Red-tailed hawk (talk | contribs) Tag: Reply |
PenmanWarrior (talk | contribs) →Campaign to eliminate Michele Evans from Wikipedia: asked for advise on non reading decliners |
||
Line 200: | Line 200: | ||
[[WP:ANI]] "Kathleen's bike (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)" |
[[WP:ANI]] "Kathleen's bike (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)" |
||
Line 215: | Line 214: | ||
'''"However, @Theroadislong, I am minded to reject if you agree? Qcne (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)"''' |
'''"However, @Theroadislong, I am minded to reject if you agree? Qcne (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)"''' |
||
---------------- |
---------------- |
||
Line 248: | Line 248: | ||
Editor resources |
Editor resources |
||
'''Declined by Theroadislong''' '''3 hours ago'''. Last edited by Theroadislong 2 seconds ago. Reviewer: Inform author." |
'''Declined by Theroadislong''' '''3 hours ago'''. Last edited by Theroadislong 2 seconds ago. Reviewer: Inform author." |
||
---------------- |
---------------- |
||
Line 264: | Line 265: | ||
*{{Ping|Caeciliusinhorto-public}} minimizes/reduces Evans contribution to [[Rikers Island]] Covid-19 section |
*{{Ping|Caeciliusinhorto-public}} minimizes/reduces Evans contribution to [[Rikers Island]] Covid-19 section |
||
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1209141675 |
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1209141675 |
||
---------------- |
---------------- |
||
Line 269: | Line 271: | ||
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1209359829 |
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1209359829 |
||
:There is a lot of incoherent grumbling here which nobody will read, you are free to take any gripes to [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]]. To be clear I have only reviewed your draft ONCE. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 14:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC) |
:There is a lot of incoherent grumbling here which nobody will read, you are free to take any gripes to [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]]. To be clear I have only reviewed your draft ONCE. [[User:Theroadislong|Theroadislong]] ([[User talk:Theroadislong|talk]]) 14:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC) |
||
----------------- |
|||
*Two editor's decline article and subsequently admit to not having read substantial sources |
|||
# {{Ping|Muboshgu}} |
|||
"PenmanWarrior, that NY Times piece from yesterday would add to her argument for passing WP:GNG, but I cannot tell how much as it is behind a paywall and I am not a subscriber. However, the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Evans appears to be overwhelming and I doubt one new piece will change that. Since the draft is basically identical to the deleted article, save for a sentence or two based on that new NYT article, I think it would be inappropriate to accept the draft. If you believe that the new NYT article changes things, make a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)" |
|||
# {{Ping|Thedayislong}} |
|||
"I do not have a subscription to either of these websites so cannot see the references. I have made valid comments about totally inappropriate content. You are free to re-submit I will not review the draft again. Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)" |
|||
I am a new editor but I can't imagine declining an article without reading MAJOR SOURCES is appropriate. Someone please advise. |
|||
== Your submission at [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for creation]]: [[Draft:Michele Evans|Michele Evans]] (February 21) == |
== Your submission at [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|Articles for creation]]: [[Draft:Michele Evans|Michele Evans]] (February 21) == |
Revision as of 14:37, 22 February 2024
Conflict of Interest
First of all, you need to be aware that creating sock puppets to circumvent a temporary block will get you a block indefinitely. If you are the same person as IP editor 69.117.93.145, you need to please stop what you are doing.
Secondly, I'll ask you the same question that was asked of IP editor 69.117.93.145; do you have a conflict of interest in editing the Michele Evans article?
Lastly, the content that you have restored to Michele Evans cites sources that do not even mention her. So they cannot be used to verify anything about her on the article. Citing sources that verify info about other people is pointless if there is nothing cited, other than Evan's own book, to connect them with her. And even if there was, this would constitute original synthesis, which is not permitted in Wikipedia. I'd also question the relevance of any of it. Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Nobody is sock puppeting. Please refrain from unfounded accusations. The sources do mention her. Your assertion they do not are ludacris. The kindle version of her book appears to be free to download. I have verified what you claim to be untrue. PenmanWarrior (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
January 2024
Hello, I'm Chaotic Enby. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Michele Evans have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 18:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
- Deleted documented facts takes more than your assertion they are not constructive. I am allowing you to explain your position in detail before you are reported/warned. PenmanWarrior (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Michele Evans. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 18:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Michele Evans (February 19)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/AFC-Logo_Decline.svg/50px-AFC-Logo_Decline.svg.png)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Michele Evans and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you do not edit your draft in the next 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
- https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html was not just a passing mention. Was a feature. Many other articles exist as well. Please review! PenmanWarrior (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Also: https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/ PenmanWarrior (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, PenmanWarrior!
