Archives

Index 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Welcome!

Hello, Supermann, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheBirdsShedTears was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Stephen Hogan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Stephen Hogan, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by A.A Prinon was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.

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:Stephen Hogan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Stephen Hogan, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 09:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - can I ask that you moderate the tone you're using towards other editors with regard to this draft? I know that it's frustrating to have a draft declined, but there's no need to insult people's judgment by calling them myopic, or to suggest that there is any anti-Irish sentiment at play when people because folk aren't convinced about the subject's notability. What you need to do is demonstrate the subject's notability, by making it clear that he passes one of the relevant notability criteria: WP:ENT, WP:NCREATIVE or WP:GNG would seem to be the ones to look at in this case. Note that you aren't obliged to use the AfC process - you could move the draft back into article space yourself if you think it's ready, but if you do that it will probably be nominated for deletion at WP:AfD because of the notability concerns. A discussion will then take place (which you would be welcome to participate in), which will establish a consensus on whether or not we should retain the article.

At the moment, in my view the notability is quite borderline. None of the sources discuss the subject in any depth, and I'm not certain that his contributions to film and television to date would get him over the line on the ENT or CREATIVE criteria. If you can dig up any reliable sources actually discussing him or his performances in any depth, that would probably help your cause.

One more point: links to YouTube can be problematic. The people who upload them are often not the copyright holders of the material, and our WP:COPYRIGHT policy is quite strict compared to that of other user-generated websites: this is discussed specifically at WP:YOUTUBE. I've removed the YouTube link that you put into the draft, because the channel it was linking to was very obviously not the copyright holder; I've also revision deleted all versions of the draft that contained that link. Please don't add links to YouTube videos like that, only ever add them if they are linking to a channel that is clearly the copyright holder of the material shown in the video (for example, it would be OK to link to the BBC's verified channel to link to a news article that you want to use to support an assertion in an article). Thanks Girth Summit _(blether) 12:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking the time to write the explanation and actually improve the article instead of just shooting it down. That's the comaraderie that I hope to see more from a fellow editor. I highly appreciate it. I think he meets WP: ENT because 1) he had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions per https://www.spotlight.com/6299-0164-7442. I only prioritize adding the list when there is already an internal wikipedia page to help with the context. 2) He has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following because of his role as Sky Marshall Omar Anoke at https://starshiptroopers.fandom.com/wiki/Omar_Anoke. If it wasn't a cult, that Fandom Wiki wouldn't have been created in the first place. I am otherwise aware of Fandom Wiki's status on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. 3) he has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. I tried to be an actor myself and I know how hard it is to even land a background non-speaking role, union vs non-union. That being said, I am not arguing he is Tom Cruise. But to deny him is just unfair if someone actually screens all Wikipedia articles out there. I would say some are less notable. But I really don't have time to deny them because it's a lose-lose. I would rather see win-win because knowledge is power. Hope you have a good rest of the weekend. Supermann (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One more note regarding the Youtube Link is to just for readers to visualize it. I would argue it's a form of fair use when it's of low resolution. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of fan wikis is generally to chronicle everything about a franchise. The Harry Potter fandom wiki has an article on match spectators of a single game, so that argument holds little water for the "cult status" argument IMO CiphriusKane (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's an observation, not really an argument. I don't like arguing. I just like collaboration. For it to earn that entry, the author must have been a fan at a minimum. I wouldn't have contributed on Harry Potter as I am not a fan, even though I have watched all the films. See Cult. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Just a few comments in response to your points. I'll preface it by saying that, as an administrator, my opinion has no greater weight than that of other editor when it comes to decisions about notability, so this isn't me 'laying down the law' or anything; I do have a lot of experience reviewing articles and taking place in deletion discussions though, and I flatter myself that I have a pretty good grasp on the community's thresholds and the kind of articles that are, and are not, likely to survive a deletion discussion.

In response to your numbered points then: 1) To satisfy the criteria, you'll have to establish that more than one of the productions that he's been in are notable (in other words, we have articles about them), and that he had a significant role in them (in other words, he played a major character). 2) Having a Fandom articles is not enough to demonstrate a significant cult following - Fandom sites are often quite comprehensive. Also, his character having a page implies that the film has a cult following, not that he does. That's not going to fly. 3) The wording is quite wooly in that criterion, and people often disagree on what would qualify as unique, prolific or innovative. I personally don't see it, but others might. Don't attempt to use the argument that there are existing articles about less-notable actors however - you are undoubtedly correct, but this is usually characterised as the other stuff exists argument, and it's never effective: there are, unfortunately, lots of improperly sourced articles on this site about non-notable subjects, which have simply flown under the radar. There is a constant trickle of deletion nominations of such articles as people come across them, but lots of them still exist.

On your last point, regarding the YouTube video, I am going to put my admin hat back on because this isn't an editorial judgement: your opinion that a link to that would be OK with a 'fair use' rationale is not compliant with our copyright policy, and inserting a link to it is a violation of that policy. No big deal, I've fixed it, but please don't do anything like that again. I'll also add that we don't use citations merely to allow readers to visualise something: citations to sources should only be used to support an assertion of fact, not to provide a handy link to more information or similar. There's more guidance on this at WP:EL, but the long and short of it is that linking to videos like that on YouTube will ultimately get your account blocked: don't do it! Best Girth Summit _(blether) 10:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Regarding 1) he does have a list of filmography with speaking roles. In particular, he played a major villain in the 2008 movie though the ultimate villain is the alien which brain-washed the Sky Marshall; 2) How does one quantify large fan base here? Twitter followers？Some are fakes considering the number of likes and retweets; 3) Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Denying him shows wikipedia as a tertiary source sucks. If I am rich enough, I will sure launch a competitor site that shows the most inclusiveness and diversity. Supermann (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to make this article happen. It's not getting approved. Period. No one cares about your personal washed up idol Stephan Hogan. Making a failed article about him wont make him notice you.

