User talk:KingOwnageXV

March 2020

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Legacies (TV series). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood ma'am / sir. I thought you were griefing, I was understandably upset. Griefers ruin entire pages that people have worked hard to build. KingOwnageXV (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Datan Hopson moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Datan Hopson, 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. John B123 (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I just created it when you moved it. it should have enough sources now. KingOwnageXV (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:KingOwnageXV - What sources? I don't see them. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sources section now showing where I got all my information. Datan Hopson is referenced in 3 different wikipedia articles that are very popular and it was requested that I create a wikipedia page for him. KingOwnageXV (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Datan Hopson (August 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Robert McClenon 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:Datan Hopson 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:Datan Hopson, 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, 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KingOwnageXV! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Datan Hopson (August 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AaqibAnjum 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:Datan Hopson 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:Datan Hopson, 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, 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.

Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 05:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove maintenance templates without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Draft:Datan Hopson, you may be blocked from editing. Removing the record of AFC declines twice. AFC decline notices say that they should not be removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted a contest then I edited the page to comply with certain demands it does not need to be removed. Please quit harassing and disruptively editing the page I'm working on. Anytime it doesn't meet wikipedias criteria I will edit it until it does but do not request a deletion of the page I'm working on because I didn't get it right the first time. Now please stop the disruptive editing KingOwnageXV (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at Draft:Datan Hopson. You have been told where to contest the speedy deletion. David Biddulph (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Datan Hopson (August 25)

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:

See Referencing for Beginners and the instructions on footnotes. In-line citations are required in biographies of living persons.

Please revise this draft with properly formatted footnotes before resubmitting. You may ask for advice on references at the Teahouse.

In the absence of proper footnotes, this draft does not establish biographical notability.

This draft has been Rejected by a reviewer in the Articles for Creation review process. DO NOT resubmit this draft or attempt to resubmit this draft or prepare or submit a draft that is substantially the same as this draft without discussing the reasons for the rejection. You may request a discussion with the rejecting reviewer, or you may request a discussion with the community at the Teahouse. A discussion will not necessarily agree to a resubmission. If this draft is resubmitted, or an attempt is made to resubmit this draft or an equivalent draft, without addressing the reasons for the Rejection, a topic-ban or a partial block may be requested against the submitting editor, and the draft may be nominated for deletion.

You may ask for advice about Rejection at the Teahouse.

The subject may or may not be notable, but this draft is not about to satisfy notability, and it is a waste of the time of the author and the reviewers to allow continued resubmission when the author is not addressing Wikipedia guidelines.

Robert McClenon (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft article concerns: Draft:Datan Hopson

At Draft talk:Datan Hopson I have said that I am happy to review this contested deletion and will give you the benefit of the doubt for a very short while, but you are flouncing over all our policies, especially with regard copyright material, promotion, and removing Speedy Deletion notices yourself. I note the following. Please read and act on all the bullet points in the next day or so if you don't want me coming back and deleting it. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nick, I'm not trying to violate any rules if the page I am currently working on doesn't meet wikipedias criteria I am always willing to edit it but I'm not willing to tolerate some impatient ass trying to request that my post be deleted. I've worked quite hard on it and will continue to improve and change what I asked of me but the speedy deletion request was just rude and unfounded

No, it was quite reasonabe, bearing in mind the terribly promotional content you added, none of which has yet followed our guidelines. You may not think it, but I am being incredibly patient in not deleting the article so that you can try and work on it. Robert McClenon was acting quite reasonably tow flag this up as not only not notable, but also purely promotional. And those were not nice words to use against one of our volunteers. Please be more WP:CIVIL. I am convinced you are wasting your time, as you are still completely failing to follow any of our formatting, and you must use inline citaionts for biographies of living people. But most importnatly, thus far, not one of your reference links provides one ounce of anything to meet our essential notabilty criteria. See WP:NBIO. Mere passing mentions like you've given us so far from sufficient - we need some substantial independent coverage which talk about him in detail. Interviews, social media, work websites are not acceptable. If you can't put two or three in pretty quickly, this draft is doomed, I'm afraid. Bear in mind that, whilst I am not yet deleting this article, another admin may well feel you're just trying to promote a non-notable person and remove it at any time. So the quicker you address the lack of notable references, the more chance you may have. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't say something such as "thats not a nice way to treat one of our volunteers" I don't give respect based on occupation and I'm not questioning what he did but the way he delivered his message when he did what he did was blatantly passive aggressive and I did find it disrespectful.