Having an article draft 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! – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
|
- I submitted there. Please revise as this was done erroniously. The following are just a few articles about Evans. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html was not just a passing mention. Was a feature. Many other articles exist as well. Please review! PenmanWarrior (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Also: https://web.archive.org/web/20080430180657/http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/apr/23/parker-actress-road-to-dream-tv-gig-with-robin/ PenmanWarrior (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Proposed topic ban
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kathleen's bike (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Kathleen's bike:I advise you to stop cyber/wiki stalking me. Deleting my edits on Wikipedia Rikers Island? This will be addressed and you are given notice. PenmanWarrior (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @PenmanWarrior, please note that legal threats are prohibited on Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Qcne legal threats????? Please stop accusing me of things I did not do. This is getting absurd. I was told to give notice by Wikipedia talk:Stalking PenmanWarrior (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- That page hasn't been updated in eighteen years and is no longer in force. I will note that @Kathleen's bike did not stalk you. Qcne (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- I will note that she did. Please point me to a page that says the content at Wikipedia talk:Stalking is no longer valid. PenmanWarrior (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- The page now soft re-directs to Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding, which I am sure you can tell as that is what it states on the article page and not the article Talk page. Qcne (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm doing research. That is what came up on google. The harassment claim is also processing. Thank You! PenmanWarrior (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- The page now soft re-directs to Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding, which I am sure you can tell as that is what it states on the article page and not the article Talk page. Qcne (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- I will note that she did. Please point me to a page that says the content at Wikipedia talk:Stalking is no longer valid. PenmanWarrior (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- That page hasn't been updated in eighteen years and is no longer in force. I will note that @Kathleen's bike did not stalk you. Qcne (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Qcne legal threats????? Please stop accusing me of things I did not do. This is getting absurd. I was told to give notice by Wikipedia talk:Stalking PenmanWarrior (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @PenmanWarrior, please note that legal threats are prohibited on Wikipedia. Qcne (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Michele Evans
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1d/Information_icon4.svg/48px-Information_icon4.svg.png)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Draft:Michele Evans requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ''Flux55'' (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see this contest button. I don't even see a speedy deletion tag. I think it's been established, the person who declined this draft, did not even read the sources, by his own admission. The newly added content is a significant source and independent. Thank You PenmanWarrior (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
February 2024
![Stop icon with clock](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg/40px-Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg.png)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. DMacks (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)- @DMacks:??? Disruptive edits ??? Please explain PenmanWarrior (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- @DMacks: Please direct me to this 'Fluff Article' definition you are talking about. Is there some source you are drawing your conclusion from that I am not aware of? PenmanWarrior (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:FLUFF. ''Flux55'' (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Well then if that's DMacks source of why he is calling the Rocky Mountain News article Fluff, then clearly we have resolved it is not Fluff.
- ----
- @Flux55:I disagree that the article from the Rocky Mountain News is a fluff article. A fluff article is one that is superficial, trivial, or irrelevant to the topic. However, the article from the Rocky Mountain News is relevant, informative, and substantial. It provides significant coverage of Evans's career. It also gives some background information about her life and education. The article is not superficial or trivial, as it does not focus on gossip, rumors, or personal details that are unrelated to her work. It is not irrelevant, as it shows how Evans achieved success and recognition in a competitive and demanding field. Therefore, the article from the Rocky Mountain News is not a fluff article, but a reliable and independent source. PenmanWarrior (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- As another reviewer I agree with @Flux55 that the Rocky Mountain News article is "fluff". There is no indication of notability to be derived from it - it could be used to cite some of her early career information but cannot be used as a source by itself to show notability. Qcne (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- @QcneI'm not sure @Flux55 said it was fluff or he was just pointing to what @DMacks refused to answer. At this point, I have to note you as a hostile commentator. In addition to you incessantly posting to my talk page, you suggested I should be barred from writing about a subject simply because you did not like my valid question to you. Can you please place your energy and focus somewhere other than on me? Thank you! PS. Nobody says the source was used by itself. Currently, there are 58 sources on the page. PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- As another reviewer I agree with @Flux55 that the Rocky Mountain News article is "fluff". There is no indication of notability to be derived from it - it could be used to cite some of her early career information but cannot be used as a source by itself to show notability. Qcne (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:FLUFF. ''Flux55'' (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Talk-pages of blocked editors are only for use to appeal the block, not to continue discussions of article content (which I note continues the CIR/IDHT that led to the block). Therefore, I will not be responding to any of that latter sort of question at this time. DMacks (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Michele Evans (February 20)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/AFC-Logo_Decline.svg/50px-AFC-Logo_Decline.svg.png)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Michele Evans and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you do not edit your draft in the next 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
PenmanWarrior (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This came out of nowhere.