Stop hiding behind an IP address. What a chicken/coward. And why would I want him to notice me? To create a conflict of interest like some of the accusers out there? Gimme a break! You should be ashamed of yourself. Get the f**** out! Supermann (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I just noticed that you'd replied to me above. I'm sorry people have been trolling you here: the accounts/IPs have been blocked, let me know if it persists (by the way, you might want to read WP:PING for instructions on how to notify people that you've replied to them).

So, to answer your questions. 1) 'Speaking roles' can still be very minor - having a few lines would not convince people, they'd be looking for major characters. Not necessarily a lead role, but a significant one. I can't quantify that in any way for you I'm afraid, it's a rather subjective judgement call. It sounds like the Sky Marshall role would probably qualify, but more such roles would be needed. 2) Twitter followers would not be enough - we'd want secondary sources talking about his cult status or large fan base. 3) Yes - again, these are fairly subjective criteria. We go by consensus - in an AfD discussion, editors review the sources and indicate whether or not they feel the subject passes the criteria. If the consensus is that he passes, it gets kept; if not, it gets deleted.

I don't think that the ultimate fate of your draft will really determine the question of whether Wikipedia sucks as a tertiary source, but you are touching on one of the long-standing bones of contention within the community. You can read more about the different viewpoints that people take on Meta at Deletionism and Inclusionism. Disagreements about the threshold for inclusion are common, and unfortunately sometimes acrimonious. I don't really have anything to add to that argument, I just do my best to assess articles according to the current guidelines. Other websites, as they say, are available if you don't like the way we do things here. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 11:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Let's table this for now and agree to disagree. He obviously needs to be more famous and I am definitely more of an inclusionist. Otherwise, I wouldn't have been contributing, when I should have rather devoted time to other monetary adventures to make ends meet or just to pay rent. Appreciate your patience with me. Have a good day! Supermann (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I just resubmitted for review after adding many entries. Could you please give me your two cents again while we wait for the next three months? Many thanks. Supermann (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Girth Summit:, hope you have been well. Could you please take a new look especially at the stage performance section? Hope you have a great rest of the weekend. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bonadea was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Still no indication that he meets NACTOR. No sources that discuss him in any depth, and several sources that should not be used at all.

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:Stephen Hogan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Stephen Hogan, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

bonadea contributions talk 23:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify what sources are particularly too troubling to you? Are you saying you just want to see a good article where he could be interviewed about his life journey so far so that you could learn about him more? He has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, and most importantly stage performances that are destined not to be covered that much. I wouldn't have been able to make the trips to see those stage performances. Film and TV are the only two ways I got to know of him. But that doesn't mean he hasn't made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to fields of entertainment with his involvement in best-selling audiobooks and video game voice casting. Not even Game of Thrones actor Ian McElhinney's page have that many sources listed like his here. Enough is enough. It may seem he doesn't play leading roles on screen that often, but he is a good supporting one whenever needed. He played opposite Ian on Kat & Alfie: Redwater. We can continue to polish the article as we go along. But this denial really seems cruel at this point. Where is the person who first reviewed this article at its infancy? At a minimum, can we publish this page first and add a fair use profile picture and then put it back to draft again to make it more live? Thanks. Supermann (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. bonadea contributions talk 08:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bonadea were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The sourcing is a bit of a mess, and rather similar to how a paid editor often adds every single piece of writing that mentions the topic. There are three copies of the same press release about Redwater, there are blatantly inappropriate sources such as tcm.com and Audible, there are deprecated sources such as Mail on Sunday... At least 12 of the sources that do not meet WP:RS and in some cases constitute WP:REFSPAM would need to be removed. Note that the kind of WP:CITEKILL seen here detracts from the article and makes it less likely that any actual notability is spotted.

The only readily available sources (with links to online versions) that do more than mention Hogan's name in passing are self-published or affiliated sources, such as his agent. The sources that are not linked online are harder to track down – I have now looked through The Times from 22 March 2004, and there is no review of A Doll's House in there. Robert Dawson Scott wrote a review of Doll's House for The Times in 2007, but Hogan did not play Torvald so it's not a simple typo in the reference. After a lot of digging I found the production – Theatre Babel – but still nothing to show whether it is likely to be a notable performance, and I am not going to go through the same process for each of the roles listed here. Please double-check the references, and include a page number for the newspaper refs.

The list of roles in theatre productions includes a couple of leading roles, but those are simply listed in a table, with zero information about the production. Returning to A Doll's House, it is a notable play and Torvald is one of the most important roles, but there is no way of knowing whether the production Hogan appeared in is notable. For some reason, roles in very minor and poorly-received movies are discussed in the first paragraph of the lede.

