User talk:Domdeparis/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

ANI

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal:_topic_ban_for_user_BC1278. Edward Mordake (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

OK but I think you need to step back a bit and see how things pan out. Once you've opened a topic at ANI there's no need to add anything else elsewhere and ask for apologies etc. Just see what happens and regardless of the decision best move on to something else. Wikipedia is a big playground and there are lots of slides and swings to play on! Dom from Paris (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC) p.s. the metaphor applies to me

Mordake blocked as a sock of The Quixotic Potato. Doug Weller talk 07:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I have also been dealing all day with an extremely threatening and disturbing e-mail that Edward Mordake sent to the CEO of Nextdoor, demanding I be fired and threatening a "PR Nightmare." I had to deal with directly by e-mail with ArbCom since the threatening e-mail had confidential user info and personal e-mail of the CEO. It was very disturbing and Edward Mordake was explicit that he was creating a "PR Nightmare" for the company with his edits, specifically what he did on the lead (if it's still there.) This sockpuppet's edits today should be expunged from the article and Talk. His severely biased and damaging intent of his edits and suggestions was laid bare in this threatening, disturbing e-mail to the Nextdoor CEO.BC1278 (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)BC1278

I fully understand and sympathise. That said if I were you I would avoid getting too involved with the cleaning up and editing of the page for the moment because it will look like a concerted effort on behalf of Nextdoor. You should realise that maybe the efforts to bulletproof the article as you put it on your web site were counter productive. The walls of text and the bludgeoning of the company's POV and the removal of negative information is a red rag from those that are trying to keep Wikipedia free from advocacy and excessive COI. There are enough independent well intentioned editors dealing with this article I believe without you having to get too involved and fall foul of the WP:PAIDTALK guidelines. I read your web site and it is clear that you wish to respect the guidelines. I supported the topic ban for a short period because I believe that this will allow the storm to die down. A company should not be allowed to unilaterally control the information on a page on Wikipedia. It is not supposed to be a means for them to communicate with the general public and maybe you were a little heavy-handed. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

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

ACTRIAL:

• WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

• Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

• A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

• There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

• Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, 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. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

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.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

• Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
• The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 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)

I am trying to address concerns you raised first issue was "notable resource" 1)I have added additional non affiliated links in the reference list to address this issue. 2)It is mentioned in the policy that "An article that currently is without third-party sources should not always be deleted". second issue was the "notability". 3)It is mentioned in the notability criteria that "sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events." total 2400 views in one year for a philosophers is very good indicator of the notability. considering the internet reach and awareness in India I feel this is very good number. it is also important to note that till date the article was orphan and people done specific search for long name and reached the article on Wiki. these are not the random hits. the blog link "http://sadgurubodh.blogspot.in/" which discusses his philosophy , given in reference list, have 31,000 views till date. I have also given detailed view on talk page of Shri mamasaheb deshpande. can you please kindly go through this. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogesh dol (talk • contribs) 18:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Article talk pages

Article talk pages are for discussing content. It will be helpful if everyone (including you) stops making comments about other behavior's there. Please WP:FOC. If you have issues with someone else's behavior please raise them on that person's talk page. See WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: You're absolutely right, my apologies thanks for the reminder! One of the main reasons that this all went south was because of the bludgeoning on the talk page by this user. I totally understand what you are saying but as the user has spent rather a lot of time complaining about TQP's sockpuppet and how much it has caused him problems on this particular talk page it would be useful if you make the same reminder to him. He seems to be using the talk page as a way of defending himself in the eyes of his client so I let myself get swept along I suppose. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks. (and i have already) :) Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Edits to Cogewea and Request for Advice

Hello Domdeparis, thanks for jumping in on Cogewea and cleaning up my citations. The page continues to be edited by editors who are not reading my references before removing information they disagree with, around the editor controversy. Would you have a moment to advise me on how to report such behavior? Or must it simply be undone every time? Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrentStudent20 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I wonder a little about these new accounts that may be WP:SOCKPUPPETS or WP:MEATPUPPETS. Is their editing along the same lines as Trentprof? If so it might be worth opening an WP:SPI investigation. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It is the same, but I do not believe they are ALL sockpuppets, as TrentProf has called on her Twitter followers to help her edit this page. At least one person responded they would. Tweet is here [1] TrentProf also wrote on my talk page that "scholars have been notified" and are "watching the page closely" so I assume she has called her friends. Is there such thing as a meat puppet investigation? Thank you for your time! TrentStudent20 (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

