User talk:Burntout123

ExpertScape Affairs

Expertscape (see archived pages prior to this point...)

added links pointing to Treatments, Doctors, Specialist, Specialists, Retracted and Articles

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Expertscape

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Expertscape requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ceradon (talk • contribs) 22:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested

Speedy deletion nomination of Expertscape

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Expertscape requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. S.Burntout123 (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Do you understand what "notability" means? Do you understand why press releases and a single blog post don't assert any notability? DS (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Happy to be better educated on "notability". If nationally renowned medical centers and USA based medical schools refer to ExpertScape rankings, one wonders why Wikipedia cannot have a neutral reference about this. One would benefit from seeing an informative article that is not promotional but indeed critical and questions certain angles such as source of funding and others. S.Burntout123 (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Suggestion

To get Expertscape back I would suggest heading over to WP:UNDELETE and asking for Expertscape to be "userfied to Draft:Expertscape. Sound good? EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback from Me!

Hello, Burntout123. You have new messages at EoRdE6's talk page.
Message added 03:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Bbb23. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 05:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's one thing to be frustrated, it's another to start harassing other editors. Please stop. Acroterion (talk) 05:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Burntout123/Burnt-out diabetes mellitus

User:Burntout123/Burnt-out diabetes mellitus, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Burntout123/Burnt-out diabetes mellitus and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Burntout123/Burnt-out diabetes mellitus during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BMK (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Burntout123/Neovandalism

User:Burntout123/Neovandalism, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Burntout123/Neovandalism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Burntout123/Neovandalism during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Burntout1234

You should never have been permitted to touch the user page of your sock account in the first instance. Leave it alone. I've been more than restrained given your conduct, but I won't sit by and see you revise history.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are apparently all consequences of questioning the legitimacy of a person who has deleted the work of others 5,000 times more than ever contributed to any WP. Fortunately the WP also has many balanced and fair editors. "revising history" is actually to delete something that was there for 4 years, as you just did. Given your clear conflict of interest, you should restore back all your deletions on my pages and refrain from touching anything else. S.Burntout123 (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, drop the stick. Let's compare apples to apples: you personally have very few useful contributions here, since most of your additions have been rants and/or canvassing on project and talk pages. If you want to improve the sub-par articles in your user space with the hopes of saving them from deletion, fine... go and do that. But constantly whining about administrative actions—which, unless you can provide any evidence to the contrary, have been wholly appropriate—doesn't help you at all. And to reiterate what Bbb23 says above, stop touching your sockpuppet account's user page. There is zero reason for you to do that, so knock it off. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Bbb23 deleted 4 year old posting under Buntout1234 and the posted "You should never have been permitted to touch the user page of your sock account in the first instance. Leave it alone. I've been more than restrained given your conduct, but I won't sit by and see you revise history.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)" These are apparently consequences of questioning the legitimacy of a person who has deleted the work of others 5,000 times more than ever contributed to any WP. Posing such democratic questions should be tolerated and addressed. Fortunately the WP also has many balanced and fair editors. "revising history" is actually to delete something that was there for 4 years, as he just did. Given Bbb23's clear conflict of interest, he/she should restore back all his.her deletions on my pages and refrain from touching anything else. Asking for help and protection. Can you kindly restore what he deleted under me and honor the one week of protected time? I would be thankful S.Burntout123 (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to edit that page. Deleting it removes the temptation for you to dig a deeper hole for yourself. You've focused on Bbb23 for taking perfectly ordinary and appropriate actions. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and Bbb23 has no conflict of interest in this matter. You're the one who's personalized this. Acroterion (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, "revising history" is your attempt to remove a legitimate sockpuppet tag from a confirmed sockpuppet account. As stated above, "constantly whining about administrative actions—which, unless you can provide any evidence to the contrary, have been wholly appropriate—doesn't help you at all". Your failure to get the point doesn't make said point any less valid. Free advice: if everyone else seems to disagree with you, perhaps it is worth entertaining the possibility that you're the one who is wrong. I have nothing else to say here, and I'm certain I'm not the only one who will decline your requests. Good day. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We first interacted 3 years and 7 months ago. My advice to you now is the same as it was back when you were working on various diabetes-related articles - relax. There's no benefit in assuming that people are out to get you - they're not. It is simply that when someone posts to notice boards, their behavior is examined as well as the issues reported. You have had issues in the past that led to being blocked. Perhaps the best way to avoid that again is to take a brief break away from Wikipedia and let things settle in your own mind. Then come back refreshed. Kindest regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Asking for protection during the break period. All of my projects are deleted or tagged for deletion. Any help restoring them would be appreciated. S.Burntout123 (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, you really shouldn't edit others' talk page comments, even to remove a header, as you did above (see WP:TPO). I'm leaving it alone, but please don't do such things in the future. Regarding your request for "Protection", you've been here long enough that you should know what is and isn't available. You can't just request that a properly-deleted page, like Expertscape, be undeleted and protected from change, based on your say-so. Read Wikipedia:Deletion review, if you like, for how to get the page userfied. As for User:Burntout123/Neovandalism and User:Burntout123/Burnt-out diabetes mellitus, you have some choices:

