User talk:Kalinators

This is Kalinators's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kalin Stefanov (backgammon player) (June 3)

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kalin Stefanov (backgammon player) 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 reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Waqar💬 13:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kalinators! 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! Waqar💬 13:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Unfortunately this is not true. I have clearly posted the WBIF page of the youth championship where the Kalinator is a runner-up, as well as the article about the 2024 Geneva Open. Additionally I posted the article about BC Stuttgart where it is stated the club is the first pool-billiards club in Germany. And last but not least, multiple youtube videos additionally verify the truthfulness of the information. I will submit the article again, without editing anything, and I ask you for a more careful review or forwarding the review to a more experienced editor. Kalinators (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kalin Stefanov (backgammon player) (June 3)

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kalin Stefanov (backgammon player) 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 reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Maliner (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Maliner, I will copypaste my answer to Mr. Waqar who rejected it a few minutes before you:

Unfortunately this is not true. I have clearly posted the WBIF page of the youth championship where the Kalinator is a runner-up, as well as the article about the 2024 Geneva Open. Additionally I posted the article about BC Stuttgart where it is stated the club is the first pool-billiards club in Germany. And last but not least, multiple youtube videos additionally verify the truthfulness of the information. I will submit the article again, without editing anything, and I ask you for a more careful review or forwarding the review to a more experienced editor. Kalinators (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. VViking_TalkEdits 14:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Kalin Stefanov (backgammon player) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Kalin Stefanov (backgammon player). Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kalin Stefanov (backgammon player) (July 22)

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

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:

Of the six sources cited, #1 is clearly not independent; #2, 5 and 6 are mainly tournament reporting, with limited coverage of the draft subject (esp. #6 barely at all); #3 and 4 are primary, and also do not provide any meaningful coverage of the subject. This still does not add up to notability per WP:GNG.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kalin Stefanov (backgammon player) 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 reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, last month we had the same discussion and you and another editor clearly approved sources 2 and 5. Source 1 is clearly independent, as it is a main media in Stuttgart reporting about me after noticing and inviting me for an interview. Could you please specify how exactly this is not independent?

Also, your contradicting comment now compared to last month's clear approval of sources 2 and 5 are not very amusing. As to source 6, it later appeared, and once again, is clearly reporting on me as I am even on the headline. So you are trying to imply that the headline is a "passive mention"? Sorry, but stating this does not make sense. Kalinators (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And forgot to note: You made no comment on sources 4 and 5 while they are the only ones that actually do not report about me, but are rather posted there to provide evidence about BC Stuttgart 1891. I am amused how you left no comment on these sources while criticising the sources clearly reporting about me. Kalinators (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qcne

Last month Qcne was the other editor who I communicated with and together with @DoubleGrazing approved sources 2 and 5. I was told that once a 3rd one is found, the article would be approved.

Now this happened with Stuttgart Wochenblatt, so I reposted the article and DoubleGrazing was quick to reject it while contradicting with his own statements from last month. I resubmitted the draft and kindly ask @Qcne to review it himself and provide his comments. Thank you. Kalinators (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, can you stop being so adversarial about this. You don't have to attack reviewers just because you don't get your way. You're sailing pretty close to the wind in any case, since your only aim here seems to be self-promotion, so you should really want to work with reviewers, not against them.

Secondly, you don't get to dictate who does or doesn't review the draft. If Qcne is happy to do that, by all means, but if someone else gets there first, you really shouldn't have a problem with that.

Thirdly, I can see that you've just resubmitted the draft following my review, without any attempt at improving it (and not for the first time, either). This is a sure-fire way to get your draft rejected, so I would advise against it. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I don't recall ever "approving" any sources, and it also doesn't look to me like the current sources #2 and 5 were even there when I last reviewed this, so I'm not sure what you're referring to there.

And no, #1 is not independent, because it simply says what you've told the publication.

Whether you are "on the headline" or not is immaterial; that is not the definition of significant coverage, which is what we require. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing Yes, they weren't there in the first time of review. I sent them in a discussion with you and Qcne after you cleared up what is required as a source. Both you and him said that Bta and Iskra work and if one more is found and the draft is rewritten to contain only the information they say, it would be approved.

If being the main topic of an article is not significant coverage, and you yourself said it works, last month, then what is?

About 1: If you review the posts of Stuttgarter Wochenblatt, you will notice they are a pretty reliable and respected media among Stuttgart. They invited me to an interview in order to be able to publish full information and not do guessing, so basically, they made sure they were posting truthful information. How does the fact that they wanted to post facts only makes it dependant? They don't write articles about *everyone*. and are selective as to who they should invite...

