Hi AlejandroLeloirRey! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes ( talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Carlo Masi, from its old location at User:AlejandroLeloirRey/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Sulfurboy ( talk) 18:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

There's at most very weak evidence of notability as aa performer, and none for notability as a professor.

Any notability therefore would come rom the news coverage of the unusual combination.

The article is moreover written as a press release for him--see the many adjectives, the unnecessary photos, and way is legal case is described.

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:Carlo Masi 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:Carlo Masi, 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.

DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply

@ DGG: Hallo, I made some changes. I deleted everything that could sound "celebrative". Speaking of the relevance of Carlo Masi as a porn star, as is written in the Bio, he has been one of the most important COLT Man ever, indeed he is the only one called "Emeritus" as an honor(see the bio). Plus, he is relevant also outside porn for this combination of porn and academic career. It would be very helpful to me if you could tell me a gay porn star bio on wikipedia that you judge a good bio so I can get "inspiration". i would appreciate if you could give me more advise on how improve the bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk • contribs) 10:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC) reply

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 QueerEcofeminist was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 09:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ QueerEcofeminist: hallo, I am very surprised for your rejection. Can I ask you what it is based on so that in the future I don't waist time on writing not relevant pages? I gave a look to the other gay porn stars on wikipedia and most of them are way less relevant than Carlo Masi, who was the most important model at colt studio for almost a decade, who has his biography written by a Strega Prize (walter siti, 2013) and whose story has been told by the most important news paper, magazines and web sites from all around the world. recently I was told that the biography, the way it was written, sounded too much celebrative so I decided to delete most of these things. Moreover, isn't there a unique standard for all the wikipedia in the different languages? his biography is in other wikipedia also (Spanish, Italian, French, Polish). Thank you for the help. ps. adding info or changing something could make any difference or this is a final decision on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk • contribs) 11:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello, AlejandroLeloirRey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Please pay special attention to that last recommendation about typing four tildes; I notice you forgot to sign your posts before (they have been added for you), so please do remember: place ~~~~ at the end of every one of your messages, okay? Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 06:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply

thank you very much. yes, i know. forgetting to sign my posts is something I do way too often, sometime I go back to them and sign them but I should pay way more attention to it.-- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 08:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Carlo Masi. Thanks! Theroadislong ( talk) 12:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Theroadislong: yes, this is probably the best choice. did you already put it in the AfD? will I get a message when you did? if the draft survives the AFD means that it will be published or will I simply get back here? thank you-- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 14:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carlo Masi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlo Masi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Theroadislong ( talk) 18:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Theroadislong: I thought you gave a look to the other gay porn stars pages and saw it made no sense to question mine. Anyway, thank you for your help. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 19:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

See Help:My article got nominated for deletion! for help with the WP:afd process. Theroadislong ( talk) 19:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Theroadislong: wow, a lot to read :-) hopefully my english will improve. Thank you very much and please if I do something I shouldn-t do be patient and let me know. thank you. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 20:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello, AlejandroLeloirRey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Carlo Masi did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome.  TJMSmith ( talk) 22:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Please do not cite other wikipedia articles (regardless of the language). They are not reliable sources. TJMSmith ( talk) 22:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi Alejandro, I have a suggestion for you about the Carlo Masi deletion discussion. I voted to keep — I think that you've made a good case for the sources, and more people will vote keep. My advice is: don't post on that page for a little while. You shouldn't respond to everyone who votes to delete. Check out this essay -- WP:BLUDGEON. If you post too much, it makes you look like you're not confident in your argument. The strong argument will convince people on its own. You don't have to repeat it. You just have to be patient, and give people time to look at the page and vote keep.

I hope that this is helpful. Let me know if I can help with something. Thank you. — Toughpigs ( talk) 23:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Toughpigs: gosh, being patient is definitely not my thing but I can see your point and I will follow your advise. thank you very much for supporting. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 00:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Excellent, I'm glad I can help. :) — Toughpigs ( talk) 00:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Toughpigs: Can I complain here with you about the "delete" messages I get just to vent? not offending anybody -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 08:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes, you can. It can be very frustrating. -- Toughpigs ( talk) 14:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Toughpigs: isn't it a clear conflict the fact that /info/en/?search=User:Johnpacklambert votes? I mean, on his page he says that he is a member of Latter Day Saint movement... and he gives the same opinion about any porn actor considered for deletion. how many chances there are that a member of Latter Day Saint movement would know how much notable Carlo was a gay porn actor? thank you :-) -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 14:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I can assure you that a user's beliefs will have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the final admins decision making process, the article will be judged on policy and guidelines. Theroadislong ( talk) 14:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Theroadislong: well, the opinion of a ultra religious person about gay pornography is quite obvious, especially if you consider that he has posted the same opinion on every porn actor up for deletion. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 14:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Johnpacklambert actually votes delete on pretty much everything. :) He is well-known for posting the same three to four words on many deletion discussions every day: "a non-notable tennis player", "a non-notable actress", etc. It's not a real argument, just a vote, which doesn't count as much. But -- this is very important -- you should not look at other people's user pages and try to argue that they're biased based on their personal characteristics. It's considered a personal attack -- see WP:NPA. You can actually get in trouble for doing that, and it won't help.

