relationships expert (Currie). Chicago Smooth (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about what you believe but rather if they are notable per WP rules. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be to kidding if you don't think RJ is notable, unless you have no idea what notable means on wikipedia? As the "grandfather" of the seduction community RJ has been in countless media sources. Mathmo ^Talk 10:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response to Mathmo - You editors here on Wikipedia might deem Jeffries as "notable," but I know a lot of common folk that would severely disagree with that opinion. I'll give a "Google hits" example: Put in the keyword, "Alan Roger Currie" and the the keywords "Ross Jeffries." Currie = 470,000 Google hits. Jeffries = 270,000 Google hits. I rest my case. Chicago Smooth (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need to deem Jeffries as notable as it turned out to be easy to show it per WP's metrics for notability. As I stated earlier, you are welcome to start www.smoothpedia.com and can use any criteria that you deem fit. May the common folk flock to it. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Marc, Wikipedia's criteria is what it is. I won't argue against that. But that's not to say that I wholeheartedly agree with it. I'm reluctant to 'play the race card,' but the truth of the matter is, this is why African-Americans have traditionally started their own magazines, own organizations, own award ceremonies, etc., because they felt like they weren't receiving the proper level of respect by mainstream media and mainstream society. So, I don't care if Wikipedia says Jeffries is notable or not. Obviously they say he is. But in my mind, he is not. I can think of a number of African-American public figures who are not on Wikipedia that are way more "notable" than this guy. My opinion. Chicago Smooth (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

African-Americans starting their own magazines, awards, etc. should not affect notability per WP:N. If the Chicago Defender, Ebony (magazine), Los Angeles Sentinel, and Jet (magazine) run decent in-depth articles about Alan Roger Currie and Miller Lite Comedy Search then they are excellent WP:N sources. I don't mean trivial mention and interviews but something like the 5245 word article Jeffries scored with Playboy magazine. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response to ChicargoSmooth: Wikipedia has a very narrow definition of what is notable, but at the same time simple. All it really means is that a person has been 'noted' (which is after all where the meaning of the word notable came from). Wikipedia takes this just a step further and requires it be by a 'reputable source' (as obviously a magazine written by my 9 year old brother and distributed to the local neighborhood will not cut it). You will notice nowhere does it require the topic to be universally thought of as correct, or any other such conditions. So although you may strongly disagree with Ross Jeffries' philosophy on women, you can't deny he has been covered extensively by mainstream media. (plus I hope you also recognise he had a HUGE impact upon the seduction community) Mathmo ^Talk 19:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wikilinking

I saw your edit on the userfied Mode One article to add a link using []. It's easy to wikilink user pages. [[User:Chicago Smooth/Alan Roger Currie|Alan Roger Currie]] -> Alan Roger Currie. Cheers. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Currie

I don't think it's appropriate to link to a userpage. Once Mr. Currie has his wiki article, of course, he is presumed notable, and you can link him on lists of people pages. As I wrote, I never saw your previous attempts, but there are less-notable people than Mr. Currie with Wikipedia articles, and articles with fewer outside refs. I didn't note any gushing or peacock wording in the article, that people complained of earlier. It appears that you were blindsided early on before you had a chance to get to know how things work in Wikipedia. Perhaps now some editors are too ready to pounce on you for small things, but don't let that get you down. I think that there is nothing basically wrong with what you have written as a Wikpedia article. If it comes up for discussion, I would certainly support it. I don't see what the problem would be. Plazak (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (April 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Chicago Smooth/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Chicago Smooth, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Chicago Smooth. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Chicago Smooth. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Author & Dating Coach Alan Roger Currie

Hello Chicago. It's perfectly fine to mention and cite any noteworthy awards that a person has won. But it's generally not permitted to add them in the very first sentence of a biography. Why? Well basically, although it's true that a person is "award-winning", such language resembles more of a "puff piece", promo piece, or tabloid article rather than an encyclopedia with Neutral Point of View as a core policy. Years ago, there was a big community discussion on whether Wikipedia should allow "award-winning" in the opening sentence. And the consensus was not to allow it for the reason just mentioned. That's why the intro section in Wikipedia's Manual of Style advises against it. It used to be very common here to find "award-winning" at the start, especially for Oscar, Golden Globe, and Grammy winners. But that's rarely, if ever, the case anymore.