I did not mean to attack you, I just didn't find it amusing that you contradicted yourself. If you have taken it as an attack, please accept my apologies. I was able to resolve all issues that you and other editors noted in the first time of posting, which is essentially working *with* reviewers. I did not dictate that Qcne *must* review it, I kindly asked him to. If someone else does this, that's fine. I resubmitted it because I believe someone else might interpret it differently considering last month sources 2 and 5 got approval.

P.S. Ignore my comment about 3 and 4 above, I somehow missed your comment on them. They indeed do not report explicitly about me - they are just there to quote about BC Stuttgart and me being a member there. Kalinators (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're talking about a discussion on the help desk, rather than my earlier review of this draft. Got it now.

From memory, at the time I said something along the lines of the two sources you mention being better than anything I'd seen in the draft, and that we were on the right lines in that sense. I don't recall "approving" anything per se, but I could be wrong; I review many drafts, and have many conversations on the help desk.

I'm more than happy to recuse myself from reviewing this draft again, or debating the matter at the help desk, should you take this there, so that you get another opinion (whether Qcne's or other) on the draft. And on that note, I exit stage left. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kalin Stefanov (backgammon player) (July 22)

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

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:

You haven't changed anything since the last decline. Resubmitting without changes might eventually lead to Rejection, where you won't be able to submit it again.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kalin Stefanov (backgammon player) 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 reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

C F A 💬 23:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kalin Stefanov (backgammon player) (August 5)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. 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 CFA was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Your draft is not going to be accepted when you have made legal threats to reviewers.

C F A 💬 13:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certain wikipedia contributors refuse to work under the guidelines and decline a draft solely because of the fact the authoe is the subject. Now, instead of commenting on me (hypocrisy - "please be sure to comment on content, not contributors"), go ahead and approve the draft!!! Kalinators (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to approve the draft. Because I have taken administrative action on your account, it's inappropriate for me to get into a content-related decision. —C.Fred (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —C.Fred (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until you retract all legal threats, including this one you made at User talk:CFA, policy requires that your editing privileges be rescinded. —C.Fred (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

No legal basis for ban. Do not forget to post the draft, as it requires to be on Wikipedia!Kalinators (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The only thing you are welcome to do on Wikipedia at this point is retract your legal threats. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@C.Fred: I am still waiting for you to unblock me so I can delete the legal warnings I issued on other pages. Kalinators (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen a statement from you that you both withdraw all prior legal threats that you made and that you will abide by WP:NLT in all your future editing. —C.Fred (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I state that I both withdraw all prior legal warnings that I made and I will abide by WP:NLT in all my future editing. Kalinators (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred Kalinators (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I have deleted the legal warnings I issued on my talk page. As I'm blocked, I cannot delete the legal warnings I issued on other pages. As soon as you unblock me, the first thing I will do is delete the other legal warnings too. Kalinators (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Since you have retracted the legal threats via the message you left here, I am unblocking your account. Please make sure to abide by all Wikipedia guidelines and policies, including WP:NLT, while editing. —C.Fred (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Timtrent. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Draft:Kalin Stefanov that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.
" CFA is kindly asked not to review it, as it is visible that he is incapable of an unbiased review." is unacceptable. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Timtrent, thank you for your message. I made the comment after CFA rejected the draft with the comment "no improvements since last decline", while additional information about the subject, plus multiple additional sources were added. So I noticed that either he hadn't reviewed it at all, and just clicked the reject button, or refused to acknowledge the new additions to the draft. Either of these is unacceptable. Kalinators (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

....or the new additions were just more of the same, and didn't change anything. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This does not excuse your attacking them. Please do not dissemble in your replies. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kalin Stefanov (August 14)

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

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:

No improvements since last decline at Draft:Kalin Stefanov (backgammon_player).

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kalin Stefanov 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 reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

C F A 💬 22:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Kalinator Geneva.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Kalinator Geneva.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a personal picture that I have had someone take for me with the trophy, so there is no copyright, and there is no source either as media took it from me, not the other way round. Is there anything I should report there still? Kalinators (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't own the copyright to a picture someone took of you. C F A 💬 23:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any copyright of that picture, in fact. Kalinators (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is. Unless the copyright holder released it into the public domain. C F A 💬 23:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, please clarify who is the copyright holder of a picture that was taken for me, with my phone, from someone else, a picture that nobody had before I posted it on my social media and certain media requested it from me. Kalinators (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright holder is whoever took the picture. C F A 💬 23:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their name is reported in the picture. And still, they don't even have the picture, so they don't *own copyright*. Kalinators (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They took the picture, so they own the copyright to it. End of story. C F A 💬 23:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. They don't even remember they took the picture. Their name is in the picture, as I said. Or do you expect from me to find out their personal ID number so it can be sure which exact person with that name has taken it? Kalinators (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the section lower down here. It is patently a copyright violation and has been flagged as such for deletion, with a full rationale:

