User talk:Soulman1125

Your submission at Articles for creation: Braeden Wright (July 21)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy 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 when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Braeden Wright and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Braeden_Wright Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sulfurboy&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Braeden_Wright reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Braeden Wright concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Braeden Wright, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Braeden Wright


Hello, Soulman1125. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Braeden Wright".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the  or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Braeden Wright


The article Braeden Wright has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. 'References' are quotes, brief mentions, interviews, or lack mention of the article subject."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. red dogsix (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Braeden Wright for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Braeden Wright 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/Braeden Wright 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. red dogsix (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Lola Lennox for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lola Lennox 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/Lola Lennox 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. red dogsix (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
Putting my money where my mouth is. There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Mandatory paid editing disclosure; disclosure of any other connection
You have said here and here that you have no "conflict of interest". I have no idea how you define "conflict of interest" but your behavior here in Wikipedia shows that you very likely a) are being paid to work on these articles about models or b) have some other connection with the two subjects about which you have edited the most.

Please a) disclose if you are being paid, or expect to be paid, for any of your work here; b) disclose any connection you have to Braeden Wright or Lola Lennox and their management.

Please respond here before you do anything else.

Please be aware that there is a place for editors who are paid or who have some connection to subjects about which they write, but you need to follow the relevant policies and guidelines. The foundation of each of them, is disclosure. Please think carefully before you reply, and please be forthright in answering the two questions. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for speaking in such a collegial and cordial way to me, Jytdog. I can state unequivocally that I am most definitely not being paid to work on the articles of Braeden Wright and Lola Lennox. I can also state emphatically, again, that I do not know these subjects, have any relationship or connection with them, their management, or anything that would connect me to them other than simply being interested and somewhat knowledgeable in the area of which they belong (models and musicians). I am well aware of the official definitions of COI and have read them in detail after duffbeerforme first accused me of this. I unequivocally stated to him that I do not have COI. I see he/she does not take my word, and has opened up a Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and I am prepared to defend myself. There are a few things he stated in the discussion that leave out key facts and I believe then misrepresent me, my actions, and my character. I look forward to defending myself and discussing this with you. I have already, I believe very amicably, expressed my concerns with duffbeerforme on his talk page as I feel a repeated pattern of intense hostility from him/her-- I have tried to dial this down in the friendliest ways possible in the AfDs we were involved in, and even recently on his talk page asking for a truce, and for his friendship. But I will deal with those claims in an evidenced, proper, and official way when I have a moment, not here.


