User talk:Delectopierre/Archive 1

Archive 1

Taylor Lorenz

Rolling Stone is not considered reliable on political topics. See WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS --FMSky (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I left you a message on the article talk page. Please discuss there. Delectopierre (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Fixed a slight formatting error in taylor lorenz talk page

Fixed a formatting error in your talk page comment. If it was intended, feel free to revert my change. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciate it. The formatting on that talk page is a mess. Delectopierre (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Taylor Lorenz Talk Page Comment

Hey,

I'm moving your comment down to its own section. It was interrupting a previous comment. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I was responding on mobile and couldn't quite find the right way to reply. Delectopierre (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Stop

If you actually observed, I am selective with who I reply to on the talk page. There have been other opposes I don't reply to. Posting that WP:SHOUTING on my talk page is grossly uncivil and unwarranted and will get you blocked the next time you do that.

Plus, my argument is a new one, not before presented by myself. So it further helps clarify my position.

I have quietly decided to not reply to you directly if I can. But you are in absolutely no position to attempt to enjoin me from further participation in that process. You do not understand the policies and guidelines you're trying to warn me about; don't pretend that you do (especially with respect to WP:OWN). Coming to my talk page unprompted and without the other user's involvement is crossing the line to you harassing me. Cut it out. Jasper Deng (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Delectopierre! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Where to start a conversation about naming of natural disasters?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Upper Fillmore Revitalization Project (January 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AlphaBetaGamma were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Upper Fillmore Revitalization Project 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.

ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 14:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Delectopierre! 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! ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 14:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @AlphaBetaGamma I replied in teahouse but figured I'd reply here, too. I moved the ABC 7 reference one sentence later, but I'm still not clear what dictates that it should be on sentence 1 vs sentence 2. Could you point me to that?

Could you please also let me know specifics of what isn't written in formal tone/NPOV? Thanks!

Sentence 1: In September 2024, Ten-Ichi, a family owned and operated Japanese restaurant on Fillmore Street since 1978 closed.

Sentence 2: Prior to the closure, ABC 7 reported that Steve Amano, the owner, felt they were "being strong-armed into closing".

Delectopierre (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Moved to WP:TEAHOUSE#Best way to include 'competing narratives' in an article?

ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 00:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Delectopierre! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Best way to include 'competing narratives' in an article?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Awshort (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello Delectopierre! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Claim a blocked account's username?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Re: ani

It’s been semi-protected so I can’t respond to this there. So please allow me to do so here. You seem like a well-meaning person trying to make the world better through editing Wikipedia. You also seem very, very bad at the consensus-based system here, which requires engaging with people who revert, disagree with, correct, or challenge you with a default assumption that they are also well-meaning people trying to improve the encyclopedia. It is incredibly common for people to browse the noticeboards like NPOV — a similar behavior is how I involved myself in your threads — and so Awshort’s explanation that that’s how they found the thread is extremely plausible-sounding. Meanwhile your proposed alternative theory is based entirely and transparently on your failure to apply WP:AGF. Awshort’s decision to self-revert shows a clear attempt to not escalate a dispute with you; your failure to recognize and acknowledge that (you should have immediately added it to the ANI thread when you became aware, and probably withdrawn the whole thread) shows the opposite. Linking back to a thread where no one agreed that the behavior you were reporting had anything problematic about it is … something, too.

In your first thread, you were rude and dismissive of a simple piece of good advice I offered you. Because you seem to be well-meaning, I am going to offer it to you again: look at the threads you’ve started at ANI and just check, for each person who’s commented, whether they appear to be encouraging you or discouraging you from your behavior. I hope that you are sufficiently competent at the necessary internet social skills to make the correct deduction, to stop reactively dismissing people who don’t immediately agree with you, and to learn how to participate in a consensus-based system where you will not always get the end result you were looking for in the beginning because other people’s objections will change your contributions for the better. If not, you will end up blocked, and that would be a shame. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I want to respond in a full, thoughtful manner, so allow me to mull it over.

In the meantime, I apologize for being rude and dismissive. It was not my intent. Delectopierre (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @100.36.106.199,

As I mull this over, a question: Awshort’s decision to self-revert shows a clear attempt to not escalate a dispute with you; your failure to recognize and acknowledge that (you should have immediately added it to the ANI thread when you became aware, and probably withdrawn the whole thread) shows the opposite.

• Q: What makes you say that I should have withdrawn the thread? If you're willing, can you expound on that?

