User talk:Dncmartins

Hi, i noticed you undid a few edits, such as this and i just wanted a bit of clarification. If actionable notifications and music control from the lockscreen is not an example of lockscreen widgets, then why is it accepted on the ios and Blackberry categories? Android still has the non-removable music player widget, which was never removed and activates when music is played. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You are right. A separate feature about 3rd party lock screen widgets would be more logical. I already undid my changes. Thank you! Dncmartins (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The article Comparison of smartphone brands has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

seems like an unsuitable page for an encyclopaedia

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, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. harrz ^talk 00:20, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Comparison of smartphone brands 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/Comparison of smartphone brands 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 until the discussion has finished.

harrz ^talk 00:17, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

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. MrOllie (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I generally don't get involved in list-related deletion discussions but it looks like you only nominated this article because you disagreed with the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphone brands (I have no opinion on either discussion). This behavior is considered disruptive, please read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

If Wikipedia policy on Comparison articles is that they are not allowed then this article will need to get deleted. Dncmartins (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

There's no policy against "comparison articles"; the policy is against original research. There needs to be reliable sources which concur around the criteria of comparison - using different sources with different criteria is not the same thing. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

This is an outrageous waste of editor's time. I strongly suggest you withdraw your nominations and consider whether you're here to build an encyclopedia. There are other places to charge at windmills. Greenman (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy must be followed. Please, see Wikipedia:Comparison Articles and Original Research Dncmartins (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Assuming good faith that you are not trolling, but didn't actually read the link, please do so. The very first paragraph states that it is not Wikipedia policy. However, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point is policy, and you are violating it. Greenman (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

That is an essay for you to understand why original research is not allowed in Wikipedia articles, specifically for Comparison articles. I just want to enforce Wikipedia policies. Dncmartins (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you are understanding WP:OR correctly. I'm assuming that your actions have been in good faith but you need to understand that, on a first glance, they do look a lot like intentional disruption. Even unintentionally, starting a load of identical AfDs without a valid rationale for deletion is disruptive. I think it would be best if you withdrew all your nominations and spent a little more time working out what your objection really is and making sure that it is actually grounded in policy. If it is, and you still want to, then it would make sense to make a single AfD that covers all the articles explaining the deletion rationale clearly rather than just gesturing vaguely in the direction of OR. (That can be done by starting an AfD on one article, adding additional "la" and "find-sources" templates for the other articles and then pasting the notification onto the other articles.)

If you do decide to continue with AfDs then please be aware that you are vulnerable to people asking about your motivations. You created Comparison of smartphone brands which was deleted at AfD with the deletion endorsed at DRV. If people get the impression that you are seeking revenge for that outcome then assumptions of good faith could evaporate very quickly.

Whatever else you decide, please can you try to avoid pasting the same arguments on all the AfDs. It's just a mess. DanielRigal (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

The list of features compared, the list of applications compared and most of the data in the tables are original research as they do not come from a reliable source. For a deletion review of a similar article that got deleted see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphone brands. I'm sorry you do not want this article deleted but this is wikipedia policy that needs to be followed. Dncmartins (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

OK. So this is revenge for your article getting deleted? DanielRigal (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

No, this is not revenge. I did not fully understand WP:OR but after reading Wikipedia:Comparison Articles and Original Research I understand that most "Comparison" articles are original research and must be deleted according to Wikipedia policy. Dncmartins (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Iy you did read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comparison_Articles_and_Original_Research,

it clearly states "This is an essay on the Wikipedia:No original research page.".

Sorry mate, looks to me that you are not following the relevant policies and procedures. Platipusica2 (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

More over, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comparison_Articles_and_Original_Research:

"Comparison articles should not be deleted, however, if they can show:

That a reliable source has made the said comparison. (e.g. Parties Long Estranged: Canada and Australia in the Twentieth Century)

That reliable sources could be readily found for the article."

