User talk:Holypod

inre Articles for deletion/The Blue Knight (film)
While I understand you concerns over an article remaining unsourced for a while, being unsourced is not a proper deletion rationale, specially if one practices due diligence and finds that sources exist. More, a topic's notability is dependent upon sources existing, NOT in their ever.being used. No insult intended, but you made a very poor nomination, and even though AFD is not to be used to force improvement by others, it was none-the-less done. Your thoughts on applicable guideline?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 21:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree to disagree. I believe that articles shouldn't be here without proof of notability, and the burden isn't upon the community, but upon the page creators to assert a reason for notability. Citing policies that allow lazy article creation, is just weird to me as well. Three years is not "a while", and to be honest, you could have said this in the AFD. Y'all didn't have to come around here to harass someone on their talk page. Holypod (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Holypod, if you nominate multiple articles for deletion that clearly don't meet our deletion criteria then you can expect to get messages explaining how you are going wrong. If you choose to interpret such help as harrassment then I would suggest that Wikipedia is not a place where you can best use your skills. For example you stated that SilverPlatter was completely unsourced and that InfoTrac was uncited, both for nearly a decade, when both of these statements could be seen to be obviously untrue just by glancing at the articles. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * In my line of work, what you're doing in your AfDs is what we call a factual misrepresentation, when one makes a factual statement that is easily falsified by reviewing the evidence. Not that I agree with his politics, but I always liked Joe Wilson's much more direct way of saying it.--Coolcaesar (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Definitely not to "harass", but to politely educate an editor with less than 150 lifetime edits. While sure, a perfect article is the ultimate goal of us all, perfection is not a policy nor guideline command... despite your personal belief, like it or not. You may (obviously) choose to disagree (or perhaps simply missed it), but guideline clarifies that a topic's notability is not based upon sources (ever) being used, but is rather to be based upon sources being available, even if not used. Please study WP:BEFORE, WP:NRVE, WP:NEXIST, WP:DEL, as well as WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:UGLY, WP:IMPATIENT, and WP:SEP.  This advice comes from someone with 60,000 lifetime edits who is both an Administrator and a Coordinator of Project Film... and you can still choose to disagree... but what would I have to gain from lying to you or mis-stating policy and guideline?  I am sorry if you felt "harrassed".  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

AfDs
I notice that every one of the 9 articles you have recently listed for deletion were ones that I wrote; I also notice they are all headed for keep or speedy keep. Have we ever interacted before?  DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No. However, it appears from the above that Wikipedia does not delete articles for being poorly sourced, so apparently I should have simply added a template labeling them as poorly sourced. That was not fully apparent to me; the more obscure policies cited above make that clear though. Holypod (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I still have some questions:
 * How do you explain your notes to Bgarren and Cgptoday?
 * why was it my articles you chose to investigate?  DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Look at the edit history. It appears that User:Holypod is trying to see how many inexplicable and/or bizarre AfDs he/she can initiate before getting blocked. Don't feed the troll. See Deny recognition. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There is really no way of responding to this, as you can see, there is progressively more aggressive and intimidating language being used above. But I'll make the effort. Bgarren: I already replied to that and the Bgarren page. CPGToday: the same reason. Both made promotional edits from singular accounts that made no other edits, after the articles edited had been added unsourced or badly sourced for a long time. Cpgtoday added the names of people in the company without sources. That's the sign of a COI editor. The other editor had four stricken out edits, following the same pattern of pages that were badly sourced or unsourced, which saw single editors come in to make single sets of edits, and leave. I also asked User:Brianbclan, who adimitted to having a COI. I saw a pattern, that articles by a certain editor would enter Wikipedia almost entirely unsourced, and that later editors would come on to make what I see as COI edits. There were a lot of examples of this: poorly sourced articles posted, which were altered done the line by SPIs. If this is coincidental, okay, the articles were not added with poor sourcing to become anchors for later editing; they were just added without good sources and later SPI edits were entirely unrelated to the article poster. As you pointed out earlier, you are an Arbitrator and have the ability to look at hidden edits, so I should not be questioning this further as I am sure you would have seen something to this pattern if there was one. So I have stopped and will believe that this was merely coincidental. As per the storm raging above, I will also apologize for using AFD at all, and will not use it again. Holypod (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)