User talk:Domdeparis/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Speedy deletion declined: Azersu Open Joint Stock Company

Hello Domdeparis. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Azersu Open Joint Stock Company, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: supplying 1/8 of the country with water seems like a sufficient claim of significance to me. Thank you. SoWhy 08:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Bringing conversation from Talk:List_of_drag_queens#Roxanne_Russell/Logan_Carter to my talk page

::I would appreciate if you would do whatever you feel you want to do without ever writing to or mentioning me again. I will do the same if so (normally I hardly ever mention other users anyway, just trying to go about WP business w/o getting personal). Interaction with you brings back nothing but very traumatic memories from last fall - I am not exaggerating - and if you'd be so kind and avoid me 100%, I would appreciate that very much. That includes replying to this. Please respect my wishes! Sincere thanks if you do. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: I have moved this conversation here as it is off topic and it seems silly to continue there. I fully understand that you wish to avoid me but when we are editing on the same pages it is very difficult not to interact. I will avoid your talk page but you should realise that you cannot ban me from using other talk pages that you edit. The problem is that you are coming back to the same subjects that we interacted on together before. Maybe if you avoid these subjects especially if you are trying to reintegrate deleted information it would be better for you. Also your comment may be a little hypocritical as your third edit after a break of a couple of months was to compalin about edits that I made and repetedly call them lies (without naming me but linking to edits I made here) and to accuse a deleting adminsitrator of bad faith in deleting a page in which you have a COI . You are also accusing me of bad faith by saying that I repeated lies but I didn't wish to reply as you were obviously traumatised. May I just point out that if I pinged you it was because of this statement you made on your own talk page back in September "It's good manners to notify somebody you're complaining about, not just the person you're complaining to" advice that you do not follow yourself unfortunately. Making repeated veiled accusations of lying is a personal attack but I had chosen to ignore it but I am now asking you to stop. I have also informed the deleting admin about your comments on his actions as he may not have seen it as you avoid naming him but he may want to discuss it with you. Please feel to reply here if you wish. Domdeparis (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Please respect what I wrote, after reading it and not reading anything else into it! I have not objected to your editing, I have now asked you not to "ping" me or direct your comments at me or write about me but to go about your business without doing that, whether or not my edits are involved. That's all I've asked. By "interaction" in this case I mean mentioning each other and writing to each other, which actually is not necessary.

"you cannot ban me from using other talk pages that you edit" is not relevant to my comment or my wishes.

"It's good manners to notify somebody you're complaining about" is not relevant today either, since I was not complaining about you in any way here.

"that doesn't help a closing administrator pass fair judgement" cannot fairly be interpreted as "to accuse a deleting adminsitrator of bad faith in deleting a page".

Whether or not it should be called "lies" when you repeatedly alleged last fall in several places that I did not respond at once to your COI issue with me, which indeed I did by giving you this link immediately here as soon as we began discussing anything at all, is for others than you and me to decide. You never have acknowledged that I informed you at once, but kept spreading your embarrassing allegation all over (claiming that I did not), for weeks, even as far as French Wikipedia. If I could be found wrong in using words such as "lies" for that, I would be glad to apologize to you sincerely, even if you never will apologize for all the unfair things you've written about me. My perception of that whole mess last fall left me seriously traumatized, and I just cannot stomach continuing to contribute to Wikipedia if I must be reminded of that trauma by you time and again, in instances where I have not offended you in any way. If you could just find it in your heart to leave me and my name alone now, as I will you and yours, I think we'll be OK. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Domdeparis, I read the comment, and "don't ping me" is a pretty good summary. I strongly suggest that you stick to that, and that you try a little harder to just leave SW alone. Wikipedia is a big place. SW is not asking for an iBan or for you to stay away from articles they're editing, just for some consideration. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

That's fine no pinging despite the fact that he originally complained that he considered it bad manners not to which is exactly what he did when he he accused me of lying in a highly visible page without pinging me, that I assume is not a problem for you? Domdeparis (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

And please remember that after more than 2 months break his 3rd edit was to complain about me accused me of lying and complain about the deletion of the demitz page in a highly visible petition page. That is provocation. I chose to ignore this until he started to try and reinsert information and photos that were removed. If Wikipedia is such a big place as you put it and he just wants to be left alone why behave in this manner? Domdeparis (talk) 07:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Domdeparis, I understand what you are saying here. When a user does like that you have to reply and explain. We can not have different rules for everybody exept SW who has own rules. Wikipedia is huge and if he does not like the deletions and so on he does not have to edit those articles. He can avoid articles he has coi in and edit others. Then he will not be in conflict with you. Adville (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Serge I think you may be being a little unfair by suggesting that it is I who remind you of what happened in September when it is you in your third edit after the break who rakes over the coals by complaining about it and me on a petition that is reserved for condemning admin abuse of tools...odd choice if you do not wish to condemn the admin involved in the deletion but that may have been an error on your part and then starts to try and reintroduce some of the deleted material in which you have a declared COI. I would suggest continuing with your other edits especially on royalty and nobility which is a subject I am also interested in and from what I can see we have very similar opinions and your edits are of good quality. Anyway as I said I will avoid pinging you as you ask but please don't expect me not to make a comment on a page that you have commented on. If you wish to avoid me I would suggest avoiding the COI pages. Happy editing. Domdeparis (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review