I understand how hard and frustrating this can be, to have people criticizing your work. Sometimes it feels like you're being attacked, and you want to fight back. :) But I see that someone else has just voted keep in the discussion. If you're patient and you don't post on that page anymore, other people will come and vote keep. It will be okay. —  Toughpigs ( talk) 14:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Toughpigs: you are right, sometime is hard. Not much for being criticized but more because the critics seems to be pretty random. When I read that the subject is not notable and than I read that to be notable you need to have a wide coverage and I see Carlo's name on national newspapers, books, magazines and tv shows from all around the world I can only wonder what the f.

I can't see generally why one can't tell a member of the KKK to be opinionated in a discussing of racial problems. once again, if you say don't do it, than i will not do it :-) thank you for the advises.-- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 08:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Toughpigs: hi, I think I have improved quite much the sourcing of his porn career and from the deletion discussion it seems that some are concerned with his notability apart from the porn actor-professor story. is there the need to let people know in the discussion that the has been improved? if yes, how should I do it? thank you-- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 19:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

The people who have voted so far have made up their minds, so don't worry about them. The people who matter now are the new people seeing the discussion for the first time. They'll look at the article, see the improved sources, and make their own decision. So the work you're doing on the article is very helpful — as you improve the article, there will be more people willing to support it.

But if you post "I have new sources" in the deletion discussion, one of the people who's already voted delete will probably write another two paragraphs explaining why your new sources aren't good, either. Once people start saying that, they usually keep saying it, no matter what the new sources say. So posting more in the discussion is just going to give them another opportunity to say that it should be deleted. It's a hard thing to do — staying quiet when you know that you're working really hard, and people are saying mean things. But that's what you have to do, if you want to be successful. :) Just focus on improving the article. —  Toughpigs ( talk) 19:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Toughpigs: Something that confuses me: Now I have a ridiculous number of source for this bio, can you give them a look and let me know if they are too many? plus, I have used sources of which i am not 100% sure would be judged as reliable. is it better to use one extra source even if you are not sure what is the community opinion about that source or better not to use it? please notice that I didn't use any blog, social or other stuff that is obviously unreliable but only lately I found out that stuff like daily mail is considered a very bad source. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 20:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

See WP:REFBOMB for more advice, but generally I agree with the excellent advice above "Just focus on improving the article" Theroadislong ( talk) 20:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Theroadislong: I will read it right away, just to be clear each source I have uploaded is perfectly pertinent. I spent a lot of energy to put the articles in the best spot and they are either articles entirely on the subject or entirely about the event mentioned in the line where the citation occurs. the problem is also that from some guidelines it seems that a porn star has to be as famous as an Hollywood (good) actor which obviously doesn't apply to any porn star ever. I am fine with that but this would simply mean that we need to delete any porn star profile on wikipedia. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 21:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Leave it alone. It's okay. Someone else just came and voted keep. If you leave it the way it is and just be patient, there's a good chance the article will be kept. If you can't be patient and you keep pushing, then you will make it more likely to be deleted. The #1 Best Thing for you to do is to go and think about something else for a while. You need to be able to let some days pass without working on it or talking about it. It will still be here two days from now. — Toughpigs ( talk) 21:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Toughpigs: lol, hallo, its corona virus time :-( I am locked up in my apartment and thank god I had this to keep me company lol thank you for the advise-- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 21:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I know! It's hard. :) But you've done good work. — Toughpigs ( talk) 22:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlo Masi—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist ( talk) 08:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC) @ Materialscientist: I am sorry, I am trying to follow the rules. I read that I shouldn't change the flow of the conversation and I know I shouldn't answer every single person. I was unsure if it was ok to add something to my previous post. now I know and I will no do that again. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 08:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC) reply