I have been adding valid great sources. Totally confused here as to why adding the New York Times and Rocky Mountain News is considered disruptive.PenmanWarrior (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This came out of the WP:ANI thread. If you do not understand why your action are disruptive, there are no grounds for lifting the block. PhilKnight (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
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.
@PhilKnight: --- I don't understand for the following reasons:
The new article written yesterday by The New York Times is a significant development which warrants a revisit and provides sufficient evidence of the subjects notability for Wikipedia standards. The article meets the following criteria for a reliable and independent source:
- It provides significant coverage of Evans and her personal story as a former inmate at Rikers Island who became an author. It describes the main themes and messages of her book, the challenges and opportunities she faced in writing and publishing it etc.
- It is reliable, as The New York Times is a well-known and respected newspaper that has a high editorial standard and a reputation for accuracy and integrity. It is not a self-published or questionable source that lacks credibility or verification.
- It is independent of the subject, as it is not connected to Evans or her book in any way. It is not a press release, a review, an interview, or a promotional piece that is intended to endorse or advertise her book. It is a neutral and objective report that presents both the positive and negative aspects of her story and her work.
- It provides photos taken by the New York Times which are prominently featured at the beginning and throughout the article.
- It is secondary, as it is not a primary source that directly reflects Evans's own views or experiences. It is a journalistic article that analyzes and evaluates her book and her story from an external perspective, using multiple sources of information and evidence.
The article from The New York Times passes the notability check for Wikipedia inclusion, and can be used as a reliable and independent source to support the creation or improvement of a Wikipedia article about Evans or her book.
This new Rocky Mountain News article supports Michele Evans's Wikipedia notability in the following ways:
- It provides significant coverage of Evans's career.
- It is reliable, as it is from the Rocky Mountain News, a reputable newspaper that was published in Denver, Colorado from 1859 to 2009. It is not a self-published or questionable source that lacks credibility or verification.
- It is independent of the subject, as it is not connected to Evans in any way. It is not a press release, a review, or a promotional piece that is intended to endorse or advertise her work. It is a neutral and objective report.
- It is secondary, as it is not a primary source that directly reflects Evans's own views or experiences. It is a journalistic article.
I disagree that the article from the Rocky Mountain News is a fluff article. A fluff article is one that is superficial, trivial, or irrelevant to the topic. However, the article from the Rocky Mountain News is relevant, informative, and substantial. It provides significant coverage of Evans's career. It also gives some background information about her life and education. The article is not superficial or trivial, as it does not focus on gossip, rumors, or personal details that are unrelated to her work. It is not irrelevant, as it shows how Evans achieved success and recognition in a competitive and demanding field. Therefore, the article from the Rocky Mountain News is not a fluff article, but a reliable and independent source.
In addition the complaints of me simply responding to alerts I get are being phrased as me doing something wrong. As a new editor, there are many things I am unaware of, as to be expected. A certain amount of consideration should be afforded me, instead of attacking me and making it into something it's not. How am I supposed to know responding to an alert I get is frowned upon??? I ask a simple valid question and an editor decides they don't like it, therefore I am branded as doing something wrong?? I'm just lost here. Am I not supposed to say anything???
The assertion by the user who launched the complaint about me you mention, that they thought they were 'done with this' is quite disturbing and reveals the users serious bias that the subject could never accomplish anything in the future. This is not a trivial thing!
Luckily we live in a time of technology! I have run the new articles provided against the posted rules of wikipedia, especially the notability criteria, claimed to be missing. Every time, the unbiased technology concludes the two new articles pass this criteria and even list out the reasons why they resolve the notability complaint lodged against this wiki page.