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:Stephen Hogan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Stephen Hogan, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

bonadea contributions talk 12:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, but you are confusing "with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia" per WP:REFSPAM. I tried to verify most of the IMDB's and his so-called agent's claim of his stage performances. I don't see how tcm.com and Audible being "blatantly inappropriate", none of which is listed on Wikipedia:spam blacklist or Wikipedia:Deprecated sources. I don't think they are user-generated. While I spotted the so-called deprecated status of Mail on Sunday and few others, I don't see how they would hurt this article here regarding stage performances. They are not trying to introduce conspiracy theories or controversial topics. The sources that are not linked online are all traced thru Factiva, LexisNexis and even academic databases that are only open to current university students, not alumni. Ultimately, they could all come from the source of ProQuest? I am not paid, so I have no money to go around all the paywalls. But these accesses are granted to me thru friends. If they don't list page numbers, I have no way to list them. I did add the page numbers to the reviews on A Doll's House. It's page 15 and 13 respectively. Please let me know if you still can't see it. Are you saying you have the actual newspaper in your hands? To the extent you could tag them as deprecated instead of deleting them outright, I would appreciate it. They at a minimum serve as a check to his agent's claim. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise reading WP:RS and WP:RS/P. WP:RS details what is considered good sourcing (reliable, significant coverage, independent) while WP:RS/P lists sources which have had their reliability debated and determined. Sources #10 and #11, for example (Times and Irish Post pieces about the art theft) are more about the art theft of Hogan's uncle rather than Hogan or his film. Source #12 is depreciated (The Sun). Source #14 has even less information than source #11. As for source #13, it's a radio programme which seems to be unavailable and the link provided literally just namedrops. That's 5 sources that fail reliability and significance tests, all to support the same fact, which is refspamming. It should probably be cut down to a single reference and moved from the lede.

The problem with having all these sources is it makes it time consuming and hard for reviewers to evaluate how useful the sources are and whether they contribute to Hogan's notability. Notability is determined by having significant, reliable coverage that is independent of the subject. Interviews, cast listings, name drops and inappropriate sources are useless in establishing notability. While Hogan has played notable characters, the question is whether the productions themselves are notable, which would warrant expanding in the body of the article itself rather than just listing in a table. It's the quality of the sources, not the quantity, that determine notability. To take yer question about Ian McElhinney above, with a bit of Googling I found three pieces that go into a fair bit of depth about McElhinney's life and several others that refer to him as the actor from Game of Thrones or Derry Girls. From what I can see, the only sources that name Stephen Hogan as the actor from Starship Troopers is when the piece itself is about Starship Troopers, and ye've massively overestimated the "cult" status of the character. Maybe when The Bigger Picture comes out there'll be some interest in him.

Also, I've had to remove some of the text of the draft for being far too close to biographical text found elsewhere on the internet, including specific phrasing being identical, which I suspect was possibly a copypaste from the tcm source (unable to access though so unable to confirm). This is considered to be a copyright violation CiphriusKane (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I disagree Sources #10 and #11 are more about the theft instead of the film. They provide important background to the film. I am not asking to create a stand-alone page for the film (yet) because I don't have money for IMDBPro to keep track of the latest development. Though The Sun is largely deprecated, #12 is not that controversial since it's not about things like the Jan 6 storming of the US capital or if the US presidential election was stolen. It seems to offer some details that #10/11 didn't cover. But if you want to remove it, I don't mind. It should be removed in one fell swoop. #14 offers some additional background including the death of one of the two students? In any case, I disagree with your overall conclusion, but have no issue of you removing any of them. I have read what I have read.

To the extent we could expand in the body of the article instead of just doing it via table, I would like that. But it is what it is and we need to be fair if you look at other Irish actors' page. I saw what you did to Ian McElhinney, but again the point is it got published first without your additions. It's just a bit unfair to deny Stephen at this point. For his sky marshal role, film critic Joe Leydon wrote back in 2008, "Omar Anoke (Stephen Hogan), the heroic sky marshal in charge of battling the big bugs, is a charismatic celebrity and chart-topping singer whose onstage movements and militaristic song list suggest Adolf Hitler as an "American Idol" contestant."

I don't know whether TCM copied Rotten Tomatoes or vice versa, but I have no trouble accessing https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/person/341354%7C0/Stephen-Hogan#biography. It's still unclear to me how TCM is not a reliable source. I am surprised to find him listed on List_of_Take_the_High_Road_characters#1992. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources would be better used on Summer's Day (and probably should be added), as the focus of the article is Paul Hogan and the theft of the painting. The draft of the article's about Stephen Hogan, not his film (which lacks a page), his uncle or the theft. As for the Sun being depreciated, this means it should be avoided as a source unless if it's a subject talking about themselves. A source gets depreciated when it's repeatedly shown to publish false information, which calls into doubt everything that source has published. As for tcm, if it's like what Rotten Tomatoes had then it means it's a self-written biography with probably no factual checks, which means it's biased, dependent on the subject and non-significant.

I'd advise reading something like David Tennant to see how to format the article. Straight off, it mentions his most important roles and supports their notability in their own section later down the page. The three major issues from what I can see are the lede is overstuffed (resolved by moving things to the main body of the article), too much fluff (such as all the details about the theme song), and poor choice of sourcing. I believe Logan may be notable based on major roles across multiple performances, including playing Robespierre in Terror! Robespierre and the French Revolution, Sir Henry Norris in The Tudors, and Padraig Kelly in Redwater (take that with a pinch of salt though, as I've not actually seen any of those films/shows). The Variety review of Starship Troopers 3 and Times review of A Doll's House (which I believe is in the Scottish edition of The Times, hence the difficulty in finding it) look good from what I can see, as they discuss Hogan's performances. This is just my opinion though.

Also, I'd advise reading WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Ian McElhinney's article has zero bearing on Stephen Logan's article, and it doesn't change that McElhinney has at least 3 third party articles discussing him and his role on Game of Thrones as the primary topic. If anything, yer argument just favours that McElhinney's article should be improved CiphriusKane (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Calliopejen1 was:

If you would like your submission to be considered for the millionth time, please identify the WP:THREE highest-quality, most in-depth sources about the subject and paste them on the talk page. Once you have done so, you may resubmit for consideration of those sources.