Pardon for bothering again, but I was curious if you would review the blockquotes on my recently migrated page Governor of the Bastille and make corrections? The subject matter is sufficiently important that traffic to the page is likely to be greater than my other migrations.
- Conservatrix (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Conservatrix: No problem Ok I'll have a look. --Domdeparis (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It does need quite a bit of copy editing as some of the translation is a bit iffy. I see what I can do myself but I will tag it as being a translation from the French article which should bring in other French spakers to help. Domdeparis (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. - Conservatrix (talk) 09:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Edyta Piasecka - improvements

Hi, you added the templates to the article I have prepared: Edyta Piasecka, Polish opera singer (soprano). I don't understand: "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for music. (January 2018)". The artist had created the leading roles (Traviata, Fiorilla, Rosina, Lucia, Gilda, etc.) in the most important opera houses in Poland (warsaw, Cracow, Breslau, Gdansk, etc). Should I put this info in the article? Meybe it is not clear? Can you please help me? Regards from Warsaw, --Atomksk (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi what you need to do is look at the criteria for WP:NSINGER and check out what is needed. Over and above this you need to check out WP:GNG and from me sources that are independent of the subject and treat it with in-depth coverage. ~~

Network (2018 film) restored

The page Network (2018 film) has been restored after its deletion was contested at my talk page. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate it for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 16:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation

		Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For completing over 100 reviews during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive please accept this Special Edition Barnstar. Thank you for helping out at New Page Patrol! There is still work to do to meet our long term goals, so I hope you will continue your great work. Cheers! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

		Worm Gear
		For maintaining a streak of at least 10 reviews per week during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog drive, you are awarded the worm gear. Thanks for your contributions and keep up the good work! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Angshuman Kar

Hello Winged Blades of Godric. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Angshuman Kar, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Reverse copyvio Copy-vio is permitted under quotes.If you disagree, please remove the quote, which do seem a bit long and fan-stuff. Thank you. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: Your first reason for refusing was reverse copyvio which it is not and this is not just a quote as you put it but 87% of the article. there is almost nothing left after removing it. I will be putting back the CSD please do not revert again and let someone else deal with it. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Reverse copyvio was a script-error coupled with a misclick that led to a roll-back and concurrent decline-message on my t/p!My 2nd reason stands.~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree please let a 3rd party deal with it. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely.If any admin chooses to G12 this, I will be pleasant-fully surprised.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Domdeparis, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
• We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

• We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

• ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
• Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

I am asked to thank you for leaving as many of the Southerly Clubs images in articles as you have found appropriate. Some of the older ones are such that people with that organization are the proudest of having been able to provide, and some of the newer ones were taken specifically for use by Wikipedia, often requiring extensive travel and expense as well as negotiations with people in charge on location. Of the ones you removed, we mostly miss these three solo portraits of James Brown, Dustin Hoffman and Max von Sydow, which are widespred elsewhere and, though they could be of better quality, are the only free color photos that exist so far of those three gentlemen from those time periods in their life stories. We wouldn't have minded any request for quality improvement (they were scanned many years ago now) or that our images were replaced by better color images from other sources (as with Bishop Bonnier, Alice Bah Kuhnke, Michael Nyqvist, Helena Mattsson, Svenne Hedlund, Gustaf Skarsgård, Mattias Klum, Loa Falkman, Örjan Ramberg, Alexandra Charles, Efva Attling, Thomas Dellert, Ewa Fröling, Frederick Adolph of Sweden, Adolph John of Sweden, Magnus IV of Sweden, Carl Bernadotte, Edvin Adolphson, Margaretha of Denmark, Per Åhlin, Chairman, Eddie Gustafsson, Gustavus Adolphs's grave and a few others, all articles where we had provided the very first photos but were glad when they were improved. Cordially, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi the three photos that you mention are of grainy and of poor quality but most importantly do not add anything to the articles in terms of originality of importance. They could have been taken anywhere. They are used elsewhere but who added them onto these pages? They have all been added to commons by a group belonging to a person that you have a declared conflict of interest with. I am not going to rake over the coals again but I really feel that you should avoid trying to add these photos. As you have said I did not remove photos that I thought were relevant to articles and I really don't understand why the club would want to thank me for it unless they have a vested interest in having them on Wikipedia. I myself have added a few photos on subjects that interest me because they were missing but if someone decides that they are not relevant I will I no way be upset because I am not looking to promote myself or anything I am involved in. I do not link to anything that says who I am but I am sure that people who know me would be able to work out who is behind my user name if they came across it. Anyone who doesn't know me would be hard pushed to and it would require a lot of work to find my name (not impossible though). You have recently suggested adding a photo on the Lou Reed page that is a collage of him with 3 other portraits of people linked to one of your COI pages claiming they were his friends. I honestly think this is a mistake because it could be perceived as an attempt at improving the visibility of this page to which you have a conflict of interest. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I wrote to you cordially and in good faith. Your reply lacks that enirely. I will comment on this new "friends" accusation at Talk:Walk on the Wild Side (Lou Reed song)#Image addition. The three portraits added to a vast number of WP articles have, to an overwhelming extent, been adeed to those articles by people we do not know at all. I'm truly sorry I wrote to you. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I was perfectly cordial and in good faith. If you only want to talk with people who agree with you then I suggest that you don't rattle the cages of those that you have recently accused of lying and with whom you have said that you never want to talk with again to avoid distress. Unless your aim is to create drama to enable you to express your indignation and sadness. But I am not in your head so I don't really know your motivation was. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