What we can do is ask for the page to protected to avoid this kind of thing. I will do that. Dom from Paris (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! TrentStudent20 (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting the page. Others are editing the page who are experts on Cogewea and Western American Lit. I did not ask for editing on Twitter but support from a vindictive editor who posted on my blog and now here. I did notify scholars that their work is being misrepresented (see the talk page). How could I not? TrentStudent20 has not tried to have a constructive discussion, just accuse me of bias and now two other violations. Do you penalize wikithons for fixing misreprentations of BIPOC?Because that’s what’s going on here, this is neither meat puppetry or sock puppetry. This is an editor’s TrentStudent20 vindictive attempt to force the content to reflect information that is no longer respected or shared about Mourning Dove or Indigenous literatures (see Daniel Heath Justice Why Indigenous Literatures Matter and Deanna Reader’s and Linda Morra’s Learn Teach Challenge). This page is the victim and so is Mourning Dove who is being misrepresented. I would much rather discuss the content and reach consensus. 209.52.88.135 (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Please excuse me, the above comment is mine. I’m still learning the ropes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trentprof (talk • contribs) 00:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand your motivation for asking for help and I know it was in good faith but requesting help outside of Wikipedia can be a bad idea because it brings in a host of well meaning but inexperienced editors. Whilst their edits are in good faith they can become disruptive as they can engage in an edit war without realising it. Wikithons are not the same thing at all as in general they are not aimed at one existing article to ensure that a certain point of view is expressed. I have no idea whether there is a problem between your point of view and that of trentstudent and to be perfectly honest there doesn't seem to be a great difference between what you are both saying. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, if there are sources that suggest one thing and other sources that suggest another and they are reliable then these 2 POV should be expressed in an encyclopedia. What is disruptive is trying to push one or other of these POV. I would suggest that you also spend a bit of time editing articles that have nothing to do with the subjects that you teach or wrote about. This will allow you to better understand how editors work together to find consensus and how articles become balanced and encyclopedic. Happy editing. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Re:FloridaArmy

Honestly, most of the articles you moved to draftspace probably deserved it. My issue is that FloridaArmy really doesn't deserve a ban from writing articles or AfD. I personally have not seen any problems at AfD with him, maybe a few people got their panties on a bunch (I don't mean you) about certain votes. Some of his articles were admittedly problematic, but I think a full out indefinite ban was too harsh. I can understand the AfD backlog being annoying, but most of the articles if I'm not mistaken were kept, and AfD was actually positive as the articles improved. All told I think FloridaArmy has some problems but was overall a quality editor who needs some help. Not saying he is blameless but a topic ban is too much. Honestly I think something should be done about the mass AfDers who refuse to perform a BEFORE search, and those that are deadset on deleting certain articles. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 03:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you on a lot of what you say but like I've said the biggest problem is his not answering legitimate interrogations. He has made !votes on Afd along the lines of "as per the tons of sources the article meets GNG" and when asked which sources he just doesn't reply. That can be a real pain in the arse especially when there are few voters as that can end up with a no consensus on a clearly non notable article. And just to show itsinot a vendetta on my part have a look at afd on Bloody Springs. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah I just saw you !voted keep already on the Bloody Spring page. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Hey I'm not saying there is a vendetta, perhaps FloridaArmy deserved some shot in the arm but not an AfD ban. Can't say that I haven't posted a lazy AfD vote something along the lines of "Meets GNG". But be careful when moving to draftspace. George W. Murphy was an Arkansas attorney general, and Lizzie Doron is an internationally acclaimed writer who has articles in several other Wikipedias. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree for Murphy the attorney general post passes WP:POLOUTCOMES and that one was a mistake. But when I moved Lizzie Doron there were not the sources neccessary to show she definately passed GNG as both were WP:INTERVIEWS and as such primary sources and not sufficient. As I said I was not concerned so much with the notability of the subject as the sourcing to back up the claims. All attorney generals are considered notable but not all authors so a single source to show he was an attorney general is enough but 2 interviews is not enough hence the move. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Clarence L. Mohr

So - is he dead? Deb (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

According to this he is [2] Dom from Paris (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

But not a RS of course. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I was puzzled that I couldn't find any kind of obituary for him. Deb (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