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:Stephen Hogan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Stephen Hogan, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's my research skills or the paywall being too high, the most reliable sources that I can access do not seem to write about his background in a simplistic way. It's always about his performance instead of his education, growth, why he chose to be in this business, etc. So please indulge me to take a stab at what you requested. Hopefully, they help make the case that he is notable enought. Obviously, I am not aruging he is Tom Cruise.

1) Source #9 on audiobook: "AudioFile, Discover the World of Audiobooks". AudioFile Magazine. Retrieved 2021-07-24. The magazine granted him the coveted Earphone Awards twice, lavishing their praise in the following words that I presume I shouldn't repeat in the body of the page

a) "...Narrator Stephen Hogan's performance of the twists and turns of Cyril's struggle is dramatic, life affirming, and inspiring. Hogan's pleasing Irish lilt shifts appropriately as he portrays the accents and diction of the upper- and lower-class characters. Hogan shines as he uses his gifted voice to recount Cyril's maturation into an intelligent and caring man. It's a coming-of-age tale delivered by Hogan in a sensitive narration. Listeners looking for both hearty laughs and gentle tears will enjoy Cyril's journey. R.O. Winner of AudioFile Earphones Award © AudioFile 2017."

b) "....Stephen Hogan's performance of this complex plot, filled with characters of many nationalities, is outstanding. His accents, mainly Chinese, are authentic, and he displays with conviction the wide range of emotions that permeate the story. About a third of the way through the book, listeners may find it helpful to go back to the prologue in order to follow the plot more coherently, but the need to do that does not lessen the excitement of this superbly narrated thriller. S.S.R. Winner of AudioFile Earphones Award © AudioFile 2009."

2) Source #47 on A Doll's House: Scott, Robert Dawson (March 22, 2004). "A Doll's House". The Times. p. 15. Here Stephen played the LEAD role, a fact that I didn't appreciate until Bonadea pointed out. It is reported that, "Newly appointed bank manager Torvald is brought to life in a beautifully judged performance by Stephen Hogan. Far from the pompous prig he sometimes seems, this is a handsome, almost dashing, Torvald, if anything quite affectionate to his "little squirrel" of a wife, Nora."

3) Source #15 on his LEAD role performance in Starship Trooper 3: Leydon, Joe (Aug 18, 2008). "Film Reviews: "Starship Troopers 3: Marauder". Variety. 412 (1). p. 23. Film critic Joe Leydon wrote for Variety, "Omar Anoke, the heroic sky marshal in charge of battling the big bugs, is a charismatic celebrity and chart-topping singer whose onstage movements and militaristic song list suggest Adolf Hitler as an "American Idol" contestant.

Many thanks. Supermann (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Calliopejen1: is the new rejection for real? I don't see any comments from you. Most of the @Bonadea:'s requests have been addressed, incl. the missing page numbers of non-free newspaper sources, other than the so-called deprecated sources that they could just go ahead and delete, if they don't want to see them anymore. Everything else is verifiable. Where is any sign of camaraderie? Why does this world have to be so cruel and unfair? Cite all the things you want to cite to reject me. It doesn't make sense! The WP:THREE you requested is right up here. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a joke, but it is also not a rejection (a rejection means that the draft will not be considered further, a decline means that it can be considered further if the issues are addressed.)

• Missing page numbers was a very small, albeit important, part of what was lacking. As for "so-called deprecated sources", that remark rather highlights the problem: you have not read the comments, or not understood them. You actually added a deprecated source after being alerted to the fact that they should be removed, and used a weird edit summary mentioning "self-published". I removed that one to help you out a bit, and also removed one of the three press release copies – your comment here shows that you hadn't actually read the sources you added, since it is impossible to miss the fact that this, this, and this is the same press release. You also seem to have missed (or ignored) the fact that deprecated sources (nothing "so-called" about them) were just one aspect of the source issues. Arguing that the reviewer ought to go through the draft to remove all sales sites, non-reliable sources, and deprecated or otherwise inappropriate sources is a non-starter – it is a major undertaking and not something to dismiss with a "the reviewer ought to do that". Please re-read CiphriusKane's detailed and insightful comments above. There are several specific sources they discussed there, which are still in the draft.
• You also have clearly not read, or not understood, the repeated requests to add information about the productions in the theatre section (and also the radio/audio section – that has not been specifically mentioned, but the same issue applies there for a couple of the entries.) Surely, our readers are not expected to believe that Hogan appeared in the original productions of The Playboy of the Western World, Hamlet, Ett Dukkehjem, and Medea? Adding citations to reviews is not the same thing as adding information about the productions to the article. To spell it out, again: apart from the fact that it is not helpful to the reader to list a role with zero info about the production, a major role in a notable play is only relevant to an actor's notability per WP:NACTOR if the production is a major one. A school production is not notable unless written about extensively, a production on a national stage is clearly notable, and most productions fall somewhere in between. (As an aside, your claim above that Torvald is the lead role in A Doll's House is not correct, as also seen in the reviews you have referred to. There is one lead role in the play, and that is Nora; her husband doesn't appear on stage very often, but given the theme of the play those appearances are important, so that role is definitely one of the main ones, just not the lead.)
• Finally, about WP:THREE – it looks like you interpreted "the talk page" as your user talk page, which is fair enough, but you need to add this to the draft's talk page. An AfC reviewer won't search your user talk page for that info. --bonadea contributions talk 09:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! @Bonadea:. Please see my responses below.