For your edits on Sagat, I strongly agree that an article can be improved by strongly pruning inappropriate content. David notMD ( talk) 00:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ David notMD: thank you, I think I did a fair job. Sagat bio has the right to be here but it really looked like more as an advertisement for him. things have changed a lot in wikipedia so there are plenty of bios online today which would deserve a speedy deletion (not Sagat's) but they get away only because they are already online. nevertheless some of theme can be saved but they need restructuring. on Sagat bio there are still a lot of statements with no sourcing or with very poor sourcing and generally it doesn't have one source that covers a big part of the subject. basically he has 2-3 articles on good new papers about specific events and that is it. I still don't know what do with his "role on Saw VI", I know very well that movie and he was on screen for a split of a second, no lines and among other people and as a metter of fact no sourcing at all about him bragging for it. still, he was there and I would like to leave some trace of it, not sure how. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 08:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Consider WP:FANCRUFT. Content can be true, and referenced, yet too much detail. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to resemble resumes that list everything a person has done. I suppose movie appearances could be changed to significant movie appearances, and the list shortened. David notMD ( talk) 10:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Serols: hi, I am sorry, didn't intend to be a vandal but in my opinion there is a difference between the things one should report here, the things one should report on his CV and the things that one should report in an interview. this bio is packed with adjective ad also irrelevant info are reported (he was a bar tender). I will ask some opinion of how to proceed in the teahouse unless you want to help me-- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 16:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello AlejandroLeloirRey, too celebrative, this is not an advertisement -> for me that was not a sufficient reason to delete sections. Your subsequent edits and comments were ok. My warning was too hard, so I deleted it. Regards -- Serols ( talk) 16:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Serols: thank you, I will be more careful -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 17:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi AlejandroLeloirRey! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, questionable biographies on wikipedia, poorly sourced and no reliable, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{ bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot ( talk) 19:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Carlo Masi, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Materialscientist ( talk) 21:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Materialscientist: hallo, Carlo's bio is a page I created just a few days ago and now is through a deletion process so I am trying hard to improve it. what I find most difficult is to evaluate each source and decide if they will be considered reliable. when I saw the new template for unreliable sources I thought of deleting those I was not sure of and that were also redundant as there were already other better sources. Should I live it the way it is? thank you for your advises. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 21:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Usedtobecool: @ Materialscientist: I am trying hard but to me is very hard to judge some sources. it seems also not to be agreement among experienced members here so i would be happy to receive and any bit of advice. if you spot some source that you judge unreliable please le me know. as you can see most of the sources are redundant so I can simply delete some. thank you -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 21:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

AlejandroLeloirRey, Materialscientist caught your edit because you did not use an edit summary; please use edit summaries to explain your edits so it does not happen again. I am staying far from the article contentwise, for now, since I am one of those people who does not know Italian. I see that a few of the editors to the AFD have voted to Keep, so there's a chance the afd could go your way. Good luck! Usedtobecool  ☎️ 21:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Usedtobecool: it is very fair of you to don't give an opinion if you don't speak the language, I totally see you point. Nevertheless, if you ever spot any unreliable/doubtful source(many are in english) I would really appreciate if you share your judgment with me. thank you -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 22:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Not sure if anyone has actually asked you straight out- Do you have a conflict of interest with Carlo Masi? Please read WP:COI - note you don't necessarily have to be being paid to have one. If so, you really must declare it. I"m asking because you just added a photograph of Carlo Masi at his wedding, which you declared to be your own work. This would mean you attended that wedding. Curdle ( talk) 23:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Curdle: I am preparing to get a C1 certificate (don't laugh, lol) so I am more than happy to practice my english, I have known carlo masi's name for ages, like many others. I like him and his story very much and I read siti's book. I am locked up in my apartment therefore I have much spare time in my hands and this is a perfect situation to get a fixation with something. I found that picture of Carlo on the web, there are plenty (probably it was on his facebook but I am not sure), I send him a Facebook message telling him I noticed that he didn't have an english bio on wikipedia and asked him if I could make one for him (it was a few months ago but than I started something else and decided to wait), he said it was ok, so I asked him if I could also use that picture and he said it was fine (I showed him the picture in a message). There is where Carlo's involvement with this project ends. I don't know much about copyright policy on wikipedia but that is one of his own pictures no (copyrighted material, I asked him then) so to make it easy I said it was mine. Maybe I could ask him to tell that it's his but I am not sure he would care enough to learn how to do it. If this makes me involved with Carlo than anyone who has Facebook is involved because as far as I can see he usually answers to messages, may be not in the same day but he answers (note: he didn't even accept my friend request on facebook). I am not sure why you can't simply judge the bio I wrote instead of making investigations. At this point I start wondering what is the real problem because I read the most random reasons to fail this bio: lack of notoriety, bad sourcing and now this. The bio is far from being promotional, I have avoided any adjectives: a much relevant book, an important tv channel, he grew of popularity, most important, etc these are all kind of things you can't find on the bio I wrote. Still, if you feel I have been too much complimentary or that the way I reported the fact lacks of objectivity please point out what you think needs to be changed and I will. That will make the bio better and help me to understand how a bio should be written here on wikipedia. I hope this fully clarify the situation. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 01:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Curdle: I understand what you said about siti's book and I would partially agree with you if there was only siti's book. As far as I have understood, on wikipedia sourcing is used for two separated purposes: 1) to prove a fact and 2) to prove notability. I believe that the book is of big support for notability and, even if it is in some measure a novel (I am not sure I chose the right word), considering the reliability, the variety and the independence of the sources available I think that the facts reported "have all been proven behind any reasonable doubt". furthermore, he has been on magazines, news papers, web sites, books and tv shows for about 15 years, this proves that he is not known for one single event, even if there is one event that stands out. I believe that the point here is not much Carlo Masi but an unresolved question on wikipedia: Can a porn actor be notorious enough for wikipedia? of course he is not Brad Pitt but no porn actor is. If that is the standard to fulfill what is the point to keep an whole list for porn actors, if there will ever be an exception it will not need a list. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 01:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Fair enough, I just had to ask after seeing the photo; either you had a conflict of interest,(and shouldn't be editing the article further) or that photo is not copyright free. Neither would automatically get the article deleted, or you blocked, but either scenario needed addressing. Regarding the picture, anything uploaded to Commons must be totally free of any copyright claims. The only person that can consent to a photo being used is the photographer, or whoever has copyrights to it. Mr Masi couldn't give consent if it was taken by a guest at the wedding (the guest would need to do that themselves). If you cant remember where it came from, you are not going to track down who has the copyright. That's why Commons specifically asks if it is your own work. Wikipedia takes copyright pretty seriously see WP:COPY for a bit of light reading.