FA edits

I wanted to check in with someone and not post on the user's talk page, because I don't want to cause a furor at this point. I am trying to remain hopeful, but it's been hard. Although the user has been blocked and sanctioned - and had a number of articles moved to draft mode - they have continued to make unnecessary and unhelpful edits. Applying the {{dubious}} tag when it is not appropriate, adding content not in the cited source, using a non-reliable source, changing the meaning of sentences (although I believe in good faith), and making a rash of essentially stylistic edits - although there have been a few helpful corrections. I have noticed that the stylistic edits have been similar to the edits I have made when reviewing / editing their articles, but I was adding or removing content at the time, so rewording is often necessary. I don't think that a block is required quite yet, but I have made a comment that I would post a warning on their talk page if the behavior continues. Does this make sense as a course of action at this time?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Exemplo347, Deb, and Sitush:, I just noticed that Domdeparis is on a short wikibreak. Do you have any thoughts about this?–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

CaroleHenson It's very annoying when someone is working against you & refuses to listen. If you pop an "in use" tag on the article while you're editing and FA still keeps editing in that haphazard way, then I think it'd be worth grabbing the attention of an uninvolved Admin just to get their opinion. It's no fun cleaning up after a sloppy editor & you've displayed a lot more patience than I would have! If it continues, the disruptive "I can't hear you" nonsense I mean, then I don't see a bright future for FA here at Wikipedia. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Exemplo347 I just found out that the user is more motivated by their common sense than guidelines / common practice. (I previously had other thoughts about what was happening.) Banning and sanctioning seems to have made no impact on that modus operandi. If that's the way things continue, I agree, I don't see a bright future, either. So far, I have not had any issues with trying to edit while I have the "in use" tag on.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

FYI, this conversation. Not looking good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I should remove that template about a wikibreak. If I were you I would stop trying to clean up after this editor and leave them in the mess they made. They are clearly not open to discussion and do not give a flying fuck about what went on here and your efforts. Dom from Paris (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

No, and there has been much further conversation in the past hour... after they said that they would prefer it if I didn't explain the guidelines... and to say that they are not getting the points is an understatement. I said on the user's talk page that I'm about to request a block. Most of their edits have issues, but they want to argue about it, rather than try to understand. Very, very frustrating.

Well, I am working on one last draft - and about done with it. I won't work on any more.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

My opinion is that FA will come round at some point, because continued arguing and insults on his/her part will only result in a further block. If necessary, some of these articles can be protected to prevent edit-warring. Deb (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

One way would be for everyone just to stop working on the draft articles. That would have to include User:Editorofthewiki though, who has the patience of a Saint. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I hope you are right, Deb. Protection might be the ticket in the short run in some cases. I won't work on any more drafts.–CaroleHenson (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Also you guys may not have noticed but all the articles I moved were created in May. FA's creation spree has been going on for a while. There may well be a lot of articles dating from before May. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that there were more than 500 pages created (see this), but many of those were redirect pages.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that it's closer to 1000 pages if we include redirectsDom from Paris (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense, but this list says 488, 57 deleted. At least one of them is a redirect, Dennis "Copper" Barth.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm almost sure most are not redirects. For example Newell Spicer isn't in that list but it is one they created. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The list's parameters says exclude redirects. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is making sense since the total of new pages is much above 500, like you said, closer to 1000... and I compared the two lists and that does seem to be the difference. One redirect must have snuck through.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: just so you know Carole I'm still moving pages, I've been through numbers 487 to 434 and moved 13 which is nearly 25% that are not up to scratch. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, good. I thought I might start looking at the list in about a week, but it's good to know you're on the job!!!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you still moving the pages? I see another editor has taken on the task. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I saw that too I had taken a break from it. I haven't looked at his moves to see if I agree or not. Do you have an opinion? Dom from Paris (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I dont know, most seem fine I guess. I might have had a problem with one but I havent fone through them all. My biggest issue is there seem to be some that havent been listed in a cental place like his talk page. Maybe a third edtors work. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'll have a look and remind the editor to make the omnibus notification as per the decision. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Redirects draft: → mainspace

Policy is that if an article has been moved from draft: space to mainspace, the redirect in draft: space created thereby should be left in place as a record. Certainly leaving such redirects is harmless. Your contributions are welcomed but please find something more useful to do than tagging these redirects. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi I am actually cleaning up after my own moves from mainspace following community sanctions and once these drafts were moved back to mainspace the redirect became redundant. I presumed it was similar to the deleting of redirects the other way round. I was tagging them myself to avoid others having to do but if they are ok to stay I'll be more than happy to stop! It was very tedious!!! Dom from Paris (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I nominated some of them for deletion, too, RHaworth. I won't do it any longer either.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