"I was perfectly cordial and in good faith." is an incredible assertion of yours, to anyone reading what you wrote. Bewildered as I was, I've asked 5 fair people by e-mail to look at what you've written here, and I think you're baiting me with these intentionally nasty, condescending replies, as I only can take them, when anyone can see I was trying to be nice. But I dont think I'm going to fall into that. As I wrote last, I'm very sorry I wrote to you. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I was nice to you too and said you did good edots in an arti le and got a very sarcastic answer. By reading that I understood you did not want anything like that. The day after you started this thred and are surprised he answers like he does. I completely understands it. Best for you if you want calm is to forget this incident and proceed with the royalties, were you write good. Adville (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Like I said if you come and rattle the cages of those you have insulted don't expect them to be particularly charitable with you. You can email who you like dear Serge I only have your word that they agreed with you, if you want to don't hesitate to ping them here. To come and chat on my talk page despite having said you want nothing more to do with me I think that is a very odd thing to do. I would have said that is a way of baiting me so you shouldn't really be surprised if I am not in agreement with you. Anyway it looks like you are in need of drama but I really am not in the mood so do me a favour and don't bother posting on my page again unless it is to apologise. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jim (given name), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages James and Jack (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Self-published sources

Dom, a self-published source is a something that was not produced through a third party publisher, not a source written by the Wikipedia editor who cites it. The sources you are tagging on various pages written by Pyule/Azd0815 are published by academic presses and in most cases have been through peer review, so they are very far from from SPSes. Please slow down with this rash of nominations and taggings. I'm sure you mean well, but I think you may have misunderstood WP:OR, WP:REFSPAM, WP:SELFCITE, etc. as they apply to academic researchers who edit Wikipedia. – Joe (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Joe Roe: can you explain to me why refspam doesn't apply to this particular editor? It certainly says "Variations of citation spamming include "academics and scientists using their editing privileges primarily to add citations to their own work". This editor has been doing exactly that. The quality of his work is not in question but it is the fact he has been creating pages about his work and referencing sometimes exclusively his own work. Dom from Paris (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

It also says that WP:REFSPAM "should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia." He isn't spamming links to his papers to increase his profile, he's writing encyclopaedic articles on notable archaeological sites. Per WP:SELFCITE, citing one's own publications is okay as long as those publications meet WP:RS and are used properly. It would be impossible to write about most of these sites without citing Yule's work. – Joe (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

When you are creating an article about your own work and using your own publications as the sole reference then how can that be acceptable? The notability is only attested by the extent of his own work. On a lot of the sites there are no other sources. Not every archaeological site is notable surely? Surely there has to be coverage in independent RS to prove notability? If Yule's work is the only source then doesn't that beggar the question of notability and also a problem of COI? Dom from Paris (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

He isn't creating articles about his own work, he's creating articles about ancient settlements which he investigated. Compare for example a biologist writing an article about a species that they have been the main researcher of. Would you object to that?

As far as I know the question hasn't come up, but my own opinion is that yes, every excavated or intensively surveyed archaeological site is probably notable. The reason is that the purpose of an archaeological investigation is to produce a written record, and so typically any given site is going to be the subject of at least two or three sources – reliable sources, in peer reviewed academic literature. The nature of archaeological research means that those papers tend to be written by the same set of authors, because only one group can excavate the same site at a time, but that doesn't mean they're not independent. The subject is the site, not the authors, and they still go through a rigorous process of peer review and scholarly criticism.