I do not see what you stated above, which is "I understand that most "Comparison" articles are original research and must be deleted according to Wikipedia policy." Platipusica2 (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Dncmartins. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 08:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. DanielRigal (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Return to potentially POINTy editing. Eyesinthefire (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. OK. Those PRODs are the final straw! I think you already know that your behaviour is unacceptable but lets make it official. DanielRigal (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I saw that you made multiple nominations again for the Comparison XYZ articles. I strongly suggest that you should voice your opinion in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Banning product comparison articles. Therefore, the community can determine the state of these articles. EvanTech10 (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

@Dncmartins We have warned you multiple times to stop nominating these Comparison XYZ articles. Again, please stop nominating these articles using the same low effort nominations, and instead join the discussion above to voice your opinion about the state of these articles. You may get your deletion access revoked if you continue to make these WP:POINT nominations. EvanTech10 (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Could you stop disrupting Wikipedia? My nominations are fine and other editors are agreeing with them. If you do not like current Wikipedia policies, please, try to change them instead of harassing me. Dncmartins (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Politely requesting you to stop your mass nominations and join a discussion is not disruption, what you are doing is. I see you are now not even just mass-nominating articles for deletion, you are mass-PRODing articles in an attempt to avoid discussion. Greenman (talk) 10:25, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I understand you do not like current Wikipedia policies. I will submit those to AfD so you can post your opinions. Dncmartins (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, Dncmartins, AfDs are not where Wikipedia's policies get decided or changed -- but discussion threads like Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Banning product comparison articles are. Right now, while that discussion is ongoing, I'd say that wikipedia's consensus is undecided about comparison articles. I strongly advise that you make no further deletion nominations in this area, and instead participate in that discussion. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

That discussion is only to decide whether fully ban Comparison articles or not. So, we can still keep removing articles that are based on original research. If you want to allow Comparison articles even if they contain original research you should open another discussion. Dncmartins (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Dncmartins, I personally have no interest in or opinion about comparison articles at all. I am providing advice to you because your conduct was reported to the Administrators Noticeboard as being disruptive, and I am an administrator. I, personally, do not yet think your conduct is so disruptive that it is necessary to block you; I don't want you to reach that point, so I wanted to provide some advice about the most constructive ways to participate here.

In this instance, I would say that recent activity around comparison articles has revealed some disagreement on Wikipedia about how such articles can comply with other policies like WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Sometimes, Wikipedia decides to change how our primary policies should apply to specific kinds of articles; those changes happen via centralized discussions, not through individual AfDs. The current Village Pump discussion has proposed banning all of them, but some replies argue that not all comparison articles are problematic. At the conclusion of that discussion, it's possible that all comparison articles will be banned, that all comparison articles will be acceptable (allowing recreation of previously-deleted ones), or that there will be specific guidelines for which comparison articles are acceptable and which are not. (Realistically, it will probably take some discussion there followed by a WP:RFC to make a binding decision.) It's also sadly possible that a bunch of people will talk past each other, fail to agree on anything, and no consensus will emerge -- but I hope that won't happen. (Requesting a formal close after discussion dies down in a few weeks might help avoid a completely unclear resolution.)

Nominating an individual article for deletion while people are debating whether such articles should be deleted is counterproductive because nobody can know what rules to apply in the deletion discussion. If you want to continue working on comparison articles in a constructive way, you should go to the Village Pump discussion and put forth your own ideas about whatever you think, in the big picture, makes Wikipedia the best encyclopedia. As you do so, I encourage you to read the advice essay WP:Being right is not enough, and keep in mind that WP:Bludgeoning would also be a conduct issue. Hopefully, when the Village Pump conversation concludes, it will be much clearer which (if any) comparison articles should be deleted.