Other than Robert's unprofessionalism, I'm very confused on wikipedia's guidelines on what they consider sources. Interviews don't count, social media doesn't count, granted a notable figure saying something about themselves in an interview or in a social media post should be valid because its them saying it but whatever I'll remove my logical analysis because even if it doesn't make sense rules are rules. So what kind of sources do I need if everything you said is invalid? KingOwnageXV (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to remember is that we have hundreds of people every day like you thinking they can create a page about their boss, mate, work colleague, friend, themselves, without any understanding of our policies and our guidelines. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of notable topics, not listings for half the worlds population to promote themselves. All of us are volunteers, and we have to spend a lot of time reading and reviewing half-formed pages like this and responding to wholly unready and promotional content, not to mention dealing with pure vandalism and trolling from others. When we communicate we cannot pander to everyone's sensibilites and sensitivities, so what you interpret as unprofessional passive/aggressiveness from one of our hardest working editors like Robert, I see as a reasonable attempt to inform you that you are wasting your time, and often we mostly have to use templated messages with short additional annotations. Quite why I am helping you over everyone else who charges in with no real clue, I have no idea. But here I am, and I repeat my request to you not to insult other editors by getting on your high horse about 'unprofessionalism'. :Yes, it is incredibly clear that you are confused, so perhaps you should have started off by learning how Wikipedia works by making small edits at first and learning how things work befor emabrking on the hardest task of creating a new article from scratch. That's what most serious editors do. Doing it without any practice or understanding of our requirements is like you heading off in a fast car, never having driven before, then complaining that the traffic cops are 'unprofessional asses' for pulling you over. That's not disrespectful passive/aggressiveness- it's politelybut firmly telling you that you're driving incompetently and are going to crash if you try to carry on without learning how the car operates.

Anyway, where was I? Oh yes - Sources. Wikipedia doesn't have any interest whatsoever in what a person says about themselves, only what other sources with editorial control have written or said about that person. Thus, you need to come up with independent, in-depth articles that have written about this person in some detail.Books, magazines, newsmedia, journals are typical sources, providing they're not autobiographies. Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources to understand more, then read Wikipedia:Notability (people) to understand how people meeet - or fail to meet those critieria. If you can't come up with two or three such sources, then your time here - and mine - has been wasted. Sorry to be blunt, but that's where we are. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use wikipedia much, I just build websites so I was told to make a page for some people who people knew but didn't know a lot about. They obviously hired the wrong person because I don't know how to create a page with all the tedious guidelines wikipedia has so you may delete the page and they can hire another person to do it if they care enough. I certainly don't care enough to pull sources out of my ass since what a person says in a social media post or an interview some how isn't a "reliable source wikipedia will accept" I no longer care because this site has proven to be devoid of any logic with that very role. I've also seen significantly less notable people get wikipedia pages dedicated to them, so your first excuse (which I stopped reading after that point) was bogus. It's easy to write someone off as irrelevant or a friend of someone to avoid real criticism/confrontation but I do not care if they get a page or not. Seriously delete it I don't get paid enough for this, but never talk about notability when c list celebs get pages and a list cinematographers on award winning shows don't get any just because they're not the ones infront of a camera. The page was made because other cinematophers wanted to replicate his work because its unique in the industry, but if wikipedia will only allow something based off of how much people post about it then I disagree with their metric of notability because because that isn't nearly as important as the importance of their role and the impact of their work - obviously no one is going to write about something like famous cinematophers because it wouldn't get clicks but that doesn't mean they don't deserve dedicated pages as opposed to directors, producers, special effects artists, etc. They're either going to send someone more qualified to write this or post it on another site anyways but it's no longer my issue anymore luckily, thank you for releasing me from my burden. Have a good day KingOwnageXV (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been deleted, so do, please, tell them to do the latter. It would be a pointless exercise to attempt that again. LinkedIn would be a better option. You have wasted a lot of good volunteers' time here, and your lack of competence to understand or adhere to even the most basic of our policies sadly ran through almost everything you did here. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No they wasted my time, and you also wasted my time, not once has anyone explained the insanely irrational logic behind what is a reliable source and what isn't. You literally told me someone saying something about themselves in an interview or social media post wasn't a reliable source, and after reading that I realized how insanely stupid the people who run this site are because that makes no sense. I do not care that it was removed, but the reason for removal (advertising/promotion) was definitely bs, no ones trying to promote an already notable figure I was only trying to create a place where someone can read about him so they could learn more. Wikipedia is not the place to do that apparently, other sites will suffice as a place to read about people want to know about and I'll tell them to look into that. Have a good day KingOwnageXV (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Draft:Datan Hopson. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. David Biddulph (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Carr Collins Sr., you may be blocked from editing. Copying the messages left to you by Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) onto one of his own articles to try and get it deleted is not at all helping show why your own page should be included. You've received a significant amount of feedback from several editors now, try and actually improve Draft:Datan Hopson by adding reliable sources rather than just lashing out at the volunteer reviewers who are just trying to help you get your draft accepted. Nathan2055^talk - contribs 23:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I AGREE. After all the help I've been trying to give you, you go and pull this stupid stunt and then this one. You will definitely be blocked if you do something like that again! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]