1) I believe @CiphriusKane: had taken the time and effort to really help remove the deprecated sources and improve the writing. I am immensely grateful. That's the kind of camaraderie I was looking for. I know I am too close to the writing and citation and it's really hard for me to kill my babies. So somebody else has to do it to help me appreciate your dislikings against those sources, despite I don't think they are controversial for this kind of topic. I have not added anything deprecated since his edits and will take to my heart to not use any such sources by comparing against the naughty list.

2) I am not familiar with the theater productions since I haven't got the chance to see any. I don't live in England or Ireland. I had to rely on local lousy reporting that haven't been in-depth about them. In my new WP:Three, I have taken the Torvald out for now, but given the sources have mentioned where the play were conducted, i.e. big theater names, I would presume the productions are big enough instead of school plays. I look forward to seeing movie adaptations of these famous plays.

3) I have added to the draft's talk page for the revised WP: THREE. Two of which concentrate on his movie lead roles written by critics that have their own Wikipedia page. His movie roles are what motivated me to write about him in the first place.

I appreciate highly for your time. Supermann (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what @Eternal Shadow: did down below by rejecting one more time without seeing WP:THREE on draft's talk page. But to answer back to @Bonadea:'s question on Torvald. In a possible citation spam victim^[1], Mark Fisher indicated that "A Doll's House" was played at Perth Theatre. That's clearer than how Robert Dawson Scott put it. Let's sink that in for a moment and appreciate the production, even though I haven't been there. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The (latest) issue is the repeated lack of context for the roles. The draft has been submitted five times in the past week with little attempt to contextualise the performances or understand the issues beyond "add more sources". The reason why the performances need to be contextualised is because it determines the level of notability. Playing Oliver in a school play is a lot less notable than playing Oliver at Hammersmith Apollo Again, I'd urge ye to look at David Tennant#Acting career and see how it gives context to the performances. Unless if there's significant work done on the article, any further review submissions are just a waste of time, hence the rejection. Also, if the "well-known and significant award or honor" is the Earphone Awards, it's actually non-notable as, if this month's awards are any indication, 500-600 of these awards are given out per year and is basically "Editor's top picks". If he'd won an Audie, then it'd be different CiphriusKane (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I totally understand the need for contextualizing, but I don't see how paraphrasing the sources one more time helps much and how David Tennant's context help me recognize him at all until I saw the list of awards he has had. As an American, I fail to recognize most of the awards he got nominated or won. To me, they are less well known than Oscars, Emmys, Golden Globes. But enough about diminishing him and being American-centric. The American awards have their own issues with number of viewers going down each following year. Speaking of American centric, the Audie awards are sponsored by Audio Publishers Association and sometimes promoted as "the Oscars of the audiobook industry" by Audio File Magazine who is a sponsor to APA per https://www.audiopub.org/industry/sponsors and gives out its own Earphone Awards for "truly exceptional titles that excel in narrative voice and style, characterizations, suitability to audio, and enhancement of the text" that Stephen won. That should put it somewhere near the big league. I didn't see how WP:NACTOR mentioning any examples of awards. Until you told me, I have never heard of the Audie Award. And then I saw Stephen_Hagan_(actor)#Television_and_film_career. WOW! This guy has a page and Hogan doesn't? How is that fair? In Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith, Justin Richards wrote that, "...most of the drama revolving around the lead character...sinks or swims depending on Hogan’s performance." Imagine yourself playing a role which got beheaded by Islamic terrorists and how about letting that sink in for a moment before you trash him? None of the plays I listed were school plays. They are mostly done in big theaters such as "Abbey Theatre and Gate Theatre in Dublin and the Royal National Theatre in London, even though I haven't watched any. I can type out the theater names if that are helpful. Supermann (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have contextualized his theatrical lead role performances now - the direction that @CiphriusKane: and @Bonadea: want to see. I beg you to take one more look. Appreciate it. Supermann (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So @CiphriusKane: and @Bonadea:...still no further comments, despite the new edits to add nuance to his stage performance? Thanks. Supermann (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

AntanO 02:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations and thanks for the new article. It is not easy to create a new article that meets the standards of the project. Keep up the good work. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!! I saw "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television". Shouldn't it fall into "WikiProject Film" instead? Thanks!!!! Supermann (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bonadea were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Not sure if the draft creator is unable to understand previous comments or if they choose to ignore them. There is still no info about the theatre productions. There are still multiple spam reflinks and other inappropriate references. There is no sign of WP:THREE.

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:Stephen Hogan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Stephen Hogan, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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 Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

bonadea contributions talk 09:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Eternal Shadow was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Still no indication of passing WP:NACTOR. At this point the submission is being repeatedly resubmitted without improvement.