- See WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS and WP:TOOSOON please! Additonally, try to contribute elsewhere after your block. Just because she may be notable enough for a Wikipedia article in the future doesn't mean she needs one now.''Flux55'' (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Campaign to eliminate Michele Evans from Wikipedia
Recently became aware of multiple editors attempting to eliminate Ms. Evans from Wikipedia. This must stop! Will be adding details. PenmanWarrior (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
@Kathleen's bike: violates Wikipedia standards again: WP:BLUDGEON, edit warring, disruptive editing
While technically not done within the 24hr timeframe, the essence of, three-revert rule was also enacted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1196841532
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1208941127
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1209368498
Kathleen's bike claimed "See guidance at WP:ON:US regarding the repeated restoration of content whose inclusion has been disputed" However only one restoration had been made and the inclusion of this book in Rikers Island had never been disputed.
Kathleen's bike also recommended deletion of Michele Evans
"Delete Escape Orbit summarises things easily enough, fails notability guidelines at the present time. Kathleen's bike (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)"
@Escape Orbit: comments Kathleen's bike was referring to: "Author. Self published only, so unlikely to be notable Software Engineer. Not notable. Creating Tiger Woods' website is not sufficient, and source cited does not support this claim. Sports Reporter. Possibly, but entirely unsourced and almost purposely vague. A single op-ed in The New York Times written by her."
Escape Orbit continues: "Again we are agreed. The sources currently on the article are not adequate in demonstrating notability. So I urge you to find the existence of suitable sources, and the matter will be resolved. Others have tried and failed. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)"
Kathleen's bike herself admits Escape Orbit sumarises things. Escape Orbit said this would be resolved. His issues were addressed with the introduction of the new articles:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html
It is resolved. Escape Orbit has been asked to stick by his word and resolve as promised, but as of this writing, has not.
In addition Kathleen's bike violated Harrasment
Hounding WP:HOUND WP:HOUNDING WP:WIKIHOUNDING WP:FOLLOWING Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.
Kathleen's bike engaged in "an attempted outing". Stated belief of editor's identity/real name and even opened a complaint to do so in order to enhance this alleged outing.
WP:ANI "Kathleen's bike (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)"
On the subject of not sticking to promises:
- @Qcne: after promising to leave alone, comes back next day and threatens to decline article Michele Evans:
"I have to note you as a hostile commentator. In addition to you incessantly posting to my talk page, you suggested I should be barred from writing about a subject simply because you did not like my valid question to you. Can you please place your energy and focus somewhere other than on me? Thank you! PS. Nobody says the source was used by itself. Currently, there are 58 sources on the page. PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)"
"Sure thing, I'll leave you alone. Good luck with your draft. Qcne (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)" PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
"However, @Theroadislong, I am minded to reject if you agree? Qcne (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)"
- @Theroadislong: declines article, refuses to answer requests to address major sources, goes back add multiple non-major comments to article, finally admits did not read sources and then re-declines article after twice insisting he wasn't going to review again:
"Sorry I have no idea what you are referring to, you can submit for review and another reviewer will take a look, I will not review again. Theroadislong (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)"
Theroadislong refuses/won't/doesn't respond to requests to address major source and instead goes back and adds comments to article:
- 'Comment: Ridiculous weird content about distant relatives and ancestors is not remotely helpful. Theroadislong (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)'
- 'Comment: As noted elsewhere "Her software engineering does not make her notable. Her self-published books do not make her notable. Her filming work does not seem to make her notable. Her personal life (death of daughter, grandfather, lawsuit, etc) do not make her notable." Theroadislong (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)'
- 'Comment: There are still 17 links to her own books and Amazon profiles which are NOT required and other sources which do not mention her, hack it back to the reliable independent sources and report on what they say. Theroadislong (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)'
- 'Comment: A large number of these sources make no mention of Evans whatsoever, references to her own work are not required and see WP:REFBOMBING. Theroadislong (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)'
Finally, Theroadislong admits:
"I do not have a subscription to either of these websites so cannot see the references. I have made valid comments about totally inappropriate content. You are free to re-submit I will not review the draft again. Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)"
"Ok, yet another editor admitting they did not read the sources before declining the article. A pattern has emerged. PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)"
Theroadislong then goes back and declines the article after saying twice he would not review the article again.
"Submission declined on 21 February 2024 by Theroadislong (talk). This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted. If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted. Where to get help How to improve a draft Improving your odds of a speedy review Editor resources Declined by Theroadislong 3 hours ago. Last edited by Theroadislong 2 seconds ago. Reviewer: Inform author."
