User talk:Conless

Welcome!

Hello, Lesslikely, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Datis Kharrazian ‎

The template you are looking for is {{PROD}}. Kleuske (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the amount of sources, I think it unlikely the article will be deleted and people do have the right to oppose an attempt to delete it. Kleuske (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kleuske: This is a poor use of references. It is absolutely irrelevant how many references they are, if the statements being included in the article are actually not found in any of the references. Furthermore, if every faculty page on a university list or a few articles published on PubMed were considered verifiable references enough to warrant an entire wikipedia page, then every single researcher on the planet should have their own Wikipedia page. The page is also filled with several references to low-quality pages and self-promotional materials. The original creator of the article was also the one who deleted the warnings about the page missing quality resources, being an orphan page, and also my proposal for deletion. All the user did was add a few more of the same low-quality resources with statements in the page not backed by any of those references. Although I would like to assume good faith, this behavior is a red flag to me and I believe this page needs to be elevated to an administrator so they can decide.

I'm completely uninvolved and have no plans of becoming involved. If you have concerns about the sources, it's best to bring that up on the appropriate talk page. Good luck. Kleuske (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kleuske: How can I elevate this issue to the administrator level so they can make the final decision? The author of the page continues to remove the proposal to delete without giving any reason, and without starting a discussion.

You can nominate it for deletion. See the deletion policy. Raising any issues you have on the talk-page is a much better option. Kleuske (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the poor use of references. These have been removed. Can you suggest further updates to keep the article from being deleted. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Budfawcett (talk • contribs) 00:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know whether bibliography can contain articles written by Datis Kharrazian published online at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. (without ISBN). Im trying to avoid being self promoting.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Budfawcett (talk • contribs) 00:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{re|Budfawcett} The use of references from PubMed and Medline is not a problem when they contain relevant things to be referenced in the article. However, there are several statements on the page that are not referenced by high-quality secondary sources like a high-quality newspaper website or journalistic website. For example, where did the statement about his birthplace come from? Or the statement about him teaching thousands of clinicians with his teaching model? Or the statement about him receiving a reward? There are no high-quality sources for this person. Several of them are faculty pages. It's irrelevant if it's a Harvard faculty page. Until there are high-quality sources in the future, this person should not have a Wikipedia page. Every clinician or researcher is not meant to have a Wikipedia page, even if they are from Harvard. Wikipedia pages host biographies if they meet the guidelines for a biography. This page does not. Lesslikely (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Atlantis Management Group for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Atlantis Management Group 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/Atlantis Management Group 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.

Celestina007 (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Moxie Sozo. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no vandalism, the subject is a company and fails to meet the WP Notability criteria at all, the references contain no discussion of the subject and are simply their clients. Furthermore, there seem to be no reliable independent references about the subject on the internet. It was deleted multiple times in the past but has kept being restored. I will let other admins and editors know if you continue to restore the page for "vandalism or unconstructive edits". 2600:4041:5498:4900:F149:B9A4:3AC8:7302 (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single reference that meets the WP Notability criteria for companies, it is suspicious that you have removed by warnings, which is not the protocol to follow and called them unconstructive instead of discussing on the talk page. Are you affiliated with the company? 2600:4041:5498:4900:F149:B9A4:3AC8:7302 (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]