WP: Hounding caution

Please note WP: Hounding can lead to being blocked. Cautioning here, as this is becoming a clear pattern with you following me from article to article, and I'd request that you please review the policy and adjust your behavior accordingly.-BC1278 (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

@BC1278: you may want to read the link more carefully especially the part that says "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.". As you are a paid editor who has clearly been using techniques that are highly controversial to ensure that the articles you have written for your clients are moved into mainspace without being reviewed by experienced editors it is perfectly normal that once this has been discovered your editing comes under close scrutiny. I would be very careful if I were you about making accusations of this kind because you may find that the WP:BOOMERANG effect more difficult to deal with than legitimate close scrutiny of your COI editing. Dom from Paris (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd also advise you voluntarily remove Nextdoor#Denial_of_service_to_sex_offenders_and_members_of_their_households. You are an experienced editor and know you cannot create a section, let alone a controversy section, based solely on original research. You should know this section will be removed if anyone challenges it and yet you put it in the article anyway. It would be a sign of good faith if you reverted this obvious mistake, rather than eating up the valuable time of various editors to correct the matter.BC1278 (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

This was a part of the article that you removed in direct contradiction with the WP:PAID guidelines so I replaced and improved the text. There is no original research. I have quoted Nextdoor own web site and a web site and letter that was sent to Nextdoor complaining about this policy. I have sourced and commented on the decision by supreme court that is mentioned on the website of the association. There may be a lack of reporting about this complaint but it most certainly is not original research. Would you mind explaining where this section contravenes WP:OR? Dom from Paris (talk) 04:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The first two sources are primary. The third sources does not mention Nextdoor and is applied as a hypothetical via independent analysis not from a RS. The self-published letter on an advocacy group site has all the weight of Twitter or Facebook post as a RS, which is why I felt removing it originally was so non-controversial that no one would object. I've been over this ground several times before with reviewing editors, who have told me in other cases just to remove vandalism, when a statement has nothing close to a legitimate RS, especially if it is being used to instigate a controversy. I am about as cautious as they come when avoiding direct editing, but this appeared to me to be well-within the narrow exception of removing vandalism, which in this case originated from a SPI with an IP address and just this one edit. Editors can get irritated when you ask them to remove vandalism. No RS has reported on this complaint. You have no reliable source yet include a statement that the company may be violating the law, which is a serious matter. Even if it were an actual lawsuit in federal court, instead of just an online letter from a tiny support group for sex offenders, it still couldn't be included on Wikipedia without a story about it from a RS. You had previously mentioned a secondary source that just stated the policy of Nextdoor not allowing sex offenders and their households as members. If you think this policy should be included in the article, I'd suggest adding it to the platform description, sourced to the RS you found. I would not source to the company website because it is a primary source - policies and URLs change all the time. That said, there is no RS for the complaint from the sex offenders or speculation about a future lawsuit (which would probably be WP: CRYSTAL anyway, even with a RS, unless it was actually filed.) I am fine to chalk this up to just a hasty edit on your part. We shouldn't waste time on it. And BTW, I constantly alter my proposals when asked to do so. I do not dig in to the same position. Look at the top of the original discussion on the Racial Profiling section and you'll see I cut it in half at the request of an editor who wanted something less wordy. Editors are always asking me to make modifications (it's my proposal, so they usually want me to do the work) and I do so whenever reasonable within Wikipedia policy.BC1278 (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)BC1278

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm SamHolt6. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, 20 Weeks, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

SamHolt6 (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi @SamHolt6: can you tell why you unreviewed the page? Dom from Paris (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Domdeparis:- Sorry Dom, I don't think I received your ping and was unaware of the situation until another editor mentioned it to me today. Anyways, I tagged [3] 20 Weeks for speedy deletion, but then had second thoughts and declined my own speedy tag. As tagging articles for speedy deletion marks said article as reviewed, I assumed that the "reviewed" checkmark on the article was my own and as such marked it as unreviewed, with no description. This is why you (the original reviewer) received the standard, auto-generated message for when another editor has marked an article as unreviewed. I have now rectified that mistake and marked the article as reviewed, but would like to apologize for any offense I may have caused. I am hoping to treat this as a learning experience :).--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: not offended at all just curious to see if there was something I had missed that I should take into account when reviewing pages. Cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Domdeparis. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 23:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

hey. Welcome to the cabal. Also, kindly look for Andy's script on WP:PGM. See you around. —usernamekiran(talk) 00:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Re:Magnus Devold