You can simply edit those pages, copy the text, paste it into a text file on your PC, and then save it. You can then work on these at your leisure.
You can make an argument for why they shouldn't be deleted at the relevant MFDs. However, in my opinion:
- User:Burntout123/Neovandalism should never have been userfied in the first place and likely was done so to help you calm down. It is completely unsourced, all original research, and, as I hope you can admit to yourself, just a reaction to your feelings from your problems of 3-3/4 years ago.
- You'e had a long time to work on User:Burntout123/Burnt-out diabetes mellitus and haven't made any substantive effort to do so (please don't argue about this - the history speaks for itself - if you really don't understand this, perhaps you do lack the ability to contribute here). As it stands, the article lacks citations in all but the first section (History), said citations which only show a mention of the term. All of the rest of the article is WP:OR and completely fails to follow the guidelines of WP:MEDRS.

Thus, in my opinion, 7 more days isn't going to make those user drafts, nor your recently deleted articles, any more acceptable than they are. Per WP:WEBHOST, if you want to keep them and work on them over the next few years, do so off-wiki. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's how it is. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Agree to delete Neovandalism project and use its content in other ways (need a few days). Will update BO-Diabetes (truly need several days as there are thousands of updates and publications on it over the past 4 years) and then request its posting and discussion and due procedure. Also Request the userified version of the deleted ExpertScape, and if request denied, please post the final version so that it can be copied/pasted off wiki before ultimate delete, while I still hope the deletion can be deferred so that it be given a brief period of discussion and voting. S.Burntout123 (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joe - To get going after the recent turmoil, I have updated and submitted "neovandalism" project as final for review, assuming it will eventually be deleted, and happy to accept any outcome, and added the note: "This project was discussed heavily both now and 3 years ago. I agree it is a highly controversial topic and may be perceived with high level of sensitivity, and understand that it is high risk for deletion, and I am happy to accept the outcome trusting the judgement by balanced and fair editors such as C.Fred and JoeSperrazza. Thank you for the opportunity.". I am still working on the BO-diabetes project and have already revised it rather extensively and will try to prove its notability and exceptional significance in a few days and will submit. I wished more WP editors were like you, Joe and Fred, and thanks. S.Burntout123 (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have not "revised it rather extensively", the changes you made were entirely superficial and inadequate. Do you think we can't see what you've done? BMK (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trying hard to have a healthy communication and input here. Yes of course you can see and compare, this is what has been updated and is not minor please analyze this. yes the sections are distorted but from the moment you tagged it for deletion things have been revised over the past 24 hrs. Yes, I didn't do anything for 2 years and now that you have tagged it for deletion, I have no choice but to catch up fast. As somebody suggested, I really feel it is healthier for all of us to have a few days off and forget Sam.Burntout for a short while until all emotions subside. The lead editor suggested a week, I am sure everybody has more important things in WP to review/edit during the interim. Please don't use the past against me. I am trying hard to resume the work and need to contact a few scientists and expert who may know this area better. Please be patient. Thank you for understanding and tolerance. S.Burntout123 (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Burnt-out diabetes mellitus (February 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Lixxx235 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.