Eternal Shadow Talk 21:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. While you haven't been posting on user talk pages, you have blatantly been asking for inclusionists only to help you, which is probably even worse. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have only met deletionists so far. Asking help for inclusionists is simply to balance it out. It’s David vs Goliath now. Supermann (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See, that sort of battleground mentality is exactly what destroyed the so-called "inclusionist" movement here. They were unable to accept that most people do not consider themselves on one side or the other but rather take each article on its own merits, which is how it is supposed to work. Probably easier to accept that the community as a whole (not just the deletionist boogeyman) strongly supports having notability guidelines, and that not every subject is notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But then you forgot about "Wikipedia has no firm rules" in the Wikipedia:Five_pillars. Supermann (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't forget it, I live it every day, but I don't see how it applies in this situation. Please just don't canvass for only people who think exactly like you do in the future, that's really the important point here. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am just following up with existing people who have commented. Not sure why I was on your radar in the first place. I didn't canvass anyone specifically new. I was just following advice and finding avenues where people could give a fresh set of eyes to the writing so that they don't get plagued by the negativity from the rejectors who are deciding what millions of readers should read. This kind of totalitarianism is against the Five Pillars. Supermann (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your blatant canvassing for help from inclusionists at the help desk. Your hyperbolic accusations of totalitarianism are comical but not compelling. All I've done is speak to you about Wikipedia policy. Have a nice day. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If help desk is not the place, then something is clearly wrong with the support system as indicated. Have a good rest of the weekend. Supermann (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are letting guidelines and essays trump the policy. That just doesn't feel right, btw. Supermann (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Comments like this are simply unacceptable. This is a collaborative project. If you can't remain calm and engage in polite debate with others, you can expect to be swiftly blocked the next time this kind of thing happens. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Nikita (TV series). While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Sleptlapps (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the weirdest accusation of all time when it's about free access to encyclopedic information. Please Wikipedia:Assume good faith before you go down this dark path. Wikipedia:Five pillars. Thanks but no thanks. Supermann (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read that diff and it is promotional(intentional or not) and not appropriate for the article. Please avoid this sort of content in the future. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's unintentional because I didn't realize it's a press release, but that doesn't deny it's still free without any subscription monthly payment. Nobody is being asked to pay for anything. It's like Robinhood in this capitalistic world. Denying readers this key intel is more like asking them to either download piracy or buy bluray release. Thanks but no thanks. I don't have money to spare, no matter how much I like the show. Supermann (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC this is not the first and last time he will do this. He has already been the subject of various admin noticeboard incidents regarding his behavious first here, second here, and third here and he was given a final warning here. This behaviour of accusing me of bad faith clearly violated the final warning and is comparing me to a persecutor. I don't believe anyone should be behaving like this to other users as this could really hurt someones feelings. Isn't there anything that can be done about this? Sleptlapps (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've referred this behaviour to the current ANI thread on their behaviour here. I'm in agreement that their actions and refusal to retract their uncivil statements is beyond the pale CiphriusKane (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I'd like to apologise for my lateness in replying, had to take a mental break from editing. Secondly, this may seem harsh but let the Stephen Hogan draft go. At this point, all you are doing is damaging any chance that the article could be made live. The sourcing that exists at this time for Hogan is just insufficient to establish notability. Every single other Wikipedia article you've used to try and prove Hogan's notability (again, I'd urge you to read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS to see why this is inappropriate. An article's notability is established by itself, not by the state and notability of other unrelated articles) has had at least one full length piece dedicated to them as a person, while Hogan at best had a paragraph in an article about Irish audiobook narrators. Repeatedly bringing up other articles and using their existence as an argument for accepting your draft just makes it seem that you're unwilling to listen and exhausts the patience of people that could help, because it feels pointless trying to help when you keep refusing to understand what we're saying and why we're saying it. Several people have stated that the draft is problematic and fails to establish sufficient notability, but it's like talking to a brick wall.

I thought Hogan's multiple roles could have established notability, but the fact of the matter is that the sources about Hogan's roles are about the productions rather than Hogan himself. He is clearly a prolific actor, but nobody is writing about him or his life. But not even playing a main role in a major Disney film is good enough (1) if there's a lack of sources about the person as a person.

Finally, I'd strongly advise watching how you interact with other editors. You've already been talked to about questioning others' motives. Accusing others of acting in ill faith and trying to link the draft's rejection to instability in the Middle East (2) is grossly inappropriate, as is accusing other editors of totalitarianism. Given all your talk about the Five Pillars, I would expect you to abide by the fourth, civility and respect. If I see you making aspersions about the motives of others or launching personal attacks again, I'll be taking this to ANI CiphriusKane (talk) 06:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. I appreciate it. Thank you so much for your comments. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS has been cited on this page already at least once. I am aware of it, but I would also like to point out as its own description suggests that it is not, "one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." I don't recall I was asked to participate in it. It's not a fair treatment to make wikipedia better. Even when I pointed out others have issues, I worked to help improve it, even though the scale might be minimal, for example, Rory Keenan, a fellow Irish actor. I fixed the factual inaccuracy there and corrected a link that established his award in a passing.

All I have been doing is improving the verifiability of his agency's claim saying he was in this production or that production and thus giving out contexts that were asked so that people can see it's at a minimum not some school plays. No agency would bother spending my amount of time to chase down reporting on these productions. I don't know why we can't let his list of filmography to speak to WP:ENT's "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" or "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." But instead count on one single full length that can't possible squeeze all his contributions to a field of entertainment? This is putting the cart before the horse. This particular requirement doesn't make sense. The Cate Bauer you cited has extremely few credits even according to IMDB.https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0061770/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

Please look back at common sense if you like to quote "disruptive editing." As I had said before, I wanted to write about him here solely because of his two movie performances. When that is not enough, I waded into theater/stage performances that are simply not my cup of tea. I hardly go to Broadway theatres here in NYC, but I do take advantage of AMC A List for movies. That means I listened. That means I am willing to step out of my comfort zone to learn and improve my sourcing skills. What I am asking is while you ask me to not assume bad faith, I ask you to not assume bad faith towards me either. Stop accusing me of conflict of interest when there is none, by looking at the totality of my edits.

In case you don't already know, that ANI didn't go anywhere. Please feel free to do so one more time, despite all these improvements I have made "subsequently." I am not challenging you personally. I am asking for common sense and challenging this ill obsession with rules. Five Pillars should of course trump the other essays out there. Lately, no one here seems to respect the no "firm rules" in Wikipedia:Five pillars as they treat other new editors. The way you guys rule certainly is not singing Kumbaya. Supermann (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make clear, I don't think you've got a COI here, just that you're a passionate fan whose edits and editing style are extremely similar to COI/SPA editors. As for linking the essay, I link it because I'm trying to help you avoid repeating a weak argument that doesn't help your case. The article has definitely improved.