Sorry, i cant read norwegian so I did an only cursory glance at the refs and the one seemed alright. Additionally, there was an article in the Norwegian wikipedia. I will keep your ideas in mind and look for new sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Editorofthewiki: No problem I can't either but I use Google Chrome which offers a basic translation of a lot of foreign language web sites which gives an idea of the suitability of the sources. When I do a review of a page that isn't sufficiently well sourced if it has another language page I have a look to see if any of the sources there can be added but I don't take it's existence as being a proof of notability. The notability criteria are not always as strict as here. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:SYN

This edit is a very clear violation of WP:SYN. Normally I would ask someone who made an edit like that, if they have a connection with Florida Action Committee, as it is so blatantly promotional with respect to what that organization is advocating for. Surprisingly bad edit from you. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't agree with you. The way it was written may have needed working on but it is not a violation of SYN. An association wrote to Nextdoor asking them to reconsider their TOS in light of a supreme court decision. I gave the words of the TOS the decision of the supreme court and the Harvard law review analysis of that decision I added the complaint of the association. This information was so quickly removed by BC1278 in clear violation of good practice claiming it was vandalism that I replaced it and improved the text. Dom from Paris (talk) 04:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's novel synthesis, but it's wrong regardless. It's not possible for a private-sector act to be unconstitutional (under US law, anyway). The entire concept only applies to state action (state in the broad legal sense, not the "US states" sense), and has been broadened further in caselaw (from originally only applying to the federal government) to encompass actions also by US state, county, and municipal governments, and may even include private contractors working for them in some circumstances, if a government has delegated some authority or outcome of the exercise of the authority to a third party (e.g. in privatization of prison administration, operation of a government webserver, etc.). So, what that edit says makes no sense. Assuming that the underlying facts and source interpretation are correct otherwise (I haven't checked), it probably means to say that the municipal, county, and/or state governments (including law enforcement) have been accused of imposing unconstitutional restrictions on Nextdoor as a condition of cooperation with them. That's actually to vague a statement even when corrected. Which, exactly, governments are being accused of this? It can't be every single one of them, or we have a conspiracy theory on our hands. And frankly, it's a weak case, but more power to FAC if they think they can win such a case; see whether ACLU has commented on this, as they are the experts in what is and is not likely to pass constitutional muster in this country, since they've litigated the vast majority of constitutionality cases that have made it to the federal and state high courts. A side point I hinted at above in how I wrote this: "public entities (law enforcement, municipalities, etc.)" is a nonsensical phrase. Law enforcement does not magically exist separately from city, county, state, and federal governments, but is part of their operations.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Looked into it more, and this probably actually is OR. While the person who pointed this out has a CoI, their analysis appears to be correct: "The first source is primary; the second source is a self-published letter on the website of a Florida advocacy group for sex offenders; the third source does not mention Nextdoor. No reliable published sources exists, therefore this is original research, in violation of WP: NOR." Their "solution", to delete the entire section, is obvious PR/CYA. The proper solution is probably to rewrite it all, doing only what can be done with each source type. E.g., the advocacy group's statement can be quoted or paraphrased, with direct attribution, as a WP:ABOUTSELF primary source on what the organization's stance is regarding the app/company and governmental engagement therewith; WP can't advance their unconstitutionality idea as if it's factual, only as their allegation/position. The third part might have to be cut entirely, if no source ties that specific case law to the unconstitutionality case the FAC group is making noises about bringing; WP cannot engage in novel legal analysis. WHat I would do is lead with the FAC allegations, which themselves are citing Nextdoor's ToS; that ToS document is also an ABOUTSELF permissible source for what Nextdoor's ToS actually say. An OR problem here is WP leaping from "these ToS say X, Y, and Z" to an implication of "consequently, this group, FAC, is considering a lawsuit". That's an analysis step we can't take, and it's not necessary, since FAC's own statements tell us why they're taking the position they're taking. However, tying this to prior caselaw is going to require a reliable legal source. I know from a decade of daily experience working with civil liberties attorneys as a civil liberties policy analyst (IANAL myself, more like a highly specialized paralegal) that presumptions that caselaw A is applicable to potential case B are often dead wrong, because superficial similarities between the case may have nothing at all to do with the underlying and very particular technical point of the law on a case-by-case basis. @Jytdog, BC1278, and Dennis Bratland: pinging prior participants in the related threads at the article title page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

As I wrote on the talk page; it is SYN the way it was done, with the three refs. It would not be SYN if the whole paragraph -- all three sentences -- were sourced to the letter on the advocacy group's website, with that single ref at the end. But that would be PROMO and UNDUE like crazy - we would need some independent source to show it should be given any WEIGHT at all. I remove shit like this from WP everyday (the IP, btw, geolocates to Florida, where this advocacy organization for sex offenders is located). Lots of people want to abuse WP to amplify their message.

