User talk:Sphenopetroclival

Your submission at Articles for creation: Matthew James Stephenson (August 19)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong 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:Matthew James Stephenson 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Matthew_James_Stephenson Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theroadislong&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Matthew_James_Stephenson reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * SNG for academics and professors and the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG. Some WikiProjects have provided additional guidance on notability of topics within their field. Peer reviewed publications at reputable journals are notable; even if you don't like that fact. Sphenopetroclival (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Sphenopetroclival. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the edit COI template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see );
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see );
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Matthew James Stephenson has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Matthew James Stephenson. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * word usage was modified. can this be moved to mainspace? Sphenopetroclival (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You should keep working on it and follow the WP:AFC process. Due to the lack of required sourcing, the article would go up for deletion more or less immediately if moved to the mainspace. MrOllie (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * there are over ten sources at the article; which is sufficient given the nature of the article. other biographies hold less and survive at mainspace. Sphenopetroclival (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * None of them meet our requirements, though. We need quality, not quantity. MrOllie (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd argue they do as they are from reputable, peerireviewed journals indexed at pubmed and elsevier with assigned DOI and on the arxiv Sphenopetroclival (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * They aboslutely do not. We need sources about the article subject, not written by the article subject. I am 100% sure this article would be deleted. You need higher quality sourcing. MrOllie (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Elsevier is a credible journal; the arXiv has a rigorous review committee and so does World Neurosurgery. Media outlets that do not have peer review aren't quality; even if you think they are. Sphenopetroclival (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with what I just wrote. Also: Arguing that are requirements are wrong isn't going to get your article to the mainspace. Whether you agree or not, the way to get to a published article without inviting deletion is by meeting our requirements as explained in WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. MrOllie (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ""Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability"
 * the editors in chief of the journals are all reputable and themselves have pages here on wikipedia; for example petra klinge. seems like this article was tagged via knee jerk reaction. Sphenopetroclival (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That is one requirement, that is not the only requirement: sources must also be independent, that is not written by the article subject or by organizations or people they are affiliated with. Also: Stop trying to move this to mainspace yourself, or it really will be deleted. Once that happens you will probably not get to make a second attempt. MrOllie (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, your original draft is at Draft:Matthew James Stephenson. Work on it there. Please stop creating duplicates. MrOllie (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * it wouldn't make sense to work on the original draft if its impossible to move it to main once it's completed revision Sphenopetroclival (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not impossible if you follow the WP:AFC process. You will continue to have problems moving it yourself - but that will be true of any duplicate you create as well. There isn't a workaround - you simply shouldn't be doing it. MrOllie (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Furthermore with respect to notability; the article in question has references to multiple on IMDb. Such a person may be considered notable if:
 * The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or
 * this is in addition to research contributions.
 * there shouldnt be an issue moving it to main; and creating another page would indeed be a workaround if the root cause of the issue is someone that is involved at "Yet another revert war from this user" Sphenopetroclival (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're going to start with personal attacks, I am done trying to help. One last time: Please consider what I have said, read the policy links I have left thoroughly, and consider that after a 3 day tenure here you may have a few things left to learn about how Wikipedia works. MrOllie (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Before nominating a recently created article for deletion, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape."
 * clearly you do not understand the reputable nature of peer reviewed; academic journals whos editors in chief are themselves are listed at wikipedia. SNG for academics and professors and the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG.Though my tenure has been short here; it doesn't take a genius to edit wikipedia. Sphenopetroclival (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally."
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline
 * You're clearly a crank; because the article has many peer reviewed publications at journals with novel impact factor and other media sources as well. Sphenopetroclival (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Do not issue personal attacks against editors, especially those who are following our policies and guidelines and who, believe it or not, were trying to help you. If you continue like this, your next block will be for a much longer period of time. This is a collaborative editing project and you need to be civil with other editors, even those you disagree with. It's how this proect has operated for 22 years. If we all insulted each other over every difference of opinion, it wouldn't have lasted this long. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Matthew James Stephenson


A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Matthew James Stephenson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. MrOllie (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Matthew James Stephenson for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Matthew James Stephenson 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/Matthew James Stephenson 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. MrOllie (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * SNG for academics and professors and the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG. Some WikiProjects have provided additional guidance on notability of topics within their field. Sphenopetroclival (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Furthermore peer reviewed academic works are notable.
 * Notability requires verifiable evidence
 * Shortcuts
 * WP:NRV
 * WP:NRVE
 * The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.
 * No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason.
 * Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.
 * of which many are referenced. Sphenopetroclival (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, you may be blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Schminnte. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Matthew James Stephenson—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 20:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Sphenopetroclival, the AfD notice clearly instructs that it must not be removed. Yet you have done so on a number of occasions, and have persisted despite being clearly warned by several editors. Your unhappiness at the article being nominated does not exempt you from Wikipedia's rules. Your behaviour has made it clear that you intend to continue to disrupt the discussion, so I have blocked your ability to edit Wikipedia. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 20:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Matthew James Stephenson has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Matthew James Stephenson. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Furthermore peer reviewed academic works are notable.
 * Notability requires verifiable evidence
 * Shortcuts
 * WP:NRV
 * WP:NRVE
 * The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.
 * No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason.
 * Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.
 * of which there are many referenced at the article. Sphenopetroclival (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Matthew James Stephenson


Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as Matthew James Stephenson, is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

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. JoelleJay (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Draft:Matthew James Stephenson


Please do not introduce inappropriate pages, such as Draft:Matthew James Stephenson, to Wikipedia. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been deleted. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Deletion Review. Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Hoax articles
Please do not create, maintain or restore hoaxes on Wikipedia. If you are interested to know how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements already in Wikipedia – and, if possible, correct them. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia. Continued disruption will be met with sanctions, which could include a block from editing. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about this project and how you can contribute constructively. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

September 2023
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. 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:. Widr (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)