As for notability criteria, by my understanding the criteria relies on the presumption that significant secondary sources exist. The main issue here is that the sources being provided are giving notability to the performances more than they are to Hogan. I linked the Bauer AfD because it's an example of a situation where somebody meets the notability criteria but the presumed significant sources to establish said notability never materialised, which is similar to what has possibly happened with Hogan. The thing about notability though is that once established it remains, so if a magazine ever does a piece on Hogan as a person then that can be used to prop up notability claims.

I would advise against trying to weaponise policy as you seem to be intent on doing. This sudden obsession with using the Five Pillars to get your draft published is troubling. Several people have said the sources are insufficient to pass the notability criteria, yet you keep insisting that Hogan passes the criteria. This is what I mean by refusing to listen. You were told time and again that certain sources were inappropriate, yet you insisted on adding them anyway. You were told that the provided sources were insufficient, yet submitted the draft five times in as many days with at best aesthetic changes made, which led to the article being rejected.

Can you provide examples of people assuming bad faith towards you? Because that is something that requires concrete examples, otherwise it's a personal attack. Also saying that the ANI thread went nowhere when Girth Summit left you a message asking you to moderate your tone seems a bit disingenuous. Now please, stop accusing other editors and Wikipedia of being totalitarian, because it's approaching personal attack territory CiphriusKane (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I got pinged here, and looked at the massive wall of text above, and don't have the time or inclination to read it properly. I do see one common theme though - Supermann, you are not understanding what is meant by the 'no fixed rules' thing. What that means is that the rules and guidelines can evolve over time; if we don't like them, we can change them; even in some extraordinary cases, we can ignore them and do something that's outside of the normal rules.

What does that mean in practice? Well, let's say you write an article, and someone comes along and nominates it for deletion because they have reviewed the sources and they don't think it meets the guidelines. What happens next is a discussion, where lots of people can say what they think. If the consensus of the people involved in the discussion was that the article should be kept, one person saying 'but it doesn't meet the letter of the guidelines' won't cut it - the guidelines aren't carved in stone, and community consensus can override them.

That isn't what's happening here. Every person who has reviewed this draft has either said 'not notable', or, as I think I did 'really borderline, you should try to find better sources', or words to that effect. You can't evoke 'no fixed rules' when you're the only person arguing for inclusion.

Now, I'll tell you what you can do, if you want to. You are not required to take the draft through AfC. You have the necessary permissions to move the draft into article space yourself, if you want. What will happen then is that it will go into a different review queue - the 'New Page Patrol' feed. At some point (it might be a few hours, or a few weeks), a New Page Reviewer will evaluate it, and if they don't feel that the subject is notable, they will nominate it for deletion at WP:AfD. Then there will be a discussion, like the one I described above, which will determine a consensus about whether or not the subject is notable. If the consensus is to keep, it will be kept; if it is to delete, it will be deleted. Another might be to redirect the article title to something he's acted in or similar. Once that discussion has taken place, the decision will be binding until such time as something has happened that changes the question on notability - like, an article is written about him in a newspaper, or he lands a big role in a major film or something.

I hope that's clear and helpful. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 19:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, you are the best!!!! who actually took the time to edit the article instead of just providing guidance broadly. That's the camaraderie I was talking about. I tried to jump start the publishing process yesterday thinking of your earlier guidance, but failed, because removing any mention of draft in the body doesn't seem enough. It now looks like I could try "move" per Wikipedia:Moving_a_page? Will try my luck next. Definitely need someone with fresh set of eyes. Happy to provide any sourcing support if they have trouble accessing them via Google News and what not. Many thanks again. Supermann (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Appreciate the comment on, "the article has definitely improved". That means a lot. You guys took me to a direction that I previously didn't expect and appreciate - stage performances. I don't want to be his PR person and mention all the good, bad, poor performances based on the reporting. I am not good at that. All I have been good at is verifying his performances and see if they have been covered or if there are factual inaccuracies and then come up with the table/list. If a magazine ever does a piece on Hogan as a person, what would you want the writer to write about him? Do you expect the writer to do a background investigation, like his education and what not? I am trying to think what new info would you want to unearth about him to make you feel more about he is "borderline notable." I have definitely removed questionable sources, such as Audible, even though I don't know the basis to it. It's not like it was called out by any essays/guidelines on reliable sources.

When it comes to personal attack, your using words like "weaponize", "obsession" is certainly not helpful. I consider that personal attacks too, because they innately carry the undertones of bad faith. The reason I had to bring up the Five Pillars, especially the no firm rules, because my fulltime job deals with US federal laws. In my understanding, the Five Pillars are like Constitution of the United States. Federal laws written by U.S. Congress can't go against the constitution and remains the laws of the land until re-written or challenged at the courts and by the judges. Once a law is written, the executive branch will write regulations to interpret the congressional intent. Whatever we do here should ultimately hark back to those. Reading the guidelines and essays are definitely a learning process/acquired taste. What I can promise you is I have bookmarked a lot so that I can refer to them from time to time. But I do like common sense more and don't appreciate the condescending tones.

Since you pinged Girth Summit, you can go back to above and see how she helped on the article and below. That sounds more like camaraderie. My ideas went dry after my 30-day free trial on The Times expired. Again, I can't afford the paywalls, but her editing did indirectly remind me I do have Factiva access thru work and library access thru school friends. As I took your feedback and expanded on his stage performances during this editing process, I have grown to appreciate them more. At the teahouse, I printed these reporting/sources back then into a PDF for anyone to verify it. I am not sure if there are anyone that are stupid enough to fake stuff like this.

Free link containing the pdfs:

Manchester Evening News - https://www.dropbox.com/s/g2vqjp6u8yq4lsv/%28FACTIVA%29%20FAST%20FOOD%20Royal%20Exchange%20Studio%20-%20Recipe%20for%20a%20tasty%20night%20out.pdf?dl=0

Sunday Herald - https://www.dropbox.com/s/5lphlqxrye4ji9d/Factiva-08August20212129.pdf?dl=0

Non-free Factiva link (If I am not mistaken, if you try these two links below, you will clearly tell there is no way I am his agency in any shape or form. All I have is just pure passion. But these days I can't even find any indication of passion for Wikipedia out of my roommates who are 15 years younger. They don't even bother to use it. Instead they prefer Baidu Baike. Maybe my passion will soon die out too. Thanks)

Sunday Herald - https://global.factiva.com/redir/default.aspx?p=sa&an=sundhe0020020923dy9m0000c&cat=a&ep=ASE

Manchester Evening News - https://global.factiva.com/redir/default.aspx?p=sa&an=mn00000020010907dv3q00jjy&cat=a&ep=ASE Supermann (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Stephen Hogan in Starship Troopers 3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing style gives the impression that you may actually be Steven Hogan (see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY), or that you may have a conflict of interest (WP:COI) or a paid relationship (WP:PAID) with him. In any of these cases, you are very strongly advised to disclose the relationship. If WP:PAID, you are required to disclose the relationship to comply with the terms of service of this web site. If you have no relationship with him, then given the impression you have made, it would be a very good idea to explicitly state this lack of a relationship and perhaps explain why you like to work on this article. you user page is a good place for either a disclosure or a statement of non-relationship.

You have on more than one occasion referred to yourself in the plural. Please look at WP:USERNAME. Each username must be used by only one individual. If there is more than one of you, please use separate accounts.

Thanks. -Arch dude (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC) -Arch dude (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I categorically deny I am Steve Hogan or have a conflict of interest or paid relationship with him, X number of times and once and for all. Not sure what you meant by me using plural. There is only one here in NYC. Please use your vast inventory of tools to detect my lies and call out with proof. I speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I used to be a journalist but left the field due to non gainful experience. But that doesn't mean I don't love verifying. All the verifying I have been tasked so far bring out the best in me. If you call passion a crime, then I am guilty as charged. Supermann (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "we" that sparked my comment is in the following post by you: Wikipedia:Help_desk#Access_to_the_British_Daily_National_Newspaper_The_Times. I thought you were referring to Supermann there. -Arch dude (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer to the talk page, it's mainly for the benefit of TheBirdsShedTears who somehow just can't see what the rest of the three see. And he didn't clarify whether he was stopped by the paywall or something else. That's why I used "we." I am satisfied with my own access and read the underlying source, even though I recall I didn't add that statement at the very beginning. "So long as you are confident that you read a true and accurate copy, it does not matter whether you read the material using an online service like Google Books; using preview options at a bookseller's website like Amazon; through your library; via online paid databases of scanned publications, such as JSTOR; using reading machines; on an e-reader (except to the extent that this affects page numbering); or any other method." Supermann (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arch dude I believe the "we" there may also include myself, as I'm also a bit puzzled by TBST's assertions that the source in question omits any mention of Hogan (see Talk:Stephen Hogan) CiphriusKane (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bluerules (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please remember that talk-pages exist in order to improve the article. It is not a forum to discuss the world at large. This, after all, is Wikipedia, not Reddit. If you feel the need to meander into the tragedies on Kabul Airport to support your views on whether or not a characters rank should be mentioned in an article about some superhero movie, you haven't got a leg to stand on in that discussion. Last but not least, Wikipedia is a multinational effort, disparaging someone over their nationality is simply not done. Kleuske (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you attempt to advertise anything again, especially CW Seed, you will be blocked to prevent further spamming. I already know you don't think it is advertising but this is and you have already been told this. It is not relevant to the article about the show. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is this “advertise” when the disadvantage of CW Seed have been discussed? Relevance seems to be in the eyes of the beholders. Your reasoning beats me. Do what you have to do with your coercion. I finished catching up the show by CW Seed without any piracy and paying a single dime for any product advertised during the commercial breaks. I am proud of myself. Readers can tell the censorship you imposed. We agree to disagree. Supermann (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely unacceptable. You are expected to be civil in all your interactions with other users, even if they are blocked, and celebrating their block is an extreme violation of this. You were warned about such incivility just under 2 weeks ago. Please read over WP:CIVIL, as civility is not optional CiphriusKane (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you read what you cited, "Describing factually, solely for the information of other editors, disruptive activities that resulted in a ban/block" is NOT GRAVEDANCING. That editor tagged me as a promo hack when I am NOT. I was just giving you context. If you refuse to see, I respectfully disagree. Supermann (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Insulting editors who are now blocked/banned/retired. This is motivated by the idea that the editor in question is unlikely to see the insult, and if they do see it won't respond to it. This is wrong even if the editor in question never sees the insult because it contributes to a negative environment that is less likely to encourage editors to work together." Posting "Justice!" to the block is an insult CiphriusKane (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. This is about fairness. I fully expect they will come back after accepting some offer and reflect on their behavior as I reflect on mine. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CiphriusKane (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]