User talk:Luke Kindred

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Peach Pit (band) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peach Pit (band) 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 Articles for deletion/Peach Pit (band)& 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. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Peach Pit
Firstly, I did try to salvage the article by looking for the correct kind of sources before I nominated it — which is precisely why I know that the reason you relied on blogs and student media, which are not types of sources that you're allowed to use to support notability, is because they don't have the depth or range or volume of reliable source coverage they actually need to have to become notable enough for an article. Bands are not automatically notable just because they exist; they have to have reliable source coverage in real media, like major daily newspapers and established music magazines, to support an article with before they're allowed to have one. Blogs and student media aren't personal pecadilloes that I invented myself just to be a contrarian — it's a standard Wikipedia rule decided by community consensus that they are not notability-supporting sources.

Secondly, if you're the one who wants the article to exist, then you're the one with the responsibility to find the correct kind of sources to support that the band is notable in the first place. Not me, you. It's not my responsibility to drop all the much more important work that had to be done today in light of the Manitoba provincial election last night — like the 13 new MLAs who had to get their articles started today, and all the electoral districts whose articles had to be updated today, and on and so forth — in order to help you fix an article about a band that I already know is unfixable because I already searched for good sources and couldn't find any. You don't get to tell anybody else what their editing priorities should be.

Thirdly, if an article is using bad sources that aren't valid support for notability, it's not my responsibility to leave it alone just because not having an article might hurt the band's or the page creator's feelings; my responsibility as a Wikipedia editor is to hold every article I come across to the same standards. If the sourcing isn't what we require, my job is to address that. If the notability claim is weak or nonexistent, my job is to address that. If you use sources that aren't actually supporting the content you're footnoting them with, like when you cited a charting claim to the wrong week, it's my job to notice that and point it out. Again, we're not a PR site on which people or bands are entitled to have articles, no matter how incorrectly sourced they are: it's not what the article says that determines whether they get to have an article or not, such that as long as it says notable-sounding stuff you're allowed to use bad sources to support it; the quality and depth and range of the sources are the notability test.

Even a President of the United States, by definition one of the most important people on earth, would still not get to keep an article if he or she somehow managed to hold the job without being the subject of any reliable media coverage or books — it's not the holding of the title that gets him in the door, it's the reception of reliable source coverage about his work in the role. Bands work the same way: it's not the things the article says that make them notable enough for an article, it's the quality of the references that can be shown to support that the things it says are actually true. And all of this is precisely because people have a tendency to lie about themselves and other people, so we always require anything an article says to be verifiable in reliable, trustworthy media sources that are independent of the subject's own personal control.

So, TLDR, it's not my responsibility to have done or said anything differently than I did. It's not my responsibility to leave improperly sourced articles alone; my responsibility is precisely to tag them for improvement and/or nominate them for deletion, exactly as I did. My responsibility is to Wikipedia, not to you or the band. Bearcat (talk) 07:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Going on a retaliatory tagging spree against all of the newly-elected Manitoba MLAs, specifically because I mentioned them in my earlier comment, is not appropriate or acceptable.
 * There are two different kinds of notability on Wikipedia. There are some types of topics where we know for a fact that reliable source coverage always already exists and more will always come to exist in the future. Holders of notable political offices, for example, got campaign coverage during the election, and are verifiable as having won the election, and will get more coverage in the future because covering politics is the media's job — so for an MLA, as soon as you can find one reliable source which verifies that they won the election, they have automatically become a topic we must have an article about. And because there are a lot of new MLAs whose articles have to be created all at once, we create quick starter articles right away based on that one source so that there's something in place quickly, and then we go back to expand and improve their articles with additional sourcing afterward. They always already have media coverage from their campaigns, and they will always get more media coverage as they do their jobs — so their notability is not dependent on how many sources have already been added to the article right off the bat, but on how many sources are available to get the article expanded with. They are also not violating WP:NOTNEWSPAPER — NOTNEWSPAPER is about issues like whether we should keep an article about every house fire that ever got reported in a local newspaper, whereas having biographical articles about MLAs is always unconditionally mandatory.
 * Notability for musicians does not work the same way. Musicians cannot always show reliable source coverage that already exists, and are not always guaranteed to receive more reliable source coverage in the future, so they are not considered "inherently" notable: to make them notable, you have to demonstrate that the correct depth and range and volume and quality of sources already exists.
 * The rules work differently in different contexts, because different classes of topic have different degrees of certainty about the existence of appropriate sources — so revenge-tagging a bunch of inherently notable politicians just because you got pushback on a poorly sourced band is not acceptable editing behaviour. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There was exactly zero bias in any of the articles at all — I don't write with bias, and you can take that to the bank — and starting an article about a newly elected MLA is not a "breaking news" violation. Just to be clear, if you ever again speak to me with even the slightest hint of snark in your tone I'm reporting you to WP:ANI for violating WP:CIVIL. Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Bruce Olson
Some of the content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://christianlifemissions.org/causes/bruce-olson-ministries/, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Check category template
A possible answer if you feel categories are misapplied is to add, and someone will overview them all. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of WP:ANI discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Gleeanon409 (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

BLP discretionary sanctions alert
NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block.