As for the articles you listed. They certainly violate the guideline and it should be removed, which I'll go ahead and do for the sake for fairness. But due to the decentralised nature of Wikipedia, not every single article is going to 100% of the time be in compliance with the rules and guidelines. Spellcast (talk) 08:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I understand. Thank you for the detailed explanation. Chicago Smooth (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Chicago Smooth. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alan Roger Currie (March 5)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Robert McClenon was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Articles on this person have been deleted after deletion discussions three times, most recently within the past 24 hours, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Roger Currie (3rd nomination). There is no reason to think that the subject's notability has changed in the past 24 hours, and so there is no reason that this draft needs to be submitted for review.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Roger Currie and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Roger Currie (2nd nomination).

There is also a history of resubmissions that have been deleted as G4 resubmissions.

Does the author of this draft have any sort of financial or other connection with the subject of this draft? Please read the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy and make any required declarations.

You may ask for advice about conflict of interest at the Teahouse.

If this draft is resubmitted without addressing the question about conflict of interest, it may be Rejected or nominated for deletion.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:Alan Roger Currie

Draft:Alan Roger Currie, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Alan Roger Currie and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Alan Roger Currie during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:AlanRogerCurrie 2017.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AlanRogerCurrie 2017.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 02:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The portion that you deleted has been a long-standing part of the history of the Pickup Artist (PUA) industry. Dating Coach and Book Author Alan Roger Currie was arguably the very first critic of the manipulative and misleading tactics that the PUA community endorses and condones. To delete his name from this page is doing this page a grave disservice, and it appears highly personal and vindictive against Mr. Currie. My thoughts.Chicago Smooth (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The biography on Currie has been deleted three times at AFD. He is not notable, and should not be mentioned on the Pickup artist article. Especially not with a citation to a self published source. - MrOllie (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is your opinion, and the opinion of certain other editors. I would bet you thousands of dollars that no one who is a long-standing follower of the Attraction & Seduction Community / PUA Community would categorize Dating Coach Alan Roger Currie as "non-notable"; Currie is probably THEE most well-known African-American personality in the PUA Community. This man has been interviewed on national television and nationally syndicated broadcast radio. What other African-American dating coach or PUA has accomplished that?!? I will anxiously await your response Ollie. Chicago Smooth (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alan Roger Currie (May 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Alan Roger Currie and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Alan Roger Currie, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:AlanRogerCurrie 2020.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:AlanRogerCurrie 2020.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^(Talk • Contribs • Owner) 12:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:AlanRogerCurrie 2020.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AlanRogerCurrie 2020.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:AlanRogerCurrie 2020.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:AlanRogerCurrie 2020.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [e-mail], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [e-mail].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alan Roger Currie (July 27)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Chris troutman was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: The community has deleted this article multiple times and I see no claim of notability

Chris Troutman (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I simply do not understand how a wiki page can exist for 5+ years (February 2015 - June 2020) without controversy or problem, but then "all of the sudden," one or two editors decide that Book Author & YouTuber Alan Roger Currie is "no longer notable." That just does not make since to me. Because if Currie was truly "non-notable," why was his wiki page approved in 2015 in the first place, and why was he considered "notable" at that time?? Again, why did the page exist for over five years before being suggested for deletion? That just does not logically make sense! Chicago Smooth (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hardballing (January 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bonadea were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Hardballing and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Hardballing, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

bonadea contributions talk 20:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:AlanRogerCurrie 2020.jpg

The file File:AlanRogerCurrie 2020.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Uploaded for Alan Roger Currie. No other uses.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 05:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Hardballing

Hello, Chicago Smooth. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hardballing, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Hardballing

Hello, Chicago Smooth. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Hardballing".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^Read! Talk! 20:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice: gender-related controversies