- User talk:69.117.93.145 was blocked for edit warring things/edits involving Michele Evans by:
"Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)"
I would ask @Daniel Case: to equally block Kathleen's bike for edit warring and violating other Wikipedia standards.
While you are doing that a WP:BLUDGEON review is warranted for @Theroadislong: and @Qcne: and any other actions I may not be aware of. Also please advise how to handle/report Kathleen's bike for the above-stated behavior as I am a new editor.
- @Caeciliusinhorto-public: minimizes/reduces Evans contribution to Rikers Island Covid-19 section
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1209141675
- Curiously ref to Evans' New York Times is deleted in Rikers Island
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rikers_Island&diff=prev&oldid=1209359829
- There is a lot of incoherent grumbling here which nobody will read, you are free to take any gripes to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. To be clear I have only reviewed your draft ONCE. Theroadislong (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Two editor's decline article and subsequently admit to not having read substantial sources
- @Muboshgu:
"PenmanWarrior, that NY Times piece from yesterday would add to her argument for passing WP:GNG, but I cannot tell how much as it is behind a paywall and I am not a subscriber. However, the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Evans appears to be overwhelming and I doubt one new piece will change that. Since the draft is basically identical to the deleted article, save for a sentence or two based on that new NYT article, I think it would be inappropriate to accept the draft. If you believe that the new NYT article changes things, make a request at Wikipedia:Deletion review. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)"
"I do not have a subscription to either of these websites so cannot see the references. I have made valid comments about totally inappropriate content. You are free to re-submit I will not review the draft again. Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)"
I am a new editor but I can't imagine declining an article without reading MAJOR SOURCES is appropriate. Someone please advise.
Your submission at Articles for creation: Michele Evans (February 21)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/AFC-Logo_Decline.svg/50px-AFC-Logo_Decline.svg.png)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Michele Evans and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you do not edit your draft in the next 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 or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
- Please explain. At this point there are 59 cited sources including major sources. PenmanWarrior (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- And that is part of the problem, a large number of these sources make no mention of Evans whatsoever, references to her own work are not required and see WP:REFBOMBING. Theroadislong (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Addressed your concern and republished it. It's interesting to note a closing of the deletion review was done with fictious statements/reasons that there had been a topic ban placed on me. Wich wasn't true, since I've since republished it after addressing your concerns. Please advise how I should proceed to handle this inappropriate situation. PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry I have no idea what you are referring to, you can submit for review and another reviewer will take a look, I will not review again. Theroadislong (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean you have no idea what I'm referring to? I'm replying to your comment. I'm curious why instead of responding and choosing to advise on a valid situation in which I asked for your help, you instead chose to inundate the article in question with comments. You refuse to acknowledge the major sources that have been provided and do make her notable. You complained about too many references with links that do make her notable. Instead of trying to pick apart the article with minor stuff, please address the major stuff that was requested of you and again asked here. I have been accused of unwillingness to work with editors and I believe this reflects the untruthfulness of that assertion. I am new. I am asking for advice. PenmanWarrior (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Addressed your concern and republished it. It's interesting to note a closing of the deletion review was done with fictious statements/reasons that there had been a topic ban placed on me. Wich wasn't true, since I've since republished it after addressing your concerns. Please advise how I should proceed to handle this inappropriate situation. PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- And that is part of the problem, a large number of these sources make no mention of Evans whatsoever, references to her own work are not required and see WP:REFBOMBING. Theroadislong (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:Michele Evans has a new comment
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/AFC-Logo.svg/50px-AFC-Logo.svg.png)
- Address major sources please as you have not done so. PenmanWarrior (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:Michele Evans has a new comment
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/AFC-Logo.svg/50px-AFC-Logo.svg.png)
- Address major sources please as you have not done so. PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:Michele Evans has a new comment
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/AFC-Logo.svg/50px-AFC-Logo.svg.png)
- Address major sources please as you have not done so. PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Courtesy pinging @Theroadislong who would not get notified of this reply otherwise.