This is, or appears to be, a picture of the uploader, but there is no evidence that the image is under an acceptable free licence. Ownership or possession of a photo, proprietorship of the equipment used to take the photo, or being the subject of the photo does not equate holding the copyright. The copyright holder is the photographer (i.e. the person who took the photo), rather than the subject (the person who appears in the photo) or the person possessing the photo, unless transferred by operation of law (e.g. inheritance, etc.) or by contract (written and signed by the copyright holder, and explicitly transfers the copyright). Evidence of any transfer of licencing must be sent via WP:VRT

This is not negotiable. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said fine. It is only here that I cannot use my own photo, but anyway, I removed it from the draft. Now is only important that the draft be approved... Glory to Ukraine. Kalinators (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't your photo, it was the photographer's photo. As I said, if you take a photo of yourself with your phone, that would be fine. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say for the 3rd time, fine, I will not use my picture, hence it is no longer in the draft. Can we proceed in approving the draft now, please? Kalinators (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any review of the draft is independent of the image. It is still not your photograph, it may be a photograph which you possess, but you are not the owner of the copyright. The distinction is important. It means that your uploading it was a breach of copyright, whether it appears in any article or draft or not. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone else took the image of you, then they own the copyright to it and either they need to be the one to upload it, or you need to show that the photographer released the image under a copyright compatible with Wikipedia- allowing for reuse by anyone for any purpose with attribution. 331dot (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see this was brought up already. If you cannot demonstrate the copyright of the image, it will need to be deleted. Images are not relevant to the draft approval process, which only considers the text and sources. Images can wait until the draft is placed in the encyclopedia. My advice would be to use your phone to take a selfie, then you would own the copyright. 331dot (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will shortly remove the image from the draft. Kalinators (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Kalinator Geneva.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Kalinator Geneva.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a copyright violation and has no credible claim of fair use or permission. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kalin Stefanov (August 15)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. 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 331dot was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: This was rejected under the title [Draft:Kalin Stefanov (backgammon player)]]

331dot (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot evade the rejection of your draft by recreating it under a different title. You need to first appeal to the reviewer that rejected your draft; failing that, you then may attempt to establish a consensus in a discussion at the AFC Help Desk that the reviewer grossly misapplied policy in their evaluation of your draft(that the reviewer didn't tell you what you wanted to hear does not mean that they violated policy). Personally, I don't see that, but others might disagree. If you persist with your behavior you're on a course to be blocked for self-promotion. You are demonstrating why writing about one's self is highly discouraged- you are too invested in wanting to tell the world about yourself and your accomplishments, and not able to set aside what you know about yourself. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I have only written the same things that 6 independent media have reported about me, and written it from a neutral POV. If I were not right, you would be able to prove me wrong in your next reply. Are you?

P.S. If I had written the draft while pretending to not be myself, it would already have been approved. It is just that wikipedia *assumes* that you cannot write a proper article about yourself, hence does not go on to review it properly, like they do articles written by not the subject.

I would like to kindly ask @Qcde to review the draft, as during the first upload, he was clear and direct about everything, and I believe is capable of an unbiased review. Kalinators (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qcne I meant, sorry, typo. Kalinators (talk) 08:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one disputes what the sources have reported about you, what we are saying is that does not establish notability. It's not just one person saying this. No, this would not have been approved if you were pretending to be someone else.

Our experience over 20 plus years and my personal experience over 10 plus years is that people are not able to write about themselves as Wikipedia requires. This isn't arbitrary. It does happen, but it is rare. Are you the rare person out of the 8 billion on this planet that are able to write about themselves as Wikipedia asks? Possibly, but not likely. You haven't demonstrated it yet. I've said how you can proceed. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see, I have provided wikipedia with 6 independent media reporting about the subject and have written the text in the same manner as any other biography of a person is written.

Additionally, 2 months ago, I was asked to provide 3 independent media reports and then the draft would be approved. So, all in all, I see that wikipedia is biased against the article, exactly due to what you said: "It is rare that people write about themselves neutrally".

However, to be able to notice when this happens, you need to open your eyes that it's actually possible. Kalinators (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular reason you are trying to force this issue(of their being an article about you)? There are actually good reasons to not want an article about one's self. I know that it's possible, but I've never seen it happen in 10 plus years. Certainly I haven't seen every edit on Wikipedia in that time, and I'm aware of articles that are at least started as autobiographies(Judith Newman is one)- but it is exceedingly rare- and as I said, the odds are against you being one of the few out of 8 billion who can do it. Articles are typically written by independent editors. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The particular reason is that the article clearly should be on wikipedia: A professional sportsperson, Master, multiple international successes, and multiple independent media having noticed and reported these successes. What else can you want? I repeat, 2 months ago, someone told me the notability requirement is 3 independent media writing about the subject. Now we have 6. Where again, did you tell me, that I should complain about the incorrect rejection? Kalinators (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand what you're saying, but why not try to actually look at the article like an article, not like someone writing about themselves, and see if you can find any difference with the article about any other gaining-popularity sportsperson? I don't see one difference. Kalinators (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the "notability requirement", to pass the submission process most reviewers look for at least three sources. That does not mean that once you have three- bam, you're in. You may use your AFC Help Desk discussion to see if you can obtain a consensus that the rejection was incorrect- but you are likely to be disappointed.

Every person who does something thinks that they can be on Wikipedia- that's not a reason. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you keep talking about the subject as "me", why don't you talk about them as "the subject".

If you have 6 independent media reporting about someone, who has achieved multiple successes in what they do, how is that not notable enough? How do I use the "AFC Help Desk"? Kalinators (talk) 10:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see other stuff exists; drafts are evaluated on their own merits, not based on other articles that themselves may be inappropriate, and just not addressed yet by a volunteer.

"Gaining popularity sportsperson" is precisely why you aren't yet notable and that it is too soon for an article about you. You must already be noticed and popular- to the point where sources give in depth coverage of you, not just merely document your activities and accomplishments. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what else should they document, apart from the subject's activities and accomplishments? Their credit card details and ID card number? Kalinators (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This shows that you misunderstand what it is we do here. We don't just document accomplishments. We summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about those accomplishments. What do they say is important/significant/influential about you as they see it?(not as you might see it)

The subject is you and it is disingenuous to pretend that it's not. You already have visited the AFC Help Desk, you can use your existing discussion (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#22:06,_14_August_2024_review_of_submission_by_Kalinators) to ask for a consensus that the review was improper or violated policy in some way. Just saying that you disagree, or think that the reviewer was biased because they didn't tell you what you want to hear, will just be a waste of time. You should assume good faith of the reviewer unless you have actual evidence of bias against you(which, again, is not just the mere fact they rejected it) or actual evidence of a violation of policy. If you can't do that, it would just waste your time to pursue such an effort. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You started a new discussion, that's fine too 331dot (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some serious advice

I see that you have been having a very unsuccessful start to your time editing Wikipedia, which must be frustrating and disheartening, so I am offering you some advice, which I hope may be helpful to you.

I became aware of you because I reviewed a speedy deletion nomination of the photograph you uploaded, as an unambiguous copyright infringement. I declined the deletion nomination, because it doesn't seem to me unambiguous that it's a copyright infringement; it may well be that the photographer intended you to have full ownership of the photograph, including the right to publish it freely. However, having declined the deletion nomination, I then looked at the rest of your editing history, and saw the problems you have been having,so I decided to give you some advice and to warn you of what is, I'm afraid, likely to be the outcome if you continue in the same way.

No matter how much you disagree with editors, or how strongly you feel that they are wrong, I strongly advise you to be civil to them, and to explain the reasons for your disagreement in a friendly way, as though you respect their opinions. If you continue to come across as combative, as you have done, you will be seen as unconstructive, and you may be blocked from editing by an administrator. I hope that won't be necessary, so please think carefully about how you express yourself, so that it won't.
I have not looked at the sources which refer to you, so I have no opinion as to whether you satisfy the notability guidelines or not. However, I can advise you that if several experienced editors think that the sources you have provided don't establish notability in Wikipedia's terms, then you should think about what they say, and try to understand why they think it, because there's a high likelihood that they have good reasons. I am not personally a great fan of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, for several reasons, but whether you or I like them or not, we have to accept them. I understand how a new editor can find many of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and how they are applied confusing; I did so myself when I started editing Wikipedia. One of the many ways that new editors trying to write about themselves can find them confusing is as follows. They may be told that they need sources which give substantial coverage to them, so they duly provide a reference to something covering themselves, only to be told that it isn't suitable, because it's just a report of what they said about themselves; they have missed the point that it has to be independent coverage of them.
My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. Obviously that advice probably won't appeal to you if you have no interest in contributing in any way apart from publicising yourself, but in that case Wikipedia probably isn't the right place for you anyway, because using Wikipedia to promote or publicise oneself isn't allowed, as well as because it seems that you may not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines (though, as I have said above, I don't myself know whether you do or not).