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manosphere links

Greetings. Please double-check that the links you add to the "See also" section are not already present in the article. Also, what is the published source for the terms you say represent "major talking points" within the manosphere? Thanks. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why was "The 21 Convention" removed? I am very confused on that reversal. A lot of what goes on in 'the manosphere' BEGAN with The 21 Convention. In my strong opinion, the manosphere article is invalid and totally incomplete without any mention of The 21 Convention Chicago Smooth (talk) Chicago Smooth (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know you personally, and you don't know me personally ... and I understand you're just trying to be a "good editor," but I am going to do a little bit of "venting" right now: When it comes to at least two (2) of your articles - The Worldwide Manosphere article and Attraction & Seduction Community article, Wikipedia articles are GIVING CREDIT to a number of men who really don't deserve it, and NOT GIVING CREDIT to a few men WHO DO DESERVE IT.

Three examples:

1) Alan Roger Currie - Currie was the very first well-known African-American Dating Coach in the world. He was the very first person who began using the delineation between "Alpha males" and "Beta males" as far back as 1997. Currie had a Wikipedia article TWICE, and both were deleted (One article for his book, "Mode One" between 2007 and 2009, and then another article for his career as a book author and dating coach between 2015 and 2020) Among men who have been active in the worldwide manosphere for years, Currie is a LEGEND. But he is treated very disrespectfully by many of the Wikipedia.org editors. Over half of the talking points that Kevin Samuels used on his YouTube Livestreams before his death, he borrowed from Currie! Related: Nupe vs. Nupe: Examining the rift between Dating Coach Alan Roger Currie and Superstar YouTuber Kevin Samuels Many Pickup Artists (PUAs) and dating coaches for men blatantly stole a lot of Currie's material and talking points without giving him "proper credit attribution"

2) Anthony Johnson Johnson is the Founder of The 21 Convention, which is the most longest running weekend conference for heterosexual men active in the worldwide manosphere. There is no way you can have an article about the worldwide manosphere without mentioning Anthony Johnson and/or mentioning The 21 Convention It's bordering on being blasphemous.

3) The Black Manosphere A significant African-American sub-section of the worldwide manosphere is known as The Black Manosphere. It first rose to prominence in 2015 because of a number of audio podcasters and video podcasters. Related: Elle.com Discusses The Black Manosphere The aforementioned Kevin Samuels first gained his popularity in The Black Manosphere

Many of the editors are approving articles based solely and specifically on mainstream media mentions, but the reality is, a lot of those guys are not original. If many of these editors were truly active in either the worldwide manosphere and/or Black manosphere, they would know that everything I am saying is 100% valid

Thank you for time and attention to this reply. Much appreciated. Chicago Smooth (talk) Chicago Smooth (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP article contents need a published, reliable source to back them up. The only generally reliable source you cited was The New York Times, and it only mentions the 21 Convention in passing. Feel free to start a discussion on the article talk page to gain consensus for any other proposed additions, but first you may want to familiarize yourself with our policy of No original research. Thanks. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good. Thanks for the reply Chicago Smooth (talk) Chicago Smooth (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On a personal note, the manosphere article says the movement has been "associated with online harassment and has been implicated in radicalizing men into misogynist beliefs and the glorification of violence against women" and also "overlaps with white-supremacist and far-right ideologies, including the neoreactionary, white-nationalist alt-right movement", while the pickup artist movement "has been described as sexist, misogynistic and pseudoscientific". I would maybe think twice about whom you want to give credit to here. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the "FYI" . . . LOL. I am aware of both general public perceptions. The truth is, that is only one FACTION of the manosphere. Back in the day, the manosphere was known for encouraging single heterosexual men to engage in activities centered on personal development and self-improvement. Then, around 2012 or 2013, a lot of bitter, resentful, misogynist types began to infiltrate the manosphere, and subsequently, giving the manosphere a "bad" name and reputation related to what you mentioned. That is why I am trying to add things here on Wikipedia that provide more of a "balance" between the 'good' of the manosphere and the 'bad' of the manosphere #Respect Chicago Smooth (talk) Chicago Smooth (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]