- However, @Theroadislong, I am minded to reject if you agree? Qcne (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Qcne I have already noted you as hostel towards this issue. Please refer to yesterday's conversation. You promised to stop and leave me alone. Any other editor, please help and please advise on how to handle this so I don't get accused of doing it wrong! PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't argue with rejection. The article is not improving, ridiculous weird content about distant relatives and ancestors, refbombing and failure to pass any flavour of WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Theroadislong Please answer repeated requests. Also ref bombing definition could be argued and was addressed to suit your complaint. PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The best sources seem to be the new articles in the New York Times and The Times. Both of their coverage of Evans seems to primarily be quoted directly from her own statements, though, so I'm not convinced that they are the independent sources needed for GNG. If it were to go into mainspace, it could do with some serious trimming to focus on the actual subject of the article: of the eight sentences discussing the death of Evans' niece, for instance, six of them have apparently nothing to do with Evans Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Trim away. Nobody is stopping you. It seems Evans' controversial status seems to be the issue here at this point. Major concerns have been addressed.
- "Again we are agreed. The sources currently on the article are not adequate in demonstrating notability. So I urge you to find the existence of suitable sources, and the matter will be resolved. Others have tried and failed. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)"
- @Escape Orbit asked me to find suitable sources, which I did. He declared the matter will be resolved. Escape Orbit. I ask you to stick by your word. PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't argue with rejection. The article is not improving, ridiculous weird content about distant relatives and ancestors, refbombing and failure to pass any flavour of WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Sure thing, I'll leave you alone. Good luck with your draft. Qcne (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)" PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Qcne I have already noted you as hostel towards this issue. Please refer to yesterday's conversation. You promised to stop and leave me alone. Any other editor, please help and please advise on how to handle this so I don't get accused of doing it wrong! PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:Michele Evans has a new comment
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/AFC-Logo.svg/50px-AFC-Logo.svg.png)
- Questioning the content of Evans' novel seems inappropriate. Perhaps reading the novel and realizing this info is gleaned directly from a published source would benefit an editor before looking ill-prepared. PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- At this point, I could point out Wikipedia violations. Hammering away instead of answering valid questions in regards to major sources provided.
- https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/creative-rikers-island-inmates-writing-books-to-pass-the-time-hfbkdpkzb
- https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/nyregion/rikers-island-authors.html PenmanWarrior (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- I do not have a subscription to either of these websites so cannot see the references. I have made valid comments about totally inappropriate content. You are free to re-submit I will not review the draft again. Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, yet another editor admitting they did not read the sources before declining the article. A pattern has emerged. PenmanWarrior (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- I do not have a subscription to either of these websites so cannot see the references. I have made valid comments about totally inappropriate content. You are free to re-submit I will not review the draft again. Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Re: Your question on appeal
Hello PenmanWarrior,
I noticed that you left this comment on the deletion review noticeboard after your request for a review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Evans was closed with the deletion endorsed by the community. Your comment asks How do I appeal?
, saying that you have found additional sourcing.
As it stands, that discussion was your appeal, and your appeal was declined by the community. I note that you are active at Draft:Michele Evans, where you are working to try to bring the article up to standards. What would help the reviewers on that draft might be something simple: if you were to go to the draft's talk page and list the three best sources you have for demonstrating significant coverage of this individual by independent reliable sources, along a brief (two-to-three succinct sentences) explanation on why you think those sources demonstrate significant coverage, that would be helpful. If all three of the best sources are in the context of one event, you may want to include a fourth source that provides significant coverage in some other context.
I can't guarantee that the article will be accepted, but structuring your arguments in this way will be more clear to reviewers than they are presently.
Cheers,
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Red-tailed hawk A speedy delete was used to circumvent the new substantial source being addressed. Time was not being wasted as good reliable sources were being addressed. This was an abuse of process and the article never got a chance to be properly considered.
- Will add your suggestions to the article's talk page. Thank You. PenmanWarrior (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see a speedy deletion as having been used on the article; the only deletion log for the article I can find is this one, which clearly states that this was done pursuant to consensus in an Articles for Deletion discussion. The deleted article's talk page was speedily deleted as a page dependent on the deleted article (see:
Talk pages with no corresponding subject page
), but that speedy deletion seems to be correct. - Is there some other page I am missing here? I've looked through your deleted contributions, and I can't find any page that you have edited and was deleted except for the article at Michele Evans. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see a speedy deletion as having been used on the article; the only deletion log for the article I can find is this one, which clearly states that this was done pursuant to consensus in an Articles for Deletion discussion. The deleted article's talk page was speedily deleted as a page dependent on the deleted article (see: