User talk:Citationhelper

Contact me by posting here

Please, unless necessary and you feel the need to cuss me out, try to keep it clean.,

Nomination of Jimmy Ritchey for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jimmy Ritchey 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/Jimmy Ritchey until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From deletion discussion page

The result was keep. So Why 14:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP of a songwriter, with no properly sourced claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. While he has cowriting credits with a successful musician, that's not an automatic notability freebie in the absence of adequate reliable source coverage about him to support an article -- but the references here are glancings namecheck of Ritchey's existence in an unreliable source list of Owen's songs, and a brief blurb in an industry trade publication about him signing a songwriting deal with a record label. So I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing can be improved, but nothing here entitles him to a Wikipedia article just because he exists if the sourcing for it is this weak. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not exactly certain why you believe the article Jimmy Ritchey should be deleted. Is it the fact that you believe the sources are vague, or unreliable, or is it that you believe that Jimmy Ritchey is not entitled to an article? Please, let me know, so I may try to improve the article in the direction you mean. Citationhelper(talk) 01:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment - A significant number of blue-linked songs written by this subject, which should be taken into consideration. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A fairly clear pass of GNG here. See, for example, THIS PIECE from the Lewis County (WA) Chronicle. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that a label signing was deemed worthy of mention in the Aug. 4, 2001 issue of Billboard, pg. 31. LINK. Carrite (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability asserted as co-writer of a #1 hit on a major chart. Several notable songs in Category:Songs written by Jimmy Ritchey, and a few notable production credits, enough to populate Category:Albums produced by Jimmy Ritchey; multiple credits that overall pass WP:NMUSIC quite easily. I added a few more sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability cannot just be asserted; it has to be properly referenced. Passing NMUSIC is not a question of what the article says, but of how well it sources what it says — and none of the sourcing present in the article is acceptable. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As stated, meets notability guidelines by being co-writer for a charted song. 331dot (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Hi there. I noticed your signature does not contain a link to either your user or talk page but rather a link to our article talk. This is highly confusing. Please fix your signature to include a link to your userpage and/or your talk page. Here is an example of code that would fix it in case you don't know how to do it: [[User:Citationhelper|'''''Citation''''''''''helper''''']] ([[User talk:Citationhelper|talk]]) which produces Citationhelper (talk). Regards So Why 14:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From SoWhy's Archives

I noticed that on User talk:Citationhelper you stated that my signature does not contain a link to my user talk page, which indeed it does. perhaps there is something I missed, or you viewed an old signature of mine, but my signature is '''[[User:Citationhelper|'''''Citation''''''''''helper''''']]''' ([[User talk:Citationhelper|talk]]). Please tell me if I missed something or if there is something you want to elaborate on. Thanks for your time! Citationhelper ^(talk) 20:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Citationhelper: That was probably it. I noticed it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Ritchey and you probably changed it since then. Glad it works now. Regards So Why 20:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

— Berean Hunter (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citationhelper is Technically indistinguishable to Ifuqedurmom (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and ISlS (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).
— Berean Hunter (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all surprised this guy is a multi-sock/block evader. But I don't recognize these other user id's either. I wouldn't be surprised if he also has another account that I've had past interactions with that may have since been banned (or not). He has apparently only been here for 3 months but was all of a sudden very interested in a random ANI from almost 6 years ago (?)

Pfft! ...whatever. - ^theWOLFchild 04:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #19731 was submitted on Nov 09, 2017 15:57:16. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]