I am as wary of COIs as anyone, and yes there's the potential for researchers to give undue weight to their own work, but we shouldn't let the fear of undue weight drive us to stop articles on notable, worthy subjects being written by the world's leading expert on that subject. I've reviewed dozens of Yule's articles and not spotted anything more than style and formatting errors. – Joe (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok fair enough this is a subject that you obviously know a lot more about than I do. I agree that the site existed before he started to work on but I cannot believe that every archaeological site is notable. What is notable is the conclusions that one can draw from that the lessons that one can learn from it. Just saying that at some point in time people lived here between certain dates is not what is important. If there was a groundbreaking discovery made there then that would make it important and notable. To use your analogy is this a new species? Is this the only example of its kind? Is every single dinosaur skeleton that is unearthed inherently notable because someone very learned wrote a paper on his own discovery? There are literally millions of sites around the world that could be studied by archaeologists are they all notable? I could draw an anology with companies. All companies are the fruit of extremely hard work by large numbers of people, there are a number of reports studies that are written by the company's staff that attest to the importance of this company for them but this is not taken into consideration for notability. It is the number of independent reliable sources that take an interest in that company that makes it important. If Yule had not carried out the excavation nobody would have known about these sites but what has he discovered? What makes them notable? Dom from Paris (talk) 22:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Our disagreement seems to be about what counts as independence. To me there's a big difference between a person writing about something they have produced, like a company or a creative work, and a person writing about something they have studied. Getting a bit philosophical, I consider an archaeologist an independent/third party source on a site because they are describing something that exists independently of them. It would be a different matter if they were writing about themselves or the "So-and-so Research Project". There'd definitely be a notability and COI issue there.

Personally I would be happy to see an article on every species, fossil and archaeological site, but I'm not sure if it has been discussed in general terms before. I don't think I've ever seen an archaeological site nominated for deletion before, in fact, and I've patrolled new archaeology articles regularly for some years now. I do see your point, and I'll be interested to see what precedent these AfDs set. – Joe (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I realised I'm coming in a month late but I've just discovered this issue. Every village is now I believe considered notable. Certainly every published archaeological site should be. Every species likewise. And many artefacts. I'm with User:Joe Roe on this. I think that Yule could be a very valuable editor and I don't want to see him added to the academics we've driven away from this project because it took them a while to adjust to our ways. I know you tried to delete or PROD a number of his articles and that that has upset him. I'm wondering now if you could do something to help convince him to stay. Doug Weller talk 18:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I must admit I didn't bother going back to those discussions once I realised that nobody was in agreement with me...so I went skiing instead (and broke my shoulder doing it)! I still believe that an academic whose main contributions on wikipedia is to add references to his own work is contravening policy and guidelines. But i may have misunderstood them of course. Wiki is not supposed to be a place to promote yourself or your work no matter how important you may be it should be up to others. If he had his nose put out of joint by my remarks I'm sorry but I think there are enough people who will tell him I was wrong without me having to say it myself especially as I don't want to be hypocritical. If the articles were not deleted then that should be enough for him I think. What do you think I could say to make him change his mind? I was acting in good faith. Dom from Paris (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your shoulder. The issue for me is whether the encyclopedia has been improved by the articles he's created. His recent posts on his talk page seem to demonstrate that he's editing in good faith and doesn't want to break any rules, so I don't think he's had his nose put out of joint. As you say that you've walked away, then probably that's the best thing to do now. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Articale Chilonia Union High School

why my articles are deletions. what I has provided that's absolutely true because this is my school. I know about my school description. I never copied anything from somewhere else. so, why my article should be among in Wikipedia deletions. now I would like to make sure create my article same like before. Masumasu11 (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:Masumasu11 this article is not being deleted. You must supply sources for all the information that you add on Wikipedia. There is almost nothing in the article that was supported by sources which is why I removed it. Please ensure that you have a source before adding any more information. Also pleasepremember that it is not "your" article as it belongs to everyone as you do not WP:OWN what you publish. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Chronicles of Elyria

I've added multiple sources, so I was wondering if that meets the criteria for removing the 2nd tag (notability) that you put there? I didn't want to just remove it. Bodymindspirit (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Domdeparis, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

• Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

• While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

• The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Sanfourche

Hello Dom, I have started a page at User:Loopy30/Sanfourche to document and track the IP editor who continues to add unsourced info to French towns, racing articles, etc. Feel free to collaboratively add additional details if you wish. My aim is to see if we can block these IP addresses for disruptive editing and then use that block to substantiate additional blocks each time they pop up again. Currently, it is a drain on other editors time to clean up after this IP editor. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I have found the sock-puppet master. He/she was on French Wikipedia as the account De la lombertie (now blocked indefinitely - see SPI). Loopy30 (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The scale is massive and cross-wiki, with at least eight wikis. Re-started SPI at WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/88.136.200.141. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Loopy30: excellent detective work! This guy is so persistant. I had a look at the French page for Sanfourche and it would never come close to passing GNG here. When I get a bit of time I might have a mooch around on the French WP. Thanks for the heads-up. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Loopy30: here's another IP for the collection User:88.138.207.170 Dom from Paris (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Dom, this most recent IP had already been blocked for the usual disruptive edits (unsourced additions, Sanfourche obsession) by Acroterion even before I read your latest alert. I have now updated the SPI accordingly. Although the SPI is still open, the SPI investigator states that "IPs at SPI in most cases are not given a great deal of attention. If they are sufficiently disruptive, they are usually blocked outside of SPI". I was hoping to have User:De la lombertie formally designated as the sock master at SPI before going to ANI requesting a ban on his English Wikipedia editing. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi yeah I think they blocked them because I reverted as vandalism his edits on Bordeaux and other pages. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Loopy do not hide you add (to document and follow the IP editor that continues to add non-oriented information to French cities) adds you information you do nothing and anything how we put you in power ? Who is the lombertie do not know my poor loopy you're ridiculous I'm lanlay roast beef --88.140.32.172 (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC) you're loopy, you're always trying to break them. If I have an obsession for Sanfourche you do not have it you make you smart salad you will what you do not think blocked because you are unable to vandalize the real writings --88.140.32.172 (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC) loopy loops you have proofs to say that I'm from the lombertie you are not cop proof you do your job and closes there salad--88.140.32.172 (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@88.140.32.172: je suis désolé mais je ne comprends rien de ce que vous écrivez. Vous ne maîtrisez pas suffisamment bien l'anglais pour éditer efficacement ici. Redites-le en français s'il vous plaît sinon je ne peux pas vous aider. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