Thanks either way! Delectopierre (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

You commented at the beginning of the second ANI thread that the first thread "did not lead to any action". This is true, but a more accurate summary of the first thread is that seven people other than you and Awshort commented in the first thread; of them, it seems to me that six told you that you were wrong in some way or other (about your failure to notify, the inappropriateness of opening an ANI thread without prior attempts at resolution, your failing to listen and learn from more experienced editors, or your misunderstanding/misinterpretation of WP:HOUND); I'm not sure what Kolano123's comment meant, but maybe it is actually 7/7. Notably, not a single person said "yes I think you have made a good point" or in any way agreed with you that Awshort's behavior was problematic. The second ANI thread has comments from four editors other than you and Awshort, with the same division of criticism directed at you and at Awshort. I think that this was entirely predictable, which is why you should have withdrawn the report. The reason it's predictable is because you are the person whose behavior is outside the WP cultural norm. Meanwhile, Awshort is doing their best to not directly antagonize you, despite the fact that your behavior is problematic (as they have explained, and as has been endorsed by the comments in the later ANI thread). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

A quick question

You and I seem to be at odds regularly regarding the Taylor Lorenz article, but you seem to want to improve it as a whole based on you working on other drafts amd trying to make articles better. I think we may have gotten off to a bad start. I'm out of the house currently but wanted to spitball the idea of just trying to have a one on one discussion about differences of opinion we may have. I feel like at the very least we will run into each other in the future, and I honestly am tired of noticeboards and feel like a one on one discussion could help.

I will try not to just state a policy without explanation, and am willing to explain any past edit or conflict I have with you if you can point it out. I know in a lot of instances you might have thought I dropped a policy without explanation or that you didn't feel was fitting for that instance but was never clarified. I think that is partly because editors who have been here for a while tend to get used to shorthand WP codes to other editors without much explanation and it's a hard habit to break (ex: "they are going to know what this policy means since everyone knows WP:BIGWORD/STUFF!"). I figured this may be the quickest route to a solution between us since DRN seems to be a long process, and I feel we both want to move on to other topics but are both somewhat stubborn lol.

Just a thought, but I figured I would ask. If you would prefer DRN or another noticeboard, that is also fine. Awshort (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. I'll give this some thought. Delectopierre (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Since the DRN discussion has been archived and I have no idea where the moderator went, I just wanted to address one of your recent comments.

I understand you feel Forbes, IWMF, and Media Manipulation are not reliable sources. That's your opinion and it's fine for you to have, but you have not demonstrated it to be based in policy.

Forbes isn't necessarily non reliable; it is how it was being used as a source. A headline or subheadline cannot be considered reliable per the reliable source guideline that specifically focuses on headlines. Media Manipulation was considered usable for opinions per the discussion, but opinion sources cannot be used for facts. IWMF was a press release, and is considered a WP:SPS and not usable as a third party source for BLPs per policy.

This wasn't me being nitpicky or just randomly saying everything you used as a reference was bad just to be an asshole, I honestly did try to find sources that supported keeping the material in the article. I couldn't find anything that mentioned coordinated attacks that wasn't a press release, an opinion piece, or Lorenz herself saying it.

I haven't had time to work on the article as of late, but I'm curious - what material do you want kept in the article? I know we have went back and forth over wording etc, but I also assume you have something you want included regardless of other wording that is important to you and you would like kept.

Congratulations on the new articles you have been creating; I had a look at several and they look well sourced and worded well. Just a heads up that one had a name for a non public figure accused of a crime that shouldn't be in it until she is convicted (see WP:BLPCRIME). Other than that, all looked good :)

Awshort (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Lifestance Health for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lifestance Health 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/Lifestance Health 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 until the discussion has finished.

Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Meridians

• 113th meridian east (AfD discussion)
• 43rd parallel south (AfD discussion)

It was pretty exhausting doing the parallels. I can do the meridians too, and have moved the old discussion out of the way ready for a fresh one, but I'm holding back on that for a little while to see whether things go better this time, with proper notices. Try not to get bogged down in the meta-discussions again. I deliberately picked a set that, as far as I can see, is largely all the same; on the grounds that if there's not consensus to delete those when they're all very similar, there's almost certainly not going to be consensus to delete the ones that claim all sorts of different additional things like national and sub-national borders, and story titles, and whatnot. That discussion would fall off the rails in very short order, when the first person notices almost 200 articles that have a high degree of variation. Uncle G (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Holy moly, you are an absolute legend and as of this writing, my favorite uncle.