Re the second part of your message; I think you still don't quite understand the sourcing policies, or what notabilty WP:NOTE means in Wikipedia speak. Yes, if the book was say a non fictional book by a biographer/academic/historian as well respected as Siti, it would be great to use. However, it isnt. Its a fictionalised, novelised whatever you want to call it. I agree with what Bonadea said in her comment; the fact that such a book was written, at least partly about him, does help his notability BUT you cannot use it as a reference. If you don't believe me, take it to the reliable Sources Noticeboard WP:RSNB and ask there. I can see you have done lots of work digging up sources to use. Most newspaper articles seem OK (havent gone through them all properly)..but the IMDB and Adult data base and gay.sextoytv.com and smutjunkies.com etc...who wrote them, who is responsible for the content, who fact checks them? All the bios on those sort of sites are either rehashed from PR sent out by agents, or user submitted. Wikipedia has far too many articles with bad sourcing...that doesn't mean we need another one. It isn't the tone or content of the article others are objecting to, its the sourcing. The way to improve the article is to cut out all of the bad references and work with what you have. Notorious is different from Notable. Curdle ( talk) 03:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC) reply

hey @ Curdle: thank you for the many very good advises. I removed gay.sextoytv.com as it was redundant in the sourcing. I need to understand if smutjunkies.com is really a not reliable web site, not very much for Carlo's bio (now smutjunkies.com has only one citation with a better source needed advise on it) but when I will be done with Carlo I would like to improve the other gay porn star profiles already on wikipedia as I can see now many major problems with them, therefor smutjunkies.com could be very handy. I need your opinion, do you believe that is point less to use smutjunkies.com or it is always better than nothing?. there are only other two sources I can see a problem with: gayeroticvideoindex and IMBd, I used these sources only for the filmography and the awards, Carlo'bio is the only one gay porn star'bio to have any citation at all for filmography and the awards. I read that IMBd is a "bad source" still in every singly gay porn actor's bio. So I have two questions: 1) is IMBd good enough to source the movies one has done and the award he has won? second, Do you think that we should remove any citation with IMB'd?. Your opinion if precious to me because you are more "stiff" about sourcing than me so you offer me a very different point of view. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 09:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Curdle: I would apply your suggestion and keep Siti's book only to sustain notoriety and therefor remove it where I use it to prove anything but I am scared because we are under deletion process so I don't wont to make things worst. what do you suggest? do you think that the rest of the sources would be enough? -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 20:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi AlejandroLeloirRey! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Some consideration about sourcing, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{ bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot ( talk) 19:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi AlejandroLeloirRey! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Judging sources you don't know in languages you don't speak?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{ bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot ( talk) 19:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi AlejandroLeloirRey! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Jack Radcliffe, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{ bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot ( talk) 19:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled " Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Jeff Stryker does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! C ( talk) 18:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC) @ Doniago: wow, a lot to learn. I will study more for the next time. thank you -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 19:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello Alejandro- I see the Carlo Masi article was kept after the deletion discussion. I think you could improve the article by submitting a copyedit request here: WP:GOCE/REQ. It's super easy. The average wait time is two months, but eventually an experienced editor will take a look and improve the grammar and overall readability. I would request this article for you, but each user can only have two requests at a time and I've already met that quota ( Leah Lowenstein and Hilda Eisen). Saludos, TJMSmith ( talk) 23:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ TJMSmith: great, thank you. I just did.-- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 10:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Saw your post at the Teahouse, and answering here as some of what I was going to say relates to our conversation above. It can be a learning curve at first, but users are expected to work things out themselves to some extent and yes, it may take awhile. As other editors have said, writing an article from scratch is one of the hardest things to do here. Personally, I was editing here three months to get the hang of things before I tried. Editors are all volunteers here, so there is not always going to be someone willing to explain every slight nuance. (sometimes you need to know the right place to ask that particular question as well). In my opinion, the guidelines ( WP:GNG, WP:BASIC etc ) you mentioned are pretty self explanatory and not really open to interpetation. I think one of the problems is you are asking your questions the wrong way. You said people who are objecting "have agendas" but you have the agenda of keeping your edits, meaning you tend to want to discuss and interpret things as favourable to keeping things you like. Noone has time for that! I didnt answer your last questions, because I had told you already. (yes, get rid of the junk sources! All of them!). People had pretty much weighed in on the AFD already, so it would have either been deleted or not, whatever was done to it at that time.

If you want to ask about a particular source, ask at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. ( WP:RSNB) Link to the article you want to use it in, and how you want to use it. Do it one source per time, you get better feedback than if you dump a list. RE IMDB, It should not be used (and the guidelines say so), however, it does tend to get used anyway. Some people use it uncredited, taking info from it, but not using it as a ref. Guidelines state we shouldnt be putting entire filmographies in biographies anyway, just their most notable films. It should never be used as a reference for awards though. You need something more reliable for that, and if noone has written about it, then it isnt a notable award.

A big no to Gayeroticvideo as well, as it also appears to be user based. however, on the FAQ page https://www.gayeroticvideoindex.com/faq.html right at the bottom they have a list of books about porn history that might be worth having a look at, if they check out as Reliable Sources and you can find them. The goal should be not to just save an article, but to make it the best it can be. That is why you need to use the best sources you can find. Curdle ( talk) 01:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Curdle: thank you for sharing your opinions and giving me the info. I think i will submit it here WP:GOCE/REQ to have it improved for good and be able to move on. I am also going though the other porn stars bios and try to improve them as much as possible but its a very hard task to accomplish as they were written under different guidelines. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 10:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC) reply

The nomination comes across as frivolous. Reading your talk-page leaves me with the impression that you nominated the articl3 to prove a point, which is disruptive. Also, please don’t go overboard with templates, one suffices. Kleuske ( talk) 11:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Kleuske: if you check you shall see that I spent hours and hours trying to improve any gay porn actor bio. Before nominating that bio I worked on it for long time, than I put templates to see if someone else was willing to improve it (bad sourcing and notability template). My intention is, if it is possible, to put under the attention of the community the gay porn actor bios which do not show enough notability. Most of those bios have been created a long time ago and do not meet the new notability standards. therefore, to have an even level of notability I think it would be the best to discuss some of those bios. If you believe I simply should stop here I will, if you think that the bio I nominated is fine there are way worst I would like to nominate or I could give you a list and you consider if nominate some of the bios on my list. it is the first time I nominate an article so I might not know how to do it the best way.

I made my point the moment the bio I wrote was accepted, now I am just trying to reorganize a section of wikipedia that looks too random to me because most of the pages where created under different rules.

just let me give you an example, I believe that all the pages like this one should be discussed. /info/en/?search=Steve_Cruz_(actor) -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 11:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Kleuske: plus, please always assume good faith WP:GF otherwise you will make of wikipedia a minefield where it is impossible to give any contribution. Especially in situations like this where you can easily see that I contributed myself attempting to improve that page -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 12:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC) reply

The article itself cites sources which show notability, a simple WP:BEFORE yields more. In your nomination you just state they are not enough, without explaining why or what’s wrong with the ones the article does cite. I did assume good faith, and addressed it here, after cleaning up the templates you added, but AGF Is not a suicide pact, and the nomination seems a bit of a waste of other editors time. I should not have brought up WP:POINT, though, and I apologize for that, but the rest still stands. Kleuske ( talk) 17:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Kleuske: I will be honest, I thought about asking AFD some profiles for quite a long but I never did so today I decided to check how it worked and tried. I couldn't even remember exactly what was wrong with each article and wasn't much in the mood as wasn't even sure if I could complete the nomination. So, I am sorry I did a lazy job, next time when I will nominate I will make myself sure to explain better the issue I found. Thank you for the advice. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 17:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Last point, just FYI, there’s a guide on how to file an AfD just under WP:BEFORE, including all the templates. You can just c&p and fill in the details. If you are auto-confirmed, you can use WP:Twinkle, which simplifies the process a lot. Abuse of the tool, however, is severely frowned upon, with cold, steely eyes. Use at your own risk. Kleuske ( talk) 18:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Welcome!

Hello, AlejandroLeloirRey, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have noticed that you are fairly new! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I also see that some of your recent edits, such as the ones to the page Carlo Masi, show an interest in the use of images and/or photos on Wikipedia.

Did you know that ...

• ...Wikipedia has a very stringent image use policy?
• ...most images from Flickr, online news websites, and other web sources are copyrighted?
• ...Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously?
• ...freely-licensed images should be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, a central location for images where they can be used on all Wikipedia projects?
• ...we recommend that new users use our "files for upload" process - at least until you get the hang of things?

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{Help me}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Theroadislong ( talk) 17:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi AlejandroLeloirRey! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, AFD nominee, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{ bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot ( talk) 19:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi Alejandro: I think that 11 Articles for Deletion nominations in three days in the same subject area is too many. It will take time to find sources and improve those articles, and having so many in a short time makes that very difficult. It's discouraging for people who want to improve the articles. Can you please slow down? —  Toughpigs ( talk) 20:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Toughpigs: don't worry, I am not going to contribute anymore to wikipedia as it is too much work and stress and you end up by being accused of several things. I believe somehow (I don't know how) you can see I spent a lot of time on porn actors's bios, trimming them, adding sources, adding tags, leaving messages on their talk pages, etc. when I was done I decided to nominate those articles that I really couldn't see why they were on wikipedia basing on what I have learned are the guidelines here. So, yes I nominated a lot of articles at the same time but only because I spent hours and hours in the last few days trying to improve them. the articles I nominated couldn't be improved anymore because of the substantial lack of notability of the subjects and as metter of fact only a couple of them will survive afd at the end. I will not nominate anyone anymore. thank you for your advise. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 20:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi AlejandroLeloirRey! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, why so many people are so keen to reject?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{ bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot ( talk) 19:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi AlejandroLeloirRey! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Carlo Masi-Ruggero freddi photo, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{ bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot ( talk) 19:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi AlejandroLeloirRey! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, a few porn actor pages I want to nominate for deletion., has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{ bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot ( talk) 19:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello:

The copy edit of the article Carlo Masi you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors has been completed.

I was able to find an alternate source for the one that was considered doubtful and added it.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist ( talk) 14:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Twofingered Typist: thank you very much. I apreciate it. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 08:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Greetings. You have recently nominated Billy Brandt, R. J. Danvers, and Chad Knight for AfD. All of these had been subject to previous AfD discussions. Page Curation does not properly handle second and subsequent AfD nominations and does not create new pages for these--instead, your nomination has been appended to the previous discussion pages. You will need to create new discussion pages for each of these, and correct the entries on the log page appropriately. Let me know if you require assistance with this. Please note that Twinkle and other tools handle this situation with no problems, and I recommend using Twinkle (or doing it by hand) for AfD noms going forward. Thanks. -- Finngall ^talk 14:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Finngall: hallo, I am sorry if I did things wrong. I saw that they were kept years ago basing on pornbio which now has been deprecated so I thought it was ok to nominate them again. I think I will need help to do what you asked me as i don't have a clue of what you are talking about. sorry. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 19:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

There's absolutely nothing wrong with nominating them again. It's just that the new discussion needs to go on a new page, not be appended to the existing one. The tool you used was not designed for this. I'll see about fixing it. -- Finngall ^talk 20:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Brandt (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. J. Danvers (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chad Knight (2nd nomination). And as long as I'm here, I'll recommend that maybe you do a few AfD nominations "the hard way", by hand, using the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. I find that some experience with doing some of these things without the scripts is very valuable so that one can more easily recognize when something goes wrong with the scripts, and to fix things without outside intervention when they do go wrong. Thanks again, and happy editing. -- Finngall ^talk 21:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Finngall: thank you. I appreciate it. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 10:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi AlejandroLeloirRey! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, I think there is a problem with this article, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{ bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot ( talk) 19:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi AlejandroLeloirRey! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, personal attacks, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{ bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot ( talk) 19:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi AlejandroLeloirRey! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, is the AFD process good enough?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{ bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot ( talk) 19:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi there. I saw how you were attacked in the AfDs and your message on the Teahouse and I wanted to recommend a few things. For one, personal attacks are par for the course with this. I got attacked a couple of months ago for nominating two articles that were only marginally related to Christianity, by someone who was trying to argue I was doing it because I disdain Christians and want to wipe their existence from Wikipedia. Which is completely ridiculous. I've also been called anti-Semitic for voting delete on an article about a Jewish bakery and sexist for doing the same with one having to do with nurses. People on here can be pretty low. It's usually best not to engage the person doing the attacking except for saying something like "do you have any sources or a guideline to back up what your saying?" Most of the time they attack people because they know it will lead to a long argument that the closing admin probably won't take the time to read through. Causing the important bits of why your right to be lost in the rubbish. So, it's best not to feed into it in the first place.

Often times the closing admin will take those things into account. Or if they don't, you can always renominate an article after a certain amount of has past. It's usually six months, but not really if there's a bunch that were kept that you think shouldn't have been. You can also, message the closing admin and ask them about it or take it up somewhere else. Although, I don't recommend doing either unless your clear it's the best thing to do. Admins can be a harsh sometimes (rightly so in a lot of cases). One more thing, after a while you get use to seeing certain users using specific tactics repeatedly. For instance ToughPig is pretty predictable in what he/she will vote and how the vote will be justified. Learning the different tactics and who uses them helps take a lot of the sting out of the whole thing and makes it all easier to deal with. At least it has for me. For instance, you can almost guarantee that Cunard will ref-bomb sources that weren't looked over first. Most articles having to do with topics related to India in any way will usually get a lot of ref-bombing and pleading also. Andrew Davidson (the snake emoji user) will tend to be very inclusionist and for whatever reason seems to vote on a lot of the same articles Cunard does. Anyway, stick to it and don't get to frustrated. It is what it is unfortunately, but it's still better then the alternatives. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 09:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Oh yeah, BTW you have to be really careful usually not to nominate more then a few articles related to the same subject at a time to. Otherwise people will accuse you of drive by nominating. Even that's not what your doing, it's better not to give them the ammo. Usually what I do when I want to bulk nominate something is to nominate two of them. Then wait a few days to nominate a few more while participating in AfDs related to other subjects in the meantime. That way it's either to little at once for anyone to take issue with or if they do I can point out the other stuff I've participated in that was different. There might be anything wrong with or against the rules about a lot of this, but it doesn't mean people won't complain anyway. It's important to stay a few steps ahead of them when you can. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 09:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Adamant1: thank you, very good advices. i want to re-nominate an article, J. D. Slater, I thought of waiting one month. do you think is too early? should i write to the closer to ask him? thank you. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 10:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Adamant1: also, how come that sometime articles like that of Ricky Martinez with only one delete vote are renominated and other times are simply delete? thank you. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 11:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC) reply