You can create an article in English on an artist--De lanlay9 (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@KylieTastic: Hi this may interest you. Also I have just opened an SPI here. Cheers. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Loopy30: hi I agree that one is blocked already but the other has not been included in any SPI and I think even if he hasn't editied for a while be identified in the investigation. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Dom, If you check the SPI archive for De la lombertie, you can see that 88.139.146.207 was already reported on 02 Mar 2018 (stale) and 88.140.32.172 was reported (and blocked for a month) after only one edit on 05 Apr. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Loopy30: oops I missed that one! there are so many IP addresses knocking around!! cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Clemens Wijers

Hi Domdeparis!! Hmmm... I understand that using sources from the musician's own website alone wouldn't justify notiability. However, I did attempt to use several interviews from magazines, YouTube channels, etc. that weren't just his own site. Also, I noticed that he has a page on non-English Wikipedia and he was redlinked by someone other than me before I made the page. What sort of sources do you think are missing? What would you like to see added?

Feliciapulo (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Meznarie

You delete very well I look at the article for you that's what it means it did not really have anything to do with it, it was worked in motor sports management, first with Peugeot Talbot Sport and then with Scuderia Ferrari before being appointed Chief Executive Officer of Ferrari from 2006 to 2008. Since 2009, he has been president of the International Federation of the Automobile (FIA).--De lanlay9 (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@De lanlay9: bienvenu! Je suis désolé mais je ne comprends pas ce que vous voulez dire (donc je pense qu'il vaut mieux qu'on communique en français). Tout d'abord ce n'était pas moi qui ai supprimé votre contribution mais un autre editeur. Il a mis en commentaire ?. Franchement je suis d'accord avec lui ça n'avait pas de sens, vraiment je vous déconseille d’éditer en anglais pour l'instant votre niveau n'est pas suffisamment bon. To any talk page watchers sorry for communicating in French but I think this is the best/only way to help this editor. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

John Walsh filmmaker

Hello Domdeparis

Thanks for this advice. In terms on the Conflict of Interest page. I had a look and I am not sure which area I belong to. I know of John Walsh filmmaker and it was after that I met with him twice at screenings for his own work. I am not a relative employee or a social partner person to him. I don’t receive any money or anything else in fact for editing here. I checked the citation links to website as regular as possible and have replaced dead links or repaired them where I can. Do I need to prune back this article? Or if there are links that I should remove do let me know. I thought I had only used third party sources for citation so apologies if I have been a bit too enthusiastic here. Any advice would be welcome. Thanks. Rich.x

KSWA

Partake in the talk page if you have a concern. Anymore edits from you will be considered vandalism. Thanks. Gvstaylor1 (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Um try reading WP:VANDALISM Dom from Paris (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

NPR Bronze Award

		The New Page Reviewer's Bronze Award
		For over 1000 new page reviews in the last year, thank you very much for your help at New Pages Patrol! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: Rump state

You wrote:
"If you wish to reinstate the "list of" please open a new discussion on the Rump state talk page to present your arguments and it would be nice to notify the original participants"^[1]
I agree completely. However, i don't recall getting any notice of pending merge discussions, so there's that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: did you have this page on your watch list? Dom from Paris (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Whenever I send s message to someone, I watchlist their page so I can respond to any replies; it seems the most polite thing to do. As for Rump State, no - I did not have that page on my talk list. I knew what a rump state was; I needed to monitor the ever-changing list page. I can see why you might have wanted to merge the two, but the list page was nowhere near stable yet. I believe you have bought a crapfest of edits to Rump state in doing so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I was talking about the "list of rump states" article. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

If you don't mind this is the same discussion as on the Rump state page so I'll continue there. Cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the List article was in my watchlist. As for continuing the discussion there, that's fine. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Paul Barry (American bartender)