This question is not interesting or subtle. It is unacceptable content. If and when some independent source ties Nextdoor's ToU to the court case, we can have some content about it. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

btw BC1278 should not have removed that. Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

you are all absolutely right. My replacement of the subject was in reaction to BC1278's removal. What I should have done is simply replaced the text removed and left it at that rather than trying to address the actual problems with the subject. That said thinking about it more, it may well be a 1st amendment problem. Nextdoor is claiming that it is the different law enforcement entities that require them to exclude sex offenders and their households from joining maybe by applying some legal decision. The first amendment rights can be extended to private action Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins by state constitution. This case has been used to question the right to free speech on internet. But obviously making any reference to this would most definitely de WP:OR. Dom from Paris (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this sort of legal analysis is definitely OR, and is – quite frankly – often wrong. Entities like police departments are on different legal footing when they agree or decline to enter into cooperative agreements with private-sector parties, than when they issue orders or legal threats, or arrest someone. The latter types of actions can raise 1A concerns, the former rarely do. Anyway, it's looks like there's now a clear roadmap for resolving the issues raised on the talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

A better way to deal with BC278's bad behavior would have been to revert the removal calling out the bogus rationale and COI violation, and then immediately repeat the removal yourself with an appropriate justification: :) Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

You're probably right but I admit the 1st amendment argument and the potential repercussions for forums and social media seemed a legitimate reason to let it ride a bit. Anyway I have learnt a lot about this issue by reading up and researching so it's been useful. Thanks for the interesting discussion guys. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

a request

I usually dont do this, but would you please review 2036 Origin Unknown? Thanks a lot in advance. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: sure no problem but do you have a COI with the subject is that why you want it reviewed? Dom from Paris (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

lol no. It was released on June 8. It is being searched a lot on internet (and I loved that film very much too). If the article gets reviewed, the people will get the result of the article on search engines, thats why i want it to be reviewed. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest the article does not meet the criteria for WP:NFILM or GNG. It is a candidate for deletion as it stands. It requires more reviews. The dailybruin is a university paper and the reviewer is not a nationally know film critic as per the criteria so the 2 reviews do not make it past the 1st criteria. I think you need to add a lot more sources to get a pass on GNG or move it back to draft space to wait for it to receive more reviews. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

http://www.thatmomentin.com/2036-origin-unknown-review/ this might help. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a problem that will fix itself probably before an AfD could run its course. The film's been publicly released for 5 days now, so there will be mainstream-press reviews.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with @SMcCandlish: I imagine that this film will eventually meet NFILM and I wouldn't have nominated it anyway but probably would have searched a few more sources (I found one that I has already been added) or tagged as needing more sources. that said it's been out for a week and there aren't a lot of sources out there. Not a good sign for the film I think. It would be interesting to know the box office figures. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Todpostersmall.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Todpostersmall.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Screen shot mae west.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Screen shot mae west.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Baron Grimthorpe

Hello, Thank you for your message. The reason for the redirect was because that form of name existed as a red link in the article Baron Grimthorpe. Perhaps it is redundant and the Baron Grimthorpe article might be edited at that point.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Johnsoniensis: Ah I thought there had to be a logical reason! I should have asked first, thanks for the explanation. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

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

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

• As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
• Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
• Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Precious

creating deletion discussion page

Thank you for adding precision and monitoring new articles, for fighting unsourced facts (demanding references), and promotional or not notable topics (mantra: "creating deletion discussion page"), for help in French and English, - Dom from Bristol and Paris, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @Gerda Arendt: I shall treasure this preciously! Dom from Paris (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome, - hope you don't over-estimate the prize from the cabal of the outcasts ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

No risk of that, but thanks all the same!!! Dom from Paris (talk) 08:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Could you do me a favour and translate Messe solennelle (Vierne) to French? I did German. - Can't ask my friend LouisAlain ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure it would be a pleasure. I may need a few days as I'm a bit busy and I'll need to to do a bit of research to make sure I'm using the correct terminology though. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