 * I thank you for taking the time to use neutral language with me over such a serious concern. These last two weeks have left me feeling incredibly sad and a bit disheartened by some of the language and hostility I feel I have experienced in the community. It was enough to almost make me quit for the second time. So any time an editor takes heart to be cordial and collegial-- I want to expressly thank them for it. I believe in the project strongly and especially believe in cordiality and that we are all here to work together in a positive environment, despite our many challenges. Thanks very much. Much love and cheers x Soulman1125 (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. While I hear you, I don't find what you are writing to be credible. If you are not aware of this, people who are paid and who actually do have connections, blatantly lie all the time, out of misguided assumptions what would be better for them.
 * Your behavior is, for example, exactly like that of the person we deal with at articles, deletion discussion, and COIN (see for example the COIN thread where they protested their lack of COI and attacked others. Like you they added badly source, promotional content about a tight group of people and bludgeoned AFD and other discussions.
 * Your behavior - what you have done here in WP, is the problem, despite what you say about it.
 * As duffbeerforme pointed out, even your username reflects the name of the agency used by one of these two people. That you would just happen to have that username, and work so hard on an article and the related deletion discussion of a client of that agency, is just as glaring as a big zit on a model's nose. It is not ignore-able. This is what you have done.
 * Again, what you have written here is not credible. It is as un-credible as drewmonda and his socks. I'd like to offer you another opportunity to disclose.  Please do consider taking it. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Jytdog-- Obviously I did not provide any evidence to backup my statement in my last message to you, and of course that would leave any user skeptical to just accept someone's word-- but I have plenty. And they are things I have done. Not talk, evidence. I would really like to clear my name. Again, I do not have COI. I was about to ask you if I post my evidence here or in the official discussion? But I am going to assume here? I will begin writing my response and post in the appropriate space when you let me know. Thanks. Soulman1125 (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course there is no "evidence". This is WP and we do not and cannot "investigate" who you really are. The problem is that your behavior to date completely contradicts what you are saying. I have no more to say here; I will post my recommendation at WP:COIN--Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, Jytdog please look at my behaviour but actually look at it in context and not merely from what another user has said about my behaviour out of context and purposefully leaving documented behaviour out in order to support his false narrative. First off-- I am not a single purpose account. There are edits in other subjects that I have done-- where User:duffbeerforme stated that I have only worked on Lola Lennox and Braeden Wright and a series of "IIHF" posts-- he conveniently leaves out that I have also participated in other completely unrelated AfDs-- one for Thinsulate another for Third Rock Ventures, and the page of music producer Frank Dukes. I have only been trying to reengage in the community for a couple of months so of course I don't have a ton more-- but User talk:duffbeerforme's statement saying that I have not participated in the community and asserting that these contributions I have made which there is evidence for my action is patently false and misrepresentative. I feel he has bitten me hard, I have specific diffs showing things he has done that show a repeated behaviour of personal attack, wikihounding, non-collegial, rude and dismissive talk, and biting the the newcomers-- and he does not seem to have any remorse or ownership or even an openness to listen to good faith when I have very amicably tried discuss this with him multiple times.
 * Second, User:duffbeerforme notes how many edits I made in those AfDs. Look at what most of those edits actually are: minor typos and word changes. I take very seriously speaking correctly, clearly, thoroughly in my arguments and responses. I don't believe in being short, dismissive, and misrepresenting things by leaving something out without doing the work to properly examine or flesh something out. I realize now that editing these typos so many times looks absolutely insane when viewing the sheer number. But that was my mistake-- I did not realize that at the time, and should have at the least made all of those be noted as "minor edits", which I did not. But to say I bludgeoned the argument sheerly because of numbers misrepresents what actually happened when you read the edits in question in context, as they are. There was plenty of discussion, and User:duffbeerforme's arguments, in my assessment, regularly made multiple assertions in such blunt and short ways that they misrepresented the whole truths, and that required detailed and explicit arguments citing official guidelines in order to show my arguments against them. That is called debate. The topics evolved, and we discussed. It was deep, but it was not simply to bludgeon-- it was to communicate arguments clearly and in detail based on official guidelines-- and THAT is what we are supposed to do, not matter was community unvetted opinion essays like WP:TLDR that User:duffbeerforme admittedly "sarcastically" threw in my face during the the debate in an attempt to belittle me ad hoc instead of attacking my ideas.
 * Third, my username is an ode to the fact that I like Soul music. And yes, I like Soul Artist Management. I like their mission statement, I like the models they represent and the style of models they represent (athletic and healthy). My username is an ode to my interest in these topics, much like if a professor made his username Scienceman1125. There are zero rules that disallow making your username related to what you are interested in, in fact, it's a pretty obvious thing to do. If I was trying to hide my interests in the subject because of COI, don't you think I would have made my username something completely unrelated in order to elude suspicion? Consider that. And if you must know, 11 was my football number, and 25 was my age when I first joined. As to why I have only contributed to Braeden Wright and Lola Lennox so far? I first attempted to make Braeden Wright years ago-- and it was rejected. I was new to the environment and eager to contribute what I thought was an important topic. I learned (as much completely new users do) that there are many rules to be followed, and I learned that that the time, the consensus from the community did not agree that the sourcing for the subject was good enough at the time. I was disheartened enough to not make any new articles-- I couldn't think of anything that I knew to write on that hadn't already been covered. Fast forward to this summer, years later, I decided to try my hand at Wikipedia articles again. I have still followed Braeden Wright and noticed from his instagram that he was dating Lola Lennox, Annie Lennox's daughter. I looked at her on the internet and found what I believed to be multiple reliable, independent, and secondary sources on her-- and that no one had written on her yet. She was perfect for me to get back into writing articles. So that is why I wrote on her next. The article was reviewed by User:JSFarman and she sent me a thank you message in reply to providing sources that met the notability requirement. I finally felt like I found my niche to contribute articles to the community that would be accepted per official guidelines and I was very excited. I admittedly have little interest in edit warring and trying to jump on the new facts for pages that people are eager to write. I am more concerned with fixing pages that may be broken from sourcing or writing style that are in the area I am interested in, or contributing new ones so that we can grow the bounty of worthy information in Wikipedia-- which is the whole point of its existence anyways. I began looking to see if Braeden Wright had any new sources that could pass and in the three years since, he has a completely different set of sourcing to work from. So I tried again. It was nominated for prod by a user who has now left the community for being shown to have been deleting things in a neglectful way outside of the rules. This user then went to Lola Lennox and they both went to AfD and here we are. Almost a month later, there has been healthy debate, the articles have been improved, and one user in Braeden Wright's AfD even thanked me for my "hard work" when I edited the entire article and pruned many of the things from it that the people in the community suggested. I took MY TIME and my effort to be bold and do the work. And now I am being accused on making too many edits simply because I volunteered to them on the behalf of the others in the AfD? That is so incredibly contrary to Wikipedia's mission in so many ways. Besides, the community is founded on, consensus and despite User:duffbeerforme's comment that said "I lied" (another personal attack on me, not my argument) there were users that support my arguments. Braeden Wright's AfD had no consensus for a reason-- some users evaluated that it should stay, and some that it should be deleted. I have no been alone in my views on these two subjects in AfD and now it feels like User:duffbeerforme is doing whatever he/she can do to either bully me from the community so I will simply go away-- or continue to do whatever he/she can to get the pages I contributed deleted simply because it is his view that they should be. Xe is entitled to his/her views but you know full well that is not how the community works. I am so upset by this entire thing. I hope hearing this explanation with evidence of things I have done, not just talk, furthers a worthy reply. I fully hear where you are coming from but it is my belief that you have been mislead, and I stand my everything I have said and done. Thanks x Soulman1125 (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Braeden Wright
Hi. I've moved this article to draft again because I don't think it is ready for article space. I would say straight up that I don't see any copyright infringement in the present text. However, I don't see good evidence of notability either. I would hope that you can work on it together with others to bring it up to standard. Having it in draft ought to reduce the heat generated by the edit war. Deb (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Deb. If you look back in it's history-- it existed in a completely different way than it did yesterday, one that multiple editors believed was suitable for keep in the article space if you look at the recent AfD discussion. But I am so not into edit wars. Such strange vitriol. I appreciate your message and putting it into the draft. The heat is definitely something I am not interested in, so I appreciate you bringing me some cool A/C hah. Thanks and much love to you x Soulman1125 (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It was not "keep" it was "no consensus". You are consistently mispresenting things in WP - sources, closes, etc. This is not good. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your editing has been so terribly dishonest. You can say "much love" all you want, but the academic fraud in your editing, and your responses about connections (when you added tons of unsourced detail) are very much the opposite of love - they express disdain for other editors, and for the values of the editing community. What you say and what you do, are completely opposite of each other. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I never said it was voted keep-- I was referring to contributions of how the article should exist by "editors who voted keep". Some of them did. This statement is not false. These entire comment you just posted expresses disdain towards me, so please refrain from this continued harassment. I would suggest to not shoot yourself in the foot. I also would ask that you refrain from posting on my talk page. I am not interested in waking up every morning receiving threatening and extremely non-collegial comments about my character when I visit the community. Thanks. Soulman1125 (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, you say I added unsourced detail without looking at the history of the page. It was all sourced-- other users deleted sourcing. You then mischaracterize my actions without specific evidence. Again, please refrain from making comments on my character and actions without specific detail, as you keep referring, unsourced arguments are not always correct. Your own advice may warrant a listen. Thanks. Soulman1125 (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. Here is the page as you created it. As I pointed out at COIN in the following