I know that what I have said is not what you would like to hear, but I believe it is more likely to be helpful to you to make it clear what the problems are than to try to brush them under the carpet. I have to warn you that if you carry on in the same way that you have been going then you will probably very soon be blocked from editing. Actually, if you have no intention of contributing in any other way than you have done, then although blocking you from editing will seem unfriendly, it may in fact be doing you a favour, because it will prevent you from wasting more time on trying to do something which is never going to succeed. If, however, you are willing to consider starting to contribute to Wikipedia in other ways, then you are very welcome to do so, but please think carefully about the advice I have given you about how to do so and how not to do so. 🙂 JBW (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @JBW. Thank you, this is the first civilised message directed to me for a while. All of the others were just refusing to acknowledge facts, and calling the black white, as with the picture, the same people who were saying "You do not own the copyright of your own picture", are these who rejected the article because "You do not write about yourself", and also some of them contradicted their own comments in the past.

As I see you are an editor who is open to thinking, instead of just using basic guidelines like "You cannot be neutral writing about yourself", it would be very kind of you if you can, actually look into the draft and sources. For context, the first time the draft got rejected was 2 months ago and I was told it needs 3 different independent media reporting about me. I managed to find two, and they said the two are good, but we need one more. Soon after, a main Stuttgart media/newspaper invited me for an interview so they can post about me, published their article, and I attached it to the draft and resubmitted it. Then, the same editor who in the past had approved the other two articles, jumped in, saying that the two articles, written solely about me, "Do not provide significant coverage of the subject", which was clearly untrue, and also proceeding to say that the main Stuttgart newspaper is not independent - in the process implying that I have somehow influenced their decision to write an article about me.

I gave up then, but soon after, after achieving the Master M3 title, multiple new Bulgarian media reported that, as not a lot Bulgarians have a Master title. I added the Master achievement, and the new sources, to the draft and resubmitted it, only for one of the editors who had rejected it before, to jump in and reject it immediately with the comment "No improvement since last decline". This was, once again, clearly untrue, as further information and sources have been added.

Considering all this, I humbly believe that the draft deserves to be published and 100% fits in wikipedia's notability guidelines, the way they were presented to me during the first submission. It will be very kind of you if you can review it, as I see that you are capable of an unbiased review.

Best wishes

Kalin Stefanov Kalinators (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s get this clear. You read my message above, including numbered point 1, and thanked me for it. Then you proceeded to post "fuck you" to an editor, and posted an unblock request telling people to "burn in hell"? Did you really think that was going to get you unblocked? Or was it trolling? Either way, I now regret having wasted a considerable amount of time drafting and editing a fairly long message trying to help you. JBW (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe How can I build an encyclopedia if people like you reject the articles? Kalinators (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not attempting to build an encyclopaedia. You are trying to brute force your way into getting an article on yourself created. When this fails you resort to threats ("your boss will fire you", "you will be fired from your position as a wikipedia editor", etc) and then start blatantly promoting your backgammon coaching services and youtube channel. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, they escalated to legal threats on UTRS - utrs:92056. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody forced him to upload an image of himself. Nor will a court order Wikipedia to host his work. 331dot (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he's confused and thinks this is social media that he somehow is entitled to have a presence on? He's entitled to stand on a street corner and tell passers by about himself, he's not entitled to space on this privately owned project to write an encyclopedia, which isn't social media in the first place. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating unblock ticket. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 08:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can he lose access to UTRS too? He definitely should for that utter bollocks. Star Mississippi 01:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who doesn't have access to UTRS but may be interested to know, here are just two of the ridiculous things he wrote in his UTRS appeal. (1) He is planning to take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights. Among other reasons why that is crazy, I wonder what jurisdiction he thinks a European court has over an organisation based in the United States. (2) He objects to the fact that Wikipedia is hosting a photograph of him for which he never gave permission for Wikipedia to use. Anyone who has seen his impassioned attempts to insist that Wikipedia must host that photograph, and must not delete it, will be wondering at his sheer nerve in posting such ridiculous nonsense. JBW (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JBW I know you disagree with my CSD rationale, something I have no problem with. I wonder if you might feel it worthwhile to take a new look at it in the light of this unusual posturing. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Kalin Stefanov

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:Kalin Stefanov, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. Star Mississippi 16:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Kalin Stefanov (backgammon player)

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:Kalin Stefanov (backgammon player), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. Star Mississippi 16:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Kalinators

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 User:Kalinators, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. Ahri Boy (talk) 05:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]