Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

The article Christopher Elton has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability not established. Insufficient referencing. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Coldupnorth (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Gaudeamus International Interpreters Award has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Christopher Elton has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Myriad of mentions but couldn't procure any SIGCOV. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9].

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LastJabberwocky (talk) 09:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly invite interested editors to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JoAnna Cochenet.Theclassicalmusicwriter (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don’t do that. Canvassing is never a good idea. I have read the article and I would agree that there are reasons to question its notability, but the way you and the other two users are handling the discussion is such a mess that I do not wish to get involved. Good luck! Karljoos (talk) 21:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mention that there are notability issues. Why not state that directly in the deletion discussion? And what “mess” are you referring to? From my perspective, it is the article’s creator who is creating confusion by trying to divert attention to procedural matters instead of addressing the core question of notability.Theclassicalmusicwriter (talk) 11:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't want to take part in this. Please, leave me alone. Don't contact me again regarding this.Karljoos (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you have a moral obligation to do what is right? This woman does not deserve an article here.Theclassicalmusicwriter (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I just ask you please to leave me out if this discussion? I don't have any obligations on Wikipedia. What is wrong with you? - Karljoos (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have voted to remove other articles because you considered that the subject did not deserve one. I just checked. What is making you not want to take part in this? Theclassicalmusicwriter (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have to explain myself to you. Please, stop. Karljoos (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cochenet is a musical mediocrity, and you are allowing her to have an article. Her husband has conducted only a handful of crappy wind bands, yet you are allowing them to have articles here. You are an idiot.Theclassicalmusicwriter (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe she is a musician still at the beginning of her career, and perhaps she is not yet notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. But first, it is unacceptable to categorize people like that; second, you are harassing me; third, you have insulted me, and I will have you blocked from Wikipedia. Bye!:::Karljoos (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care.Theclassicalmusicwriter (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{Harassment}} {{disruptive}} {{Admin Help}}Karljoos (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What the fu-ck are you doing, e-di0t? You can't even do that right!! LOL Theclassicalmusicwriter (talk) 12:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User-reported section:

• Theclassicalmusicwriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Harassment and insults. Karljoos (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are even more stupid than I thought. Theclassicalmusicwriter (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leave this editor alone or you will be blocked, possibly permanently. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Karljoos (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Now two minor-league musicians have entries on Wikipedia. Theclassicalmusicwriter (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you shocked by the result of the deletion of Mr Gallastegui's article? It is pretty clear he does not meet the notability criteria for musicians, yet it was kept.

1. Multiple independent publications – ✅ yes

2. Chart success – ❌ no recordings by Mr Gallastegui

3. Record certification – ❌ no recordings by Mr Gallastegui

4. Tour coverage – ❌ no tours by Mr Gallastegui

5. Multiple albums on notable labels – ❌ no recordings by Mr Gallastegui

6. Ensemble or membership – ❌ only amateur-level orchestras listed and workshops

7. Representative of a style or scene – ❌ no

8. Major music awards – ❌ none

9. Competition wins – ❌ none

10. Notable media work – ❌ none

11. National radio/TV rotation – ❌ Music placed in rotation by a major national network.

12. Featured broadcast subject – ❌ no TV appearances.

This entry should not exist. The entries are about minor merits. Not every musician with a mention on a paper deserves an article on Wikipedia. You really think this is worth being on Wikipedia?Theclassicalmusicwriter (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Yamla (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I am very confused. Why is account blocked??? Karljoos (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your  Confirmed abuse of multiple accounts. Specifically, Theclassicalmusicwriter. --Yamla (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For real????? This doesn't make sense!!!! How can I appeal this? Karljoos (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Karljoos (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been accused of being a sockpuppet of another user, Theclassicalmusicwriter. I told the user not to canvass, harassed me on my talk, insulted me, I reported him/her, and commented against the user's practices on an AdF. Please, review this, because it doesn't make sense. Thank you. Karljoos (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You need to explain why this account and Theclassicalmusicwriter are alternating edits on the same IP in this discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKarljoos&diff=1314251191&oldid=1287149982 --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Karljoos (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JPGordon, that is very interesting. This is a music college with a halls of residence attached. Hundreds of students and staff members have access to the school's network. It is interesting that perhaps someone within the school behave like that towards a/another faculty member. I can assure you that I have never operated several accounts nor in 17 years have received a warning from a Wikipedia administrator. I am honestly shocked about this. Thank you. Karljoos (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Karljoos (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I often edit from my office at a major conservatoire, where both faculty members and students share the same network. It is therefore possible that this other user is a member of the school community who recognised me through that connection or realised who I was. He/she may have had some kind of personal issue with me, which could explain his/her reaction. I completely understand that the project must be protected from disruptive behaviour, and I recognise that, from the outside, the situation may not look good in my case. However, I can assure you, fully aware that there is no objective proof here, that my contribution to Wikipedia has been (in the 17 years that I have had this account) positive, and that I have never used more than one account for any purpose. I kindly ask the administrators to investigate the matter further and to reconsider this decision. Karljoos (talk) 07:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have not adequately explained the evidence of your abuse of multiple accounts. If you are truly unable to do so, I advise you not to edit the English Wikipedia for 6 months from any account or IP address, and then to take the standard offer. Toadspike [Talk] 14:41, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The explanation given above does not account for the technical evidence. --Yamla (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Isn’t it possible for two users to share the same IP address? I speak from complete technical ignorance, but I’m honestly trying to understand how I ended up trapped in this situation. I’m sure there must be good technical evidence, but in good faith I have to say that it’s not as it seems. Karljoos (talk) 11:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is certainly possible for two users to share the same IP address. However, the technical data shows a much stronger connection than simply sharing an IP address. --Yamla (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand. I’m not a technical person, and I’m truly sorry about this whole situation. I’m sure the data shows what it shows, and I don’t question that. But I can only say, in good faith, that there’s nothing improper behind it. I’m not even angry, just deeply sad, and for two reasons: first, because I seem to have been excluded from a project I genuinely cared about (even though I logged in only from time to time), without honestly having done anything wrong, at least to the best of my knowledge. And second, because it seems that someone close to me at work (perhaps within my own department, sharing the same network, and maybe the same equipment) may have something against me. The latter worries me very much.

Nothing against you. I understand completely that you did what you had to do to protect the project with the data you had, and I honestly thank you for that... just wish the outcome would had been different. Karljoos (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]