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:Burntout123/Burnt-out diabetes mellitus and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

--L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 01:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Burntout123, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 01:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do this

Please don't restore a bunch of already-archived content and also delete newer content, as you did here. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this is about. Some 6 hours ago ThaddeusB posted the following (see below) and I was notified and responded to it. Is a 6 hour posting too old? Did I do something wrong again? Happy to be educated. Please see below "Copy/Paste"

@Burntout123: - the article has now been speed deleted multiple times. If you wish to give it another shot (notability is possible, but needs to be proven), let me know and I will restore it to draft space for you so that it can be brought up to Wikipedia standards without the threat of quick deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, kindly userify it, so that I can start working on it. Thank you for the opportunity, Will also place on your talk, feel free to delete. SamS.Burntout123 (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you no longer recommend that this be done, per this reversion. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you reverted this intermediate edit by the archiving bot. Please be more careful in the future. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Offer

After some thought, I decided I am willing to restore ExpertScape to draft space and provide some mentoring under the condition that you won't make any attempt to move/publish the article yourself. Let me be responsible for that when the time comes. I will try to help you with the article, and EoRdE6 or other interested parties may try to, but you'll have to do most of the work.

While I think the subject is probably notable, it is far from a slam dunk case and could end up being deleted by community consensus after much effort is put into it and then there will be nothing I can do. Please be aware of that risk, and also be aware that if this leads to problematic behaviour by you I will likely be forced to block you since I am taking responsibility for mentoring you in order to make this happen. I have an idea on how to better WP:PRESERVE the content without relying on the notability of ExpertScape itself, but I will wait until the draft article is restore to explain more - i.e. at the draft talk page to allow a better discussion.

If you understand the above and agree, reply here and I will restore the page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Agree with your stipulations and truly appreciate your efforts and leadership S.Burntout123 (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page can now be found at Draft:Expertscape I will comment at Draft talk:Expertscape shortly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for amazing efforts and the balanced position and support. I have created a link and listed it under my ongoing projects for convenient access and been reading your instructions along with the educational discussions. At the risk of being labeled as overdemanding, is there any chance that the situation with the "burnt-out diabetes" project could also be better clarified? S.Burntout123 (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to be "clarified". The page is at MfD, where a discussion open to all editors will decide what is to happen to it. There's no way of circumventing or short-circuiting the discussion. BMK (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that the sudden surge of targeting my pages and projects for deletion was a somewhat emotional retaliation stemming from my comments on delete to create ratio of some users. While for 2 years I was not working on this article, I really need more time to revive these and to identify the sources. Happy to follow as unbiased lead editors suggest. -S.Burntout123 (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copy the draft to an offline text document. Find sources. Recreate your draft and include your new sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, "burnt-out diabetes" probably isn't a notable thing, unless there is another term also used to describe it. The term only appears in a few scientific papers and none of them are all that widely cited. The term seems to be an invention of Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh (who is obviously notable), but it isn't important even to his career. If you really want to keep working on the content, NeilN's suggestion of saving a copy to your local hard drive is the way to go. You could then submit it later when you are sure its as good as you can make it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I searched again and so far this is the only group that has put "burnt out" diabetes in the title of their publications. There is Experts Scape link in the same article which is removed. I will continue to look for other terms, but I agree that the notability is not as high as we thought. I will continue to search. -S.Burntout123 (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Expertscape

Hello, Burntout123. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Expertscape".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 15:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New version of Expertscape article

In case you're interested, we've submitted a new version of the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Expertscape) but I'm a complete novice at the Wikipedia process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B4chex11 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]