Hello Domdeparis. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Paul Barry (American bartender), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: claims coverage in reliable sources. Text ist not really promotional. Try WP:AFD if non-notable. Thank you. SoWhy 15:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: um I honestly think that the following phrase is highly promotional... "Paul Barry uses his charm an charismatic personality to serve and entertain his customers. Many of his customers have become lifelong friends and patrons. He frequently uses a handful of phrases such as "I was conceived behind a bar." and "Voila! That's French, you know" to entertain his customers. Barry says, "I'm at the vortex" of my customers lives." Dom from Paris (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I said "not really", didn't I? Delete that sentence (which I now did) and the rest of the article is not promotional, so G11 does not apply (which requires pages to be "exclusively promotional and [in] need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION" (emphasis added)). Regards SoWhy 16:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok fair enough ;o) I'm OK with the speedy being declined but I'm looking at the sources and they are not enough to meet WP:GNG so I'll take it to Afd if the creator can't add more (I found nothing of note in a before search). I'll engage with him on the talk page first as he is a newbie and a SPA. cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Please read the articles that I have citied and see for yourself. - Effecthypothesis

A7 on Anne Watson

Hi Domdeparis -- I've declined this A7 because mayor of a US state capital, even if very small, is a valid claim of notability. Assuming it gets referenced, AfD is a possibility. ETA: Ah, I see you're already there... Espresso Addict (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Limoges

Hello Dom, I have now gone back and reverted all the edits made by De la lombertie to a few articles on French Wikipedia including Limoges. The last series of these edits was then reverted by User:Néfermaât. As my proficiency in written French is both weak and slow to generate, could you perhaps explain to Néfermaât that these are unsourced edits added from socks of an indefinitely banned user? If Néfermaât would like to add the deleted information back in as his own edits, as DCh50 did previously, then that is fine but it should not be reverted back in. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dom, sorry to bother you again. I would like to respond to Néfermaât that my reversions to De la lombertie's edits were indeed "purposefully" indiscriminate as to any possible validity to the content of those edits. As most of his edits were unsourced, promotional, or otherwise disruptive and he is indefinitely banned on French Wikipedia, all his edits should be reverted on sight. If another user wishes to reinsert this reverted material then those additions should be checked and attributed to the new editor, as was done by DCh50 on 29 Apr. The reverts of a sock-puppet may be "restored" by another user but should not be "reverted back" to the sock-puppets edits.

However, before I (or you) post that message, could you confirm for me that these arbitrary reversions of a banned sock master are indeed the current policy on French Wikipedia? Although I know it is correct for English Wikipedia, I am also aware that policies and guidance do vary between Wiki projects. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

A.A. Taste Awards

Hi Domdeparis, thank you for the great help and I've go the the talk page to leave a reason for the contest. Hopefully I can come back with the valuable information before it has been deleted. Really thank you anyway.--Minyuhuang (talk) 10:55, 30 April 2018 (GMT+8)

NPPR talkpage

Hi. I hope you are well.
Thanks for the ping there, and I apologise I couldnt comment there earlier. I have been sort of off the wikiepdia cuz I have been very busy in real life. The worload has decreased a little, and hopefully my activity will increase soon. But till then, I am mostly back to the mode of reading, and keeping an eye on the watchlist. The NPP/R talkpage is also in my watchlist, so I will comment there if the situation calls. See you around :)
Best, —usernamekiran(talk) 23:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion: Talk: Mike Steib

Hi, this is Quek157, I declined the CSD for "speedy deletion as a talk page of a page which does not exist, has been deleted" as for the very resaon below "This does not include pages which are useful to the project such as information for a future article". The original editor had the page deleted after an Afd and asked for a peer review - please see the review. I will hope this is here just as to

1. Make sure all the issues in the Afd are solved before recreation (though the discussion can also be found on the page when creating also).
2. Also, to make sure that the same very page don't get PRODed / Afd again when re-created if these guidelines are not adhered to. This will be a full waste of time.
3. And a peer review should be archived in these manner according to 5 at Peer review "Articles which have been nominated for deletion, or have been deleted, through a deletion debate or otherwise. (In case an article has been undeleted, the request may reopen at any time." [2] and also instruction to closing [3].

I may be wrong so do tell me. This is also my first peer review.
Thanks a lot --Quek157 (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi are you sure that we can ask for a peer review on a deleted page? Maybe better to replace the CSD and leave it up to an admin to decide if it should be deleted or not if you are not sure. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

that's apparently what the user did . on record I am fine with csd. but if that user still recreate without caring then we will need an afd which is even more waste of time and that user really don't know what they are doing. e.g contesting afd on wrong platform [4] Quek157 (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, restored the CSD tag --Quek157 (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Page deleted. I learned a good lesson about CSDs. Thanks --Quek157 (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

hello

I have created one page "Shri mamasaheb deshpande" but it has tagged for speed deletion. not clear why it have been done. I have given sufficient reference and no commercial links in that. not clear why it have been done. he was a great saint and less information is available on internet about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogesh dol (talk • contribs) 02:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi this page has been nominated for deletion as not meeting the notability criteria as the only sources are affiliated one's. Please read WP:GNG. The other page that you created Shree Shireeshdada Kawade was written in such a way that it was purely promotional and did not have its place in an encyclopedia. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dom.

The page Shree Shireeshdada Kawade is not a promotional one. We have no commercial view in mind. If at all wiki finds it commercial, please let us know about the faults. We have no commercial aspect in creating this page. Shireeshdada Kawade is a renouned personality form Indian spiritual field. So we are cerating a page on him.