''Hello, Luke, Your reverting was an issue yesterday, not today, but I thought I'd still post a notice stating that edit warring/repeated reverting can be a blockable offense. Try not to do it more than once. Thank you.'' Liz Read! Talk! 02:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Liz, but it was not I who initiated any of this. Another user reverted my editing instead of trying to talk first and even after I engaged them publicly in several places (and began thorough explaining my work in the edit summaries) they proceeded to revert a large number of edits across a variety of pages (repeatedly) In the end they began to make the changes and improvements discussed (and we collaborated), so while this may have looked like a war, the end results were well discussed improvements to Wikipedia, a highly desirable outcome.--Luke Kindred (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Midnight Sun Brewing Company for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Midnight Sun Brewing Company 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 Articles for deletion/Midnight Sun Brewing Company 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. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Re: Biting the newcomers - i.e. Snow King Mountain
First correction: I didn't delete the article. I tagged the article as a copyright violation. That was the extent of my involve in the article's rewrite, and I tagged it as a copyright violation as an alternative to speedy deletion, otherwise you wouldn't be seeing the article at all.

Second, I've been where you are before (here's the proof). The code demands certain things from certain groups, for editors that means original work and not copyright work and for admins that means upholding the policies in the face of pressure from those who believe that the work is acceptable when it clearly isn't or when consensus is that the work is not for Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's contributors have gotten colder over the years I've been here, that I can not argue, but your account is reasonably old enough to reach a point where it undergoes it's trial by fire. If you have the temperament to allow your metal to be tested then it will emerge stronger, though many can not stand the heat and - as you are considering doing - opt to get out of the kitchen. It is one and wholly your call as to whether or not you want to remain, but know that for every editor I drive away in acting to balance the Wikipedia equation the harder my heart becomes. Food for thought. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Addendum: In a look of your contributions I can see you're a little rough around the edges, so I'm leaving you with a link to the Military history WikiProject Academy, its got good information for editors who are inexperienced or poorly experienced in certain Wikipedia-related areas. Its set up for Military history related articles, but there's enough good information present in the academy that I think it'll be of use to you. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Cheers to Tom
I must say this is the classiest and most respectable response that I have ever received from an admin. Go Tom! Luke Kindred (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
Hello Luke Kindred. The nature of your edits 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 compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, 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:Luke Kindred. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. 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. Yunshui 雲 水 07:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC) It is really inappropriate that you ar making such a serious accusation without a single example, link, or article mention. You could easily be banned from Wikipedia for such careless harassment. If you intent to war you better come with a professional and defensible attack. Don't shoot yourself in the foot.
 * Since you've chosen this road, you are now indefinitely blocked; you may no longer edit Wikipedia in any capacity. I have ample evidence, screenshotted from your Upwork account - it is available on request to any administrator who wishes to review the block. Yunshui 雲 水 08:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for undisclosed paid editing in violation of Wikipedia's Terms of Use. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Yunshui 雲 水 08:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Prior to filing another unblock request, if that's what you intend to do, can you first Can you explain the circumstances by which you came to write Cannon Beach Christian Conference Center? (The sources are rather obscure [and generally unreliable] and the first sentence is an almost verbatim copy/paste of the center's website sell text.) Also, were you paid to contribute to Snow King Mountain? (I ask because several editors have identified it as having WP:PROMOTIONAL language.) Chetsford (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC); edited 02:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It is frustrating that in order to answer your questions and restore my account I am called on to reveal personal information about myself which could directly be used for identity theft and other frauds... Please delete this information as soon as possible.
 * I'm not sure if you watching this page, but I want to call your attention to two things: 1) It is very unusual for user talk pages to be deleted, so its unlikely that the page here will be deleted and even if the information provided is removed it'll be in the article's history now and forever most likely - unless its over-sighted, which is a higher form of a deletion that admins like me can't preform (we need to request it) but it can only be done under specific circumstances, and to be hoonest with you this situation doesn't really fit the circumstantial mold. 2) Based on Very hard learned lessons Wikipedia has a hair trigger on COI-related editing, so its never a good idea to withhold the information from us cause when it comes out it can make the entire project shake one end to the other (here's the proof). If you want back on you'll need to unilaterally and unconditionally declare what it is you were being paid to edit and then stay away form it to the best of your ability. It may also behoove you to consider requesting mentorship or putting yourself up for adoption as a show of good faith. Just putting that out there... TomStar81 (Talk) 23:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)