If you have questions about any of my advice, or other aspects of editing Wikipedia, feel free to ask any time, here or on my own talk page. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, for your feedback. I have expressed my concerns at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Banning product comparison articles Dncmartins (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

In case you haven't read them yet, you might find these article helpful in understanding the Wikipedia deletion process:

Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion

WP:TNT, note this is an essay, not a policy. (WP:ONLYESSAY may also be of interest)

There are a lot more obviously, but I found these ones particularly relevant. Happy editing! Thanks, CommonsKiwi (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, it seems like Comparison articles are allowed. Dncmartins (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, The deletion of that page has resulted in a broken link a Help:FTP - it was quite useful for helping editors, and was frequently used. Do you have any suggestions for a replacement link? We may need to find a service that is not restricted by the tight regulations that severely limit the utility of Wikipedia. -- GreenC 15:54, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

This is not ideal but for now I added the archive URL. -- GreenC 15:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Ever since the deletion of Comparison of smartphone brands which you authored, it seems your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to exact revenge by having as many other "comparison" articles deleted. This is clearly not a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia, seeing as most of your nominations are without merit, and often are limited to a low-effort and baseless, WP:OR and not suitable for an encyclopaedia nomination. These nominations are not only a waste of community time; they are disruptive, even when speedy closed, as is usually the case. You have been warned many times about this, most recently at the latter of two vexatious DRV appeals.

So let me be clear about this: the next time you disruptively nominate a "comparison" article for deletion, you will be topic-banned from nominating articles for deletion for a lengthy period. If your only purpose here is vindication, the project will do well without you. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 23:15, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh gods! I thought he'd packed this nonsense in after those vexatious DRVs failed. I now see that Dncmartins has made a load of new PROD nominations with identical boilerplate rationales that show no indication that he has examined the articles individually. I am sorely tempted to revert them all as vandalism even though it may be that, were somebody to look at them properly, it might be that some of them are plausible candidates for deletion. What do you think? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

At this point, I'd say that the remote chance that one of their PRODs has merit is more than offset by the time we'd end up wasting on all the others. But if it's not too onerous, please give each page a quick look before you revert the PROD, just in case. Owen× ☎ 23:33, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Please note that while the first AN/I case about this closed without consensus, the second one showed broad support for a topic ban, with those opposing the TBAN generally opting for a final warning. Consider this the final warning. Owen× ☎ 23:33, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Comparison of smartphone brands was wrongly deleted and "Comparison" articles should not be deleted? If you think that deletion is OK why my proposed deletions are not OK? Do you want to enforce Wikipedia policies? Do you care about other editors that agree that these articles should be deleted? Dncmartins (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Please do not engage in demagoguery. You've already appealed the deletion of Comparison of smartphone brands, and the deletion was overwhelmingly endorsed. The retributive nature of your contributions since then has made you a net liability for the project. It's not too late to move on from that one deletion, and become a productive editor. Owen× ☎ 13:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

As the deletions of these comparison articles have been overwhelmingly endorsed I will continue requesting the deletion of all those comparison articles that do not meet Wikipedia policies. I will not allow anyone to lower Wikipedia quality and disrespect its policies. Dncmartins (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate that you believe that there has been inconsistency here. (Maybe there even has. The smartphone article was deleted before I ever saw it so I can't say.) You are entitled to raise that as an issue. What you are not entitled to do is climb into your steamroller and unilaterally start trying to crush other articles just to make a point. That has to stop! I think you already know this because you back off whenever your behaviour gets taken to the Administrators Noticeboards only to return to it, completely unrepentant, once you think the heat is off. This seems to provide evidence of bad faith by trying to game the system. The administrators have been exceptionally, almost inexplicably, lenient with you so far but they won't tolerate this behaviour indefinitely. Please just give this up and try find something else to work on constructively, whether that is on Wikipedia or somewhere else. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The smartphone article was deleted before I ever saw it

If you're curious, the article is still visible on the Wayback Machine. Cheers, CommonsKiwi (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

You are indefinitely topic-banned from deletion discussions. This includes XfDs, proposed deletions and CSD tagging. Since you have chosen to blatantly ignore all warnings, I am imposing a 1-year partial block from project space. If you violate this ban by tagging articles for proposed or speedy deletion, a more comprehensive block will be placed.

Refs: first AN/I, second AN/I. Owen× ☎ 19:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

What should I do to revert this ban? What Wikipedia rules and policies I am blocked from trying to enforce? Dncmartins (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2026 (UTC)