That sounds great! Take your time, - I just nominated for the German Main page, which usually takes 6 weeks ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

... but not this time: it's today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I'll see what I can do! Dom from Paris (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Licence of video screen shots

Hi, You said that you should not take a screenshot of a video other than a CC license, but https://vimeo.com/134916452 This link's video is licensed under Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0), but it does not matter if you take a screenshot Is not it? --JongHN (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi @JongHN: on the link that you add above there is nothing that says that the video is licensed or I may have missed it. In the https://vimeo.com/terms#license it states "The foregoing licenses are in addition to any license you may decide to grant (e.g., a Creative Commons license)" but I cannot see any creative commons license on the video's page. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

You are right my bad I have just checked out https://vimeo.com/134916452#more_info. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Domdeparis for so promptly reviewing new article Peter Moeschlin...much appreciated!--- Jamesmcardle^(talk) 22:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

RE: Ways to improve Frank Howarth (woodworker)

Thank you for offering ways to improve Frank Howarth (woodworker), Domdeparis! Per you suggestion, I added a few additional written sources. As for the WP:CREATIVE criteria, do you think Howarth satisfies 2) considering the media attention he has received for his work in bringing stop-motion video to woodworking?

Btw, I'm relatively new to editing so you taking the time to direct me to relevant resources was helpful and encouraging :)

Stussll (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

AFD

If my vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enemy Unbound‎, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/From Your Grave‎ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riders of the Plague‎ is "Keep or redirect", I do not need a reason for "Keep". If there is no higher use for a search term, it should probably be redirected. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi in Afd discussions a !vote that is not based on any kind of policy is not taken into account it is WP:IJUSTLIKEIT. It's perfectly normal to ask why someone !votes if they give no reason. The redirect !vote had a reason but not the keep. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Reply - I understand your concern. What I am trying to say, is that I do NOT object to the article being kept. However, if it can not be kept, it should be redirected with history, but should definitely not be deleted. Please {{ping}} me when you reply. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: !voting keep or redirect and not objecting to an article being kept is not really the same thing. I would have understood you !voting redirect with the reason that you gave but I think a Keep or redirect needs a policy based reason for both parts and not just the redirect IMHO hence my reply on the AFDs. I saw that you had created a redirect for one of their albums when I was new pages patrolling and that was how I came across the albums and group page. I probably would have just changed them to a redirect myself but there had been quite a lot of editors involved. I agree with User:Deb there is a strong chance that the group does not meet WP:NMUSIC anyway so redirects are of little use. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Overwatch League: 2017–18 team season subarticles

In regards: 2017–18 Boston Uprising season: "redirecting to main article. There is nothing that shows that the individual seasons are sufficiently notable to warrant a seperate article"

I started splitting/creating individual season subarticles as a preventive measure against the sizing of main articles getting out of hand with multiple seasons worth of rosters, stats, and match logs in sight. So far I haven't encountered any issues creating these, see: Mayhem, Outlaws, Fuel, Gladiators, Shock, Dynasty, and Dragons.

I can only assume the reason your opinion differed is because I hadn't added the transaction notes yet, which is were the references/notability comes from. Slightly confused either way, so if you could elaborate I would appreciate it. Wiki nV (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: In regards:Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#E_sports_seasons_walled_gardens, anyway I can put the updated reply? My thoughts came across pretty jumbled in the initial reply.

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation

		Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For completing over 100 reviews during the 2018 June Backlog Drive, please accept this Special Edition Barnstar. Thank you for helping out at New Page Patrol and keep up the good work. Cheers! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Desire (Paulina Rubio song)

the song Wikipedia page Desire (Paulina Rubio song) was removed/taken down since it hasn't "released yet" even though it has already officially Released: May 25, 2018 under ℗ 2018 Universal Music Spain, S.L.U. How is that possible? if all the correct information has been added such as release date and links to either iTunes page store etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PauPower21 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Alex Epstein (screenwriter)

Hello Domdeparis. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Alex Epstein (screenwriter), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: (co)creating and writing notable works of fiction is a credible claim of significance. Thank you. SoWhy 14:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: that's fine I had just restored it as the article creator had removed it himself but I don't think he makes notabilty anyway so I will nominate. cheers. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Domdeparis. You have new messages at Winged Blades of Godric's talk page.
Message added 15:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

∯WBG^converse 15:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: Review of Glory to the Republic

Why was Glory to the Republic reviewed and removed? All other proto-states of Europe have a page for their anthem, including Live and Shine, LNR! for the Luhansk People's Republic and Azat u ankakh Artsakh for the Republic of Artsakh and Anthem of Transnistria for Transnistria.