If the references given in the page are not upto the mark, or you feel they are promotional, they can be removed. But the information given in the page is purely for the encyclopedia. Rohanupalekar (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Promotional doesn't necessarily mean commercial. One can write an article that promotes a person or an idea and have no hope for financial gain. You may want to read WP:NOTSOAPBOX to understand more. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and all articles should be written from a neutral point of view as per WP:NPOV. The article was clearly written by a follower and could not be kept in that state and would have had to have been totally rewritten to meet the requirements. Unfortunately as a follower you have a conflict of interest and as such it is almost impossible to write a neutral article. Please read WP:COI for more information. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Shri mamasaheb deshpande page

Shri manasaheb deshpande page has been taged for speedy deletion. I want to ask a question regarding it. Can The books published by Mamasaheb be considered as notable resource? They are not available online, 20+ books have been published by mamasaheb and are popular all over india. Rohanupalekar (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

This page has not been tagged for speedy deletion but it could have been as it is highly promotional in tone. It has been nominated for deletion via a discussion. The sources that have been provided are affiliated and cannot be exclusively used to show notability. The books published by this person are not sufficient to show notability there should be third party non affiliated sources that talk about this person. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Eida Al Menhali

Hi Domdeparis. Thanks for your concern. I have left some messages at Talk:Eida Al Menhali#Notability. Thanks. --Fideliosr (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Deletion Request for Luis Irsandi

I hope that this article will not be deleted, since the player has played in first-tier league with PSMS Medan and should satisfy wikipedia criteria for footballer. And also, now he is one of the most favourite player for Persiraja fans. He is recently awarded as best player in a pre-season tournament (i have added the reference as well). Fathul.mahdariza (talk) 09:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Fathul.mahdariza: did he play senior matchs for them? Dom from Paris (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dom from Paris. Yes, he played twice. It is stated as well in one of references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fathul.mahdariza (talk • contribs) 09:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok I'll remove the PROD. I have noticed that you have created other articles for players that have only played in Liga 2 and as such fail WP:NFOOTY. Better to concentrate only on those that meet the criterai or they will certainly be nominated for deletion and waste a lot of time for everyone. Cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fathul.mahdariza: Also the layout on the articles you have created needs work, eg no reference section and you should add categories to them as well. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Please permit me to award you with this Barnstar of Diplomacy because you helped to resolve, peacefully, the Ramón Rivero situation . Tony the Marine (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Marine 69-71: that means a lot to me! Dom from Paris (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Rap Music‎

Hi! You have redirected Rap Music‎ and Rap music‎ to Hip hop music instead of Rapping. Why? Not all rap music is hiphop. Not all hiphop music contains rap. Rapping is not exclusively a subset of hiphop. For example, Nu metalcore often contains rapping, and if it does it is rap music, but it isn't hiphop. Same thing with pop. Please read Rapping#History (which contains sentences like: "A notable recorded example of rapping in blues music was the 1950 song "Gotta Let You Go" by Joe Hill Louis.") and then revert yourself. Edward Mordake (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi I don't really have an opinion one way or the other but the 2 redirects have been stable for 10 years and your edits have been reverted several times which means that we should go through the discussion process to gain a concensus now. Next time better to follow the WP:BRD process rather than reverting yourself when your bold editing was reverted. What I will do is nominate them for discussion at WP:RFD and notify the different editors that have worked on the pages so they can take part in the discussion. That way you can present your arguments there. Dom from Paris (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You don't really have an opinion, but you have reverted the improvement. If you don't have an opinion, then don't edit. The idea that a problem that is old shouldn't be fixed is silly. Edward Mordake (talk) 07:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC) p.s. Your ping went wrong

You seem to misunderstand I didn't have an opinion about which redirect is better (I do now) but I do have an opinion about you reverting the redirects without discussing it first. You "fixed" an old problem with a bold edit and that is fine (you may have not noticed but I did not revert it. But when someone reverts your edit the next step should have been, as per WP:BRD, is you initiating a discussion to gain consensus which you didn't do. So to avoid a silly edit war starting I reverted to the original situation before your bold edits and I opened a discussion. This is the standard practice to resolve editing disputes. When you get a bit more experience here I think you will understand better why I did that rather than just leaving it up to you. You might want to read a few of the essays and guidelines about editing, resolving disputes and looking for consensus. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Facepalm Edward Mordake (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you mind explaining your last message. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You are officially disinvited from my talkpage. Edward Mordake (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem for me you are still very welcome on mine... especially to explain your facepalm message. You seem to be treading a very very fine line. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Edward Mordake: I have been looking at your edit history and a lot of the stuff you have been deleting is exactly the kind of thing that I would have deleted myself and is useful work. I'd like to offer you an olive branch if you're interested. I think we got off on the wrong foot and I think that I can help you with a couple of pointers about other aspects of editing on wikipedia notably WP:BRD. I am far from perfect and am still learning loads every day too. What do you say? Dom from Paris (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, that is a pleasant surprise! I've looked at your contribs and we are on the same team. I've struck through my comment above. Edward Mordake (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Like I said I have learnt a few things here and one of them is not to stick blindly to your guns just for the fun of it and take a step back and realise that you can work with someone and get past a difficulty quite easily. First off I think that you really did misunderstand why I reverted the Rap music page and opened a discussion. What I wanted was to avoid a 3RR warning for you because you have the courage of your convictions but here on WP consensus is all important. I had a look at the ANI discussion and the Kayne talk page and honestly you were both lucky not to get a rap on the knuckles from an admin for edit warring. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to get rid of vandalism and promotional text, a task similar to cleaning the Augean stables, so I can use all the help I can get! We ended up at ANI, I accepted his apology, and we let bygones be bygones. I would've preferred if you would've started a discussion instead of reverting first and discussing afterwards, but I am quite hopeful that people will agree with my reasoning. I own quite a few rap songs that are outside of the hiphop genre. Friendly fire (worst euphemism ever!) is more dangerous than any enemy. Edward Mordake (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC) p.s. I love scuba diving!