I'd wait longer then a month. That's not nearly enough time to re-nominate things. Usually admins say six months. Although it could probably be a little less, but you want ample time to pass for news sources that might be added or created not to be. Plus the renomination should be based on emotions and a month just isn't time to have a clear head about it IMO. One things that has been really helpful for me is regularly reading through WP:REFUND. You can get a pretty good in-depth sense of the more granular procedural stuff that way. Along with the closing rationals of admins and what vote arguments usually work or not.

As far as Ricky Martinez goes, it really depends on the admin that happens on it when the week is up and what their personal preference is. From my understanding there has a been drop in AfD participation lately. Even with the admins. So a lot of times even when there is only one vote an AfD will be closed if the time is up because there just isn't the man power right now to deal with a bunch of AfDs being relisted over and over. Especially if it seems uncontroversial. Some admins prefer to re-list things though. Even in cases where there are already a lot of votes and it seems clear cut. Especially if the discussion is contentious. Since getting more consensus possibly saves time later if someone tries to overturn the close in WP:REFUND. Admins can get crap closing something if there isn't a clear consensus and someone tries to contest it to. It's kind of a random process in that way, but not in the fact that more articles that go to AfDs get deleted then don't. Even with the inclusionists being involved. Sometimes they save good articles to. Even if they are a hassle to deal with on ones that aren't worth keeping. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 18:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC) reply

BTW, if your mainly doing AfDs on porn actors it might be helpful to put a little work into the sourcing side of things to become proficient on which sources in the porn industry are reliable or not. Maybe create a list for it like Perennial sources with the involvement of other editors. I find things like that help a lot and with something that's a niche like porn actors the normal notable sources aren't going to cut it. Another thing you can do is to make arguments about the actor not appealing to the broad audience Wikipedia is meant to appeal to. I've had mixed luck with it myself, but it does work sometimes. For instance with a small time European actor that only had a few trivial sources about them in English, but a lot in some less used European language. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 19:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Adamant1: to sort out if a source is good I refer to this usually but I am starting to know them and I can tell preaty fast if a source is a good a source, rarely I have doubts. I wrote my self a porn bio and I don't want to delete random people or just as many as possible but some porn bios are really ridiculous to be on an enciclopedia. I really just want to get rid to those porn bio for which it is not possible to find a reasonable sourcing. thank you very much for the advises. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 20:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC) reply

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Kincaid, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Theroadislong ( talk) 21:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Theroadislong: I have been asking for help for weeks now. that person keeps personally attacking me. I asked him politely to stop for 1000 times but he doesn't. help me please. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 21:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC) @ Theroadislong: I really want to be a good member of this community but that person has been following me around. accusing me repeatedly of absurd things. I wasn't the only one to invite him to argue the article and not the nominator but he will never stop. he pulls my nerve and he do it on purpose. just to put me into the situation where I attack him and I get blocked. just tell me, what can I do? -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 21:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi AlejandroLeloirRey. I saw your post at ANI and wanted to offer you a suggestion. Withdraw your post at ANI or ask an Admin to withdraw it. Then on the page where you lost your composure, strike out the offending part of the comment and in the edit summary, state you are sorry for losing your composer and posting a very inappropriate comment and you are withdrawing it. You lost your cool, it happens. What matters now is correcting and not digging a deeper hole (such as posting at ANI). You're not going to be banned, I doubt you will be temporarily blocked if you withdraw the comment, unless this is a pattern of behavior. Blocks and bans are intended to be preventative, not punitive. So if there is no pattern and the mistake is withdrawn, there is no reason for a block or a ban. If the problem you are experiencing continues, post another message on ANI. This suggestion is offered with nothing but goodwill. Hope all is well with you.   //  Timothy ::  talk  23:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Timothy: thank you for your help. I think I made a mistake, I simply deleted those messages. what should I do now? plus, I really need this person to stop arguing me and start arguing the nominated articles if he is interested because he is really getting on my nerves and he counts on that, what can I do?. thank you. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 23:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Reply I think the deletion is fine, it shows you know you lost your composure and have withdrawn the comment.