Thank you! That's absolutely incredible.

And yep - understood re: meta conversation. Again thank you! Delectopierre (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll also add that I think your approach is a good one. Delectopierre (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Awshort (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 09:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

March 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lifestance Health. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 09:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello Delectopierre. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Lifestance Health, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Delectopierre. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Delectopierre|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. scope_creep^Talk 06:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Scope creep Excuse me what? I asked you how operational data violates WP:NOTPROMO, you made over 100 edits without replying. I reverted your edit and you not only cast aspersions, but put a COI template on my talk page? I'm going to ask that you strike this immediately Delectopierre (talk) 06:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

And if it wasn't clear, for anyone reading this, I am not employed by any company I have edited an article about (including this company), I have never been paid to edit, nor would I ever accept a job nor payment to edit. Delectopierre (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Then why are editing warring, consistently edit warring on that article when other editor in good standing have removed egregious content which you have added in. You have seem to some kind of involvement, shares possibly or something else in the company. You have all bearings of a UPE. scope_creep^Talk 06:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Scope creep I have already stated I do not have involvement. Do not cast further aspersions.

other editor in good standing have removed egregious content which you have added in What are you talking about?

why are editing warring, consistently edit warring I'm not. Delectopierre (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, why didn't you reply to my request for over two days despite making over 100 edits, but nearly immediately revert when I re-added it? Delectopierre (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

It came up on the watchlist and just saw. Admin will deal with you now. That other company article you wrote is going to Afd. scope_creep^Talk 07:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you making threats? Delectopierre (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

This tag has been added. I can't take this any further. I have long experience in dealing with UPE editors. You have some kind of involvement here. You've stated your not being paid, that is fine, but I think your a UPE or some kind of coi. As the tag has been placed, admin will look at it now. scope_creep^Talk 08:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I do not know how to be any more clear, I do not have a conflict of interest for any articles I have edited, including lifestance. I also do not appreciate your lack of AGF. I really do not appreciate your nominating a different article I wrote for AfD because you didn't succeed on your witch hunt. And to be clear, you still haven't answered a single question about the grounds for removal of a section about the operations of a public company. Delectopierre (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Operations sections are promotional. That is long established consensus. Wikipedia is not advertising platform. Do not put it back in. When you call this a witchhunt, when its almost a daily process, that makes me even more suspicious. This will be the last comment I make here. scope_creep^Talk 09:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I asked you on the talk page to tell me where the consensus that operational sections are promotional occurred and you did not respond. Again, you have not answered a single question. But I'm so glad to provide you with some suspicion. It must be so fun for you. Do you just love your little witch hunts?

Other editors accused me of attempting to paint the organization in a bad light.

I started editing because I thought it might be intellectually stimulating and I might help improve the encyclopedia.

Instead all I've found is toxicity. Delectopierre (talk) 09:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry if was toxic. I didn't mean it to be. If it was a in-life meeting in a boozer, it would be over in seconds. scope_creep^Talk 10:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

If you were truly sorry you'd strike your unfounded accusations and insinuations that I'm lying about COI. Delectopierre (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

And maybe answer my question that you continue to not respond to Delectopierre (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Delectopierre: What is your questions exactly? scope_creep^Talk 11:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Delectopierre: I've got it. About operations. How do newspapers and magazines journalists, know about internal company operations when companies and how they operate are a closely guarded secret. Companies don't like it when folks learn about their company operations because that is seen as their secret sauce. Such a secret that to know how an operation works, particularly for a new company by somebody outside the company, is seen as industrial espionage. Every time. How does that work exactly, when you see this information.? There is only two ways that company exposes what its going on internally. One is via press-releases to generate interest in their product or service. The other one is earnings calls, financials, which are closely examined by shareholders and other interested parties when they are released at end of every business year. Many time they will mention what is going on the company in individual statements. It not that that, so the information must come from itself, likely from press-releases, which is a fail of part of WP:NCORP. Most of that information in that section comes from the company so that makes it WP:PRIMARY and fail of WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 14:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll set aside my thoughts on this reasoning for a moment, and reiterate the other half of my question:

Where is this consensus recorded as policy, de facto or otherwise? Delectopierre (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Livebarn for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Livebarn 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/Livebarn 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 until the discussion has finished.

scope_creep^Talk 08:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)