That's what I'm trying to explain, even if you are right you can't unilaterally impose your view without consensus. The normal process is you do a bold edit someone reverts and you open the discussion to justify your bold edit. It is not for the person who reverts you back to a long standing edit to do that. That way you don't get into an edit war and after discussion if no consensus can be found you can call for a third opinion WP:3O or wait for someone else to weigh in. Editing on wikipedia can involve a long wait sometimes. Also if you don't mind me saying it's better to take a bit more time in replying to comments make sure you've got what you want to say right and then wait for the other editor to reply. The thing I was saying about WP:REDACT is important. Also when you see that the other guy is not getting what you say there is no point in repeating yourself. Have a look at this if you want Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Dom from Paris (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I get what you are saying and agree with most of it. My favorite wordcombination is "yes, but...". To be completely honest I've lost quite a bit of faith in democracy as a system because of the amount of idiots in my country. I am sure others feel the same (even those who disagree with me politically). I agree (of course) that some actions require consensus and discussion (although people tend to disagree on which situations do and do not) but sometimes it feels like a lot of time and energy is wasted for very little result. Have you seen WP:LAME and User:Jnc/Astronomer vs Amateur? WP:BRD is a good approach in some, but not all, cases (and it is not a policy or guideline because of that reason). If 10 idiots claim that vaccinations cause autism, and an expert says they do not, then we have to listen to the expert and ignore the idiots. On Wikipedia we consider some sources to be more reliable than others, but we don't judge users in the same way. Wikipedia should be a cluocracy! Argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad antiquitatem are dangerous traps. I always find ways to improve my own comments. Some day I will learn to be patient and zen-like. I hope that happens before I die. Edward Mordake (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Have a look at my suggestion on the RFD page and comment if you want. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, good idea, I've replied over there. Edward Mordake (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: note about User Page

Hi,

Thanks for your note about the user page User: BC1278. The rules around promotion are tricky when it comes to disclosure of paid Wikipedia consulting and have also changed not too long ago. It seems to be in regular flux:

"Editors who are or expect to be compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions. They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries." WP: DISCLOSEPAY

"Paid editors must also provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services." WP: DISCLOSEPAY

"Paid editors may not advertise or promote their services on Wikipedia. The disclosures required by the terms of use and this policy are not regarded as advertisements or promotion." WP: DISCLOSEPAY

So I can't remove the names or links to my current employer or website where paid consulting is promoted without violating WP: PAID.

Does that explain the situation? Was there any other issue?

EdBC1278 (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

The disclosure is supposed to link to wbesites where you have an active account and advertise to edit Wikipedia such as your whitehatwiki account but not to your own web site which does not mention editing wikipedia as one of your services. You are supposed to disclose each page that you edit for money and say who your employer was for that mission and the client. Have you made that disclosure on each paid edit that you have made? I don't see a list on your page. The wording on your user page is very clearly promotional, have you already had confirmation from the specialists at WP:COIN that the text on your page is acceptable? If not the best thing is to take this to the COI noticeboard where they are more used to this than I am. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The text on my user page is to provide maximum transparency and disclosure. I can remove the link to Buzzr. That's a good idea. Yes, I always make a paid edit disclosure on each edit where it is required. If you click to the list of each of those articles on my page, you will see the disclosure statement on the Talk page where I have a COI.BC1278 (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Are you seriously suggesting that this I co-founded Buzzr.com and serve as the CEO. We specialize in data-driven content marketing and media projects. Our roots are in creating complex websites with open source Content Management Systems. is in the interests of transparency and not promotion? I think the best thing now is to ask for advice because we clearly do not have the same definitions and I may be wrong. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to remove the passages you just mentioned, describing Buzzr, which I put in because they may help Wikipedia users decide if I know what I'm talking about on a subject, such as open source technologies. But it's certainly of no promotional use to Buzzr. Since the utility to Wikipedia users is probably minimal, and I don't want to waste people's time here, I will just remove the sentences describing Buzzr.com.BC1278 (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278