As for the problem with the other editor, I know it's getting on your nerves, editors do that, sometimes unintentionally, sometimes intentionally. I know how frustrating it can be. Unfortunately, it's going to happen. I doubt ANI is going to do anything about this. The best thing you can do is ignore it. Believe me when I say I know how hard that is and that I am far from perfect at practicing what I'm saying. Unfortunately this far from uncommon, so think of it as training, because you'll need to develop the ability to ignore if you're going to enjoy your time on Wikipedia. This might seem impossible at first, but it gets easier.

As for AfD, it's helpful for me to keep focused on it not being about "votes" or who has the "last word". In the end, the closer will look at who put forth the best evidence and argument based on policy and guidelines. If all the evidence is on your side, even if a dozen people say otherwise, your evidence will win out. In the end, if you don't let yourself get frustrated and the closer agrees with you, you can smile and know their negative comments were just words with no effect. The AfD stats will show whether you do quality work and that's what matters, not a snide comment or petty insult. I hope this helps a little, even if it doesn't stop the problem.   //  Timothy ::  talk  00:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Timothy: unfortunatelly, even if it shouldn't be, it is a voting process. i give you and example: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zak_Spears this article has no sources, still was kept basing on being on the top favorite of a magazine (each columnist write such a list at least 2 times per year), gay porn prizes he wan (since porn bio was deprecated porn prizes do not count toward notability) and "likely interviews and articles exist". well, tell me one single good reason to keep that article apart that the voting process resulted into a keep... thank you again for ur words :-( -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 10:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, that's not how discussions on ANI, or anywhere else on Wikipedia for that matter, work; once they've started, you can't delete them if they aren't going your way. When a report is submitted at ANI, the conduct of all editors involved in the dispute will be analyzed, including the submitter. This often means that the submitter is found to be in the wrong. And while I'm not familiar with the underlying dispute here, I will say that this series of comments is a serious violation of Wikipedia's civility policy, and I'm not surprised that you're being criticized for it. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction• Creation} 20:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

@ TheCatalyst31: thank you. one question, my opponent has pinged a lot of people to help him out, is it something one is supposed to do also? how long will it take a decision to be taken? I just can't wait this all story to be over, even if it will result with my ban. When i was about 6/7 y.o. at school there was this boy who would make me faces, the teacher could see him doing so and I asked her to tell him to stop many times but she never did so every now and than I burst and called him names and got punished for that... this is the exact same situation. I am not sure any problem is being fixed if we only remove the symptom and never the cause. I will accept any decision that will be taken. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 20:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

It looks like the issue of potential canvassing has already come up in the ANI discussion, and it's a little complicated, so I won't comment further on it. That being said, that doesn't take away from the criticisms of your behavior, which are shared by editors who weren't pinged. As for how long the discussion will take, there's no set time limit on ANI discussions, and they usually take as long as they need to take to come to a conclusion. And while I'm sorry about your childhood story, disputes on Wikipedia are often aggravating, and it's important to know when to take a break and come back when you feel calmer. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction• Creation} 20:35, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

look, I perfectly understand, the teacher will never tell the boy to stop pulling other-s nerve and when u finally loose ur grip u r punished. we can turn it over and over again but this is how it is. I accept wikipedia's decision. I think I gave a reasonable contribution so far so when I will be banned I will know I left something good and positive on my back. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 20:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Re AfD's. It is far better if an editor were to make their point in their keep/delete rationale and then walk away and leave the AfD to run its course. Arguing each and every editor with a contrary opinion is not constructive and does not give your opinion extra weight. It can often diminish the weight of that editor's opinion. If an article you created gets deleted, accept it, take on board the reasons why it was deleted and use that information when creating other articles. They will have a better chance of surviving AfDs in future if you do this. Mjroots ( talk) 18:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Mjroots: hi, thank you for your message. i apreciate u took some time to give me an advice. Actually I should not answer so much, that is a real problem I have, but it is hard especially when they argue me and not the article. if I write an article I can be fine if it is deleted (never happened so far), but I would expect to know why. when they rejected the article I wrote reason was a generic "the sources are not reliable" which is unacceptable when u used as sources the most important news papers in your country, like if u used as a source a deep cover made by "The Times" or "The New York Time" and they tell u they are not reliable with no other explanations... oh yes, I was also told that my sources where passing mentions when the name of the subject is in the titles of the articles and the whole articles are only about the subject. you can see the article I am talking about here: Carlo Masi. I understand it can be hard to judge sources from other countries but still. anyway, I will do my best to follow your advice. -- AlejandroLeloirRey ( talk) 20:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes, The Times is a highly reliable source. The way to deal with this is to point out in your keep rationale that the article has such highly reliable sources. Keep cool, ignore those who attack you if you can and concentrate on the facts of the matter in hand. Mjroots ( talk) 05:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi AlejandroLeloirRey! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, being kicked out of wikipedia because of an A.Hole, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{ bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot ( talk) 19:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi AlejandroLeloirRey! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, anything and notable wikipedia, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{ bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot ( talk) 19:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply