User talk:AlejandroLeloirRey: Difference between revisions

Hi AlejandroLeloirRey! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Multiple unreliable sources used, please review them. E.G., Wikipedia, IMDB, DailyMail, etc.

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 User:AlejandroLeloirRey/sandbox 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 User:AlejandroLeloirRey/sandbox, 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, 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.

Sulfurboy (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Carlo Masi, from its old location at User:AlejandroLeloirRey/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2020 (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 DGG were:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:

There's at most very weak evidence of notability as aa performer, and none for notability as a professor.

Any notability therefore would come rom the news coverage of the unusual combination.

The article is moreover written as a press release for him--see the many adjectives, the unnecessary photos, and way is legal case is described.

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:Carlo Masi 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:Carlo Masi, 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, 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.

DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Hallo, I made some changes. I deleted everything that could sound "celebrative". Speaking of the relevance of Carlo Masi as a porn star, as is written in the Bio, he has been one of the most important COLT Man ever, indeed he is the only one called "Emeritus" as an honor(see the bio). Plus, he is relevant also outside porn for this combination of porn and academic career. It would be very helpful to me if you could tell me a gay porn star bio on wikipedia that you judge a good bio so I can get "inspiration". i would appreciate if you could give me more advise on how improve the bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlejandroLeloirRey (talk • contribs) 10:18, 1 April 2020 (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 QueerEcofeminist was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 09:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@QueerEcofeminist: hallo, I am very surprised for your rejection. Can I ask you what it is based on so that in the future I don't waist time on writing not relevant pages? I gave a look to the other gay porn stars on wikipedia and most of them are way less relevant than Carlo Masi, who was the most important model at colt studio for almost a decade, who has his biography written by a Strega Prize (walter siti, 2013) and whose story has been told by the most important news paper, magazines and web sites from all around the world. recently I was told that the biography, the way it was written, sounded too much celebrative so I decided to delete most of these things. Moreover, isn't there a unique standard for all the wikipedia in the different languages? his biography is in other wikipedia also (Spanish, Italian, French, Polish). Thank you for the help. ps. adding info or changing something could make any difference or this is a final decision on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlejandroLeloirRey (talk • contribs) 11:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AlejandroLeloirRey, 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:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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!

Please pay special attention to that last recommendation about typing four tildes; I notice you forgot to sign your posts before (they have been added for you), so please do remember: place ~~~~ at the end of every one of your messages, okay? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much. yes, i know. forgetting to sign my posts is something I do way too often, sometime I go back to them and sign them but I should pay way more attention to it.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Carlo Masi. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: yes, this is probably the best choice. did you already put it in the AfD? will I get a message when you did? if the draft survives the AFD means that it will be published or will I simply get back here? thank you--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carlo Masi 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/Carlo Masi 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. Theroadislong (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: I thought you gave a look to the other gay porn stars pages and saw it made no sense to question mine. Anyway, thank you for your help. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:My article got nominated for deletion! for help with the WP:afd process. Theroadislong (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: wow, a lot to read :-) hopefully my english will improve. Thank you very much and please if I do something I shouldn-t do be patient and let me know. thank you. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AlejandroLeloirRey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Carlo Masi did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified 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 ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome.  TJMSmith (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not cite other wikipedia articles (regardless of the language). They are not reliable sources. TJMSmith (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alejandro, I have a suggestion for you about the Carlo Masi deletion discussion. I voted to keep — I think that you've made a good case for the sources, and more people will vote keep. My advice is: don't post on that page for a little while. You shouldn't respond to everyone who votes to delete. Check out this essay -- WP:BLUDGEON. If you post too much, it makes you look like you're not confident in your argument. The strong argument will convince people on its own. You don't have to repeat it. You just have to be patient, and give people time to look at the page and vote keep.

I hope that this is helpful. Let me know if I can help with something. Thank you. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: gosh, being patient is definitely not my thing but I can see your point and I will follow your advise. thank you very much for supporting. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I'm glad I can help. :) — Toughpigs (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: Can I complain here with you about the "delete" messages I get just to vent? not offending anybody --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can. It can be very frustrating. -- Toughpigs (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: isn't it a clear conflict the fact that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johnpacklambert votes? I mean, on his page he says that he is a member of Latter Day Saint movement... and he gives the same opinion about any porn actor considered for deletion. how many chances there are that a member of Latter Day Saint movement would know how much notable Carlo was a gay porn actor? thank you :-) --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that a user's beliefs will have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the final admins decision making process, the article will be judged on policy and guidelines. Theroadislong (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: well, the opinion of a ultra religious person about gay pornography is quite obvious, especially if you consider that he has posted the same opinion on every porn actor up for deletion. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert actually votes delete on pretty much everything. :) He is well-known for posting the same three to four words on many deletion discussions every day: "a non-notable tennis player", "a non-notable actress", etc. It's not a real argument, just a vote, which doesn't count as much. But -- this is very important -- you should not look at other people's user pages and try to argue that they're biased based on their personal characteristics. It's considered a personal attack -- see WP:NPA. You can actually get in trouble for doing that, and it won't help.

I understand how hard and frustrating this can be, to have people criticizing your work. Sometimes it feels like you're being attacked, and you want to fight back. :) But I see that someone else has just voted keep in the discussion. If you're patient and you don't post on that page anymore, other people will come and vote keep. It will be okay. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: you are right, sometime is hard. Not much for being criticized but more because the critics seems to be pretty random. When I read that the subject is not notable and than I read that to be notable you need to have a wide coverage and I see Carlo's name on national newspapers, books, magazines and tv shows from all around the world I can only wonder what the f.

I can't see generally why one can't tell a member of the KKK to be opinionated in a discussing of racial problems. once again, if you say don't do it, than i will not do it :-) thank you for the advises.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: hi, I think I have improved quite much the sourcing of his porn career and from the deletion discussion it seems that some are concerned with his notability apart from the porn actor-professor story. is there the need to let people know in the discussion that the has been improved? if yes, how should I do it? thank you--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The people who have voted so far have made up their minds, so don't worry about them. The people who matter now are the new people seeing the discussion for the first time. They'll look at the article, see the improved sources, and make their own decision. So the work you're doing on the article is very helpful — as you improve the article, there will be more people willing to support it.

But if you post "I have new sources" in the deletion discussion, one of the people who's already voted delete will probably write another two paragraphs explaining why your new sources aren't good, either. Once people start saying that, they usually keep saying it, no matter what the new sources say. So posting more in the discussion is just going to give them another opportunity to say that it should be deleted. It's a hard thing to do — staying quiet when you know that you're working really hard, and people are saying mean things. But that's what you have to do, if you want to be successful. :) Just focus on improving the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: Something that confuses me: Now I have a ridiculous number of source for this bio, can you give them a look and let me know if they are too many? plus, I have used sources of which i am not 100% sure would be judged as reliable. is it better to use one extra source even if you are not sure what is the community opinion about that source or better not to use it? please notice that I didn't use any blog, social or other stuff that is obviously unreliable but only lately I found out that stuff like daily mail is considered a very bad source. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:REFBOMB for more advice, but generally I agree with the excellent advice above "Just focus on improving the article" Theroadislong (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: I will read it right away, just to be clear each source I have uploaded is perfectly pertinent. I spent a lot of energy to put the articles in the best spot and they are either articles entirely on the subject or entirely about the event mentioned in the line where the citation occurs. the problem is also that from some guidelines it seems that a porn star has to be as famous as an Hollywood (good) actor which obviously doesn't apply to any porn star ever. I am fine with that but this would simply mean that we need to delete any porn star profile on wikipedia. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it alone. It's okay. Someone else just came and voted keep. If you leave it the way it is and just be patient, there's a good chance the article will be kept. If you can't be patient and you keep pushing, then you will make it more likely to be deleted. The #1 Best Thing for you to do is to go and think about something else for a while. You need to be able to let some days pass without working on it or talking about it. It will still be here two days from now. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: lol, hallo, its corona virus time :-( I am locked up in my apartment and thank god I had this to keep me company lol thank you for the advise--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know! It's hard. :) But you've done good work. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlo Masi—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 Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC) @Materialscientist: I am sorry, I am trying to follow the rules. I read that I shouldn't change the flow of the conversation and I know I shouldn't answer every single person. I was unsure if it was ok to add something to my previous post. now I know and I will no do that again. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For your edits on Sagat, I strongly agree that an article can be improved by strongly pruning inappropriate content. David notMD (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: thank you, I think I did a fair job. Sagat bio has the right to be here but it really looked like more as an advertisement for him. things have changed a lot in wikipedia so there are plenty of bios online today which would deserve a speedy deletion (not Sagat's) but they get away only because they are already online. nevertheless some of theme can be saved but they need restructuring. on Sagat bio there are still a lot of statements with no sourcing or with very poor sourcing and generally it doesn't have one source that covers a big part of the subject. basically he has 2-3 articles on good new papers about specific events and that is it. I still don't know what do with his "role on Saw VI", I know very well that movie and he was on screen for a split of a second, no lines and among other people and as a metter of fact no sourcing at all about him bragging for it. still, he was there and I would like to leave some trace of it, not sure how. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consider WP:FANCRUFT. Content can be true, and referenced, yet too much detail. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to resemble resumes that list everything a person has done. I suppose movie appearances could be changed to significant movie appearances, and the list shortened. David notMD (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Serols: hi, I am sorry, didn't intend to be a vandal but in my opinion there is a difference between the things one should report here, the things one should report on his CV and the things that one should report in an interview. this bio is packed with adjective ad also irrelevant info are reported (he was a bar tender). I will ask some opinion of how to proceed in the teahouse unless you want to help me--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AlejandroLeloirRey, too celebrative, this is not an advertisement -> for me that was not a sufficient reason to delete sections. Your subsequent edits and comments were ok. My warning was too hard, so I deleted it. Regards --Serols (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Serols: thank you, I will be more careful --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AlejandroLeloirRey! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, questionable biographies on wikipedia, poorly sourced and no reliable, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Carlo Masi, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Materialscientist: hallo, Carlo's bio is a page I created just a few days ago and now is through a deletion process so I am trying hard to improve it. what I find most difficult is to evaluate each source and decide if they will be considered reliable. when I saw the new template for unreliable sources I thought of deleting those I was not sure of and that were also redundant as there were already other better sources. Should I live it the way it is? thank you for your advises. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool: @Materialscientist: I am trying hard but to me is very hard to judge some sources. it seems also not to be agreement among experienced members here so i would be happy to receive and any bit of advice. if you spot some source that you judge unreliable please le me know. as you can see most of the sources are redundant so I can simply delete some. thank you --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AlejandroLeloirRey, Materialscientist caught your edit because you did not use an edit summary; please use edit summaries to explain your edits so it does not happen again. I am staying far from the article contentwise, for now, since I am one of those people who does not know Italian. I see that a few of the editors to the AFD have voted to Keep, so there's a chance the afd could go your way. Good luck! Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool: it is very fair of you to don't give an opinion if you don't speak the language, I totally see you point. Nevertheless, if you ever spot any unreliable/doubtful source(many are in english) I would really appreciate if you share your judgment with me. thank you --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if anyone has actually asked you straight out- Do you have a conflict of interest with Carlo Masi? Please read WP:COI - note you don't necessarily have to be being paid to have one. If so, you really must declare it. I"m asking because you just added a photograph of Carlo Masi at his wedding, which you declared to be your own work. This would mean you attended that wedding. Curdle (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Curdle: I am preparing to get a C1 certificate (don't laugh, lol) so I am more than happy to practice my english, I have known carlo masi's name for ages, like many others. I like him and his story very much and I read siti's book. I am locked up in my apartment therefore I have much spare time in my hands and this is a perfect situation to get a fixation with something. I found that picture of Carlo on the web, there are plenty (probably it was on his facebook but I am not sure), I send him a Facebook message telling him I noticed that he didn't have an english bio on wikipedia and asked him if I could make one for him (it was a few months ago but than I started something else and decided to wait), he said it was ok, so I asked him if I could also use that picture and he said it was fine (I showed him the picture in a message). There is where Carlo's involvement with this project ends. I don't know much about copyright policy on wikipedia but that is one of his own pictures no (copyrighted material, I asked him then) so to make it easy I said it was mine. Maybe I could ask him to tell that it's his but I am not sure he would care enough to learn how to do it. If this makes me involved with Carlo than anyone who has Facebook is involved because as far as I can see he usually answers to messages, may be not in the same day but he answers (note: he didn't even accept my friend request on facebook). I am not sure why you can't simply judge the bio I wrote instead of making investigations. At this point I start wondering what is the real problem because I read the most random reasons to fail this bio: lack of notoriety, bad sourcing and now this. The bio is far from being promotional, I have avoided any adjectives: a much relevant book, an important tv channel, he grew of popularity, most important, etc these are all kind of things you can't find on the bio I wrote. Still, if you feel I have been too much complimentary or that the way I reported the fact lacks of objectivity please point out what you think needs to be changed and I will. That will make the bio better and help me to understand how a bio should be written here on wikipedia. I hope this fully clarify the situation. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]