 * "Wright was born in Edmonton, Canada, where he lived until beginning his international career as a model. He is a lifelong ice hockey player. He received a degree with distinction in Political Science from the University of Alberta in 2010."


 * There is no content about him at all in the first source.
 * There is no source for the hockey thing. There is no source for university of alberta. There is no source for "degree with distinction".
 * More broadly there is no source in the whole page for his birthday, but an exact date is given.
 * The page was full of other refs with no content about him, but are just images or videos, like this, which is pure reference padding.
 * You either know this person, or you have made up those claims.
 * No "love". Fraud. Disdain. Lying.  Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The direct quote from the VMAN source: "Braeden wears clothing Paul Smith", "Braeden loves playing hockey in Canada". Either your eyes are failing you or you are allowing them to in order to fit your narrative. That's my only explanation for that. He is in the photos as well. I would expect a retraction and an apology. Again, I believe the effort to force your narrative has lead to arguments that mischaracterize the sources on multiple occasions. I'm not going to spend any more time discussing this with you piece by piece. I have better uses of my time. And as far as disdain for the community? You also have an entire section of your user page dedicated to comparing the much valued Wikipedia guideline of "Assume Good Faith" to "dogshit". If that's not showing disdain for Wikipedia's core principals and the community of users within it, I don't know what is. Last time-- please refrain from posting your personal attacks and harrassment on my talk page. I will not respond again. As someone who has been previously indefinitely banned from COI comments, I hope you heed that advice, relax, and find something more productive with your time. Hope you have a great day full of sunshine and happiness. Soulman1125 (talk) 20:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You are the guy who dumps industrial waste in a national forest. I don't have a great day when I encounter people like you. I will not be replying further. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yet another blatant personal attack. I've been called worse things by better people. Much love x Soulman1125 (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, User:Beinganiceperson! My first barnstar. I feel very proud, ha. I think sometimes when people do not personally recognize a source as international simply because they aren't familiar with it, they don't seem to double check. It's very hard not to find the truth when you aren't looking for it. NME and Interview are two of the biggest reliable, independent sources, especially for music and arts, on the planet. I laughed when I read the sources were only local ha. But, I brought these facts to attention. Hopefully others will agree. Cheers and much love x

Your draft article, Draft:Braeden Wright


Hello, Soulman1125. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Braeden Wright".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Dolotta (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Illangelo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page After Hours ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Illangelo check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Illangelo?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lola Lennox


A tag has been placed on Lola Lennox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Articles for deletion/Lola Lennox. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ~ Amkgp 💬  06:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)