- AquaWolf9461

Speedy deletion declined: Rochester Kings

Hello Domdeparis. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Rochester Kings, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rochester Kings was closed as delete 01:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC). This WP:REDIRECT was created 09:27, June 7, 2018. I guess this is now more a WP:RFD candidate than a WP:G4 candidate. If someone else thinks otherwise, fine by me. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 10:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for getting in touch regarding Draft:Uniworld_Business_Publications.

Hello and thank you for getting in touch regarding Draft:Uniworld_Business_Publications. My article was moved from published to draft due to conflict of interest. I was hired by Uniworld Business Publications to create their Wikipedia page, however I am unsure where to disclose this on the draft page. I have also added additional references for notability. Would you be able to edit/ proof read to check whether it meets Wikipedia standards? Thank you BHoepner (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion sorting United States

Reads at the top of the page- "This is a high level category for deletion sorting. It is strongly recommended you do not add discussions directly to it. Instead, please add them to a more specific category, such as a state and/or relevant subject area." So your addition is wrong on two grounds- First of all you say her company is in Massachusetts. If you're using that grounds, then she goes at Massachusetts DS. My basis for California DS was a easily found article here[4] that says she was born in California....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

What is the basis for the company being from California? Secondly, people don't necessarily live and work in the same place? The article I cite above says she is living in Montreal (and before that in New Hampshire) and commuting to New York and Boston. Which might answer question in the sentence two above from this one....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: I think you mean Massachusetts don't you? Her linkedin page states Boston so as a business person whose company is based in Massachusetts this would seem the most logical sorting state and not her place of birth, or all the different states that she may have lived in, the source says she was born in California but it doesn't say how long she lived there it also says she now lives in Canada and as she styles herself as a nomad so I can't really imagine that it really matters which state she is sorted into. Just out of curiosity when a person or other subject is not identified with a state or a city but as being American where do you situate them in delsort? Dom from Paris (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes I meant California. If there is no way of identifying where an American if found, US deletion sorting is the fallback. Michael Barrier (actor) AFD is there for that reason. There is nothing reliably sourced saying he is from any specific place. Unreliable sources have him working in California and Washington (state). Another thing- Consensus for US Cities notable people sections wouldn't put a per like Phillips in Boston just because she worked there. Lots of people commute to work, and the nomad article hints she may have done so from New Hampshire (Which many Massachuettans do for tax reasons) BTW a person who has lived in multiple states can be put at multiple deletion sortings....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

OK thanks for the pointers. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

WilliamJE Edit warring thread

You may wish to know there is a edit warring complain for WilliamJE. He keep removing link to that thread --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Nb. See WP:ANEW § User:WilliamJE reported by User:Hhkohh. I am only posting this to make you aware of the discussion, because the user has removed the notice from their talk page right before you commented there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Northamerica1000 We were trying to post the same thing at the same time. Ha ha. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks guys for the heads up and the ping I have just replied. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The article that you reviewed and deleted

I will not stop unless you bring it back just to you to add certain things that I miss to pass the WP:GEOFEAT Please? :( You edit the article for yourself. So that it will not be removed again. :(, Please? :( Even If i read the threads, I will still not make me understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshguevarra2001 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Best to take this to your talk page I think. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Still sad here, but thanks, I think I should go a clean/fresh start, I might forgetting all of you. It’s kinda depressing to me. :( Joshguevarra2001 (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Do not take this personally editing on wikipedia has a steep learning curve. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

No it’s fine, I will look for alternative ways to make myself happy. But I should delete my account now. I’ve been here for 4 years though. Thanks for everything. Goodbye (sad face) Joshguevarra2001 (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

COI

You just flagged me for a COI on an article that I have written about a music professional. I am a student of the music business and there was no page so wanted to create one. I may have inadvertently tagged a photo incorrectly and that may be why you have flagged me. I just want to make sure that there won't be any issues with the page and apologize for any confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renee Glover (talk • contribs) 16:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

U.S. Deletion sorting

• Nb. I have drafted a proposal to create guidelines for the U.S. deletion sorting page. The discussion is located at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting § WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America guideline proposal. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Hounding

Hi,

I'd like to appeal to you again to stop following me from article to article. If your behavior is acceptable, then should others be able to do the same? Would it be OK if the same 4 or 5 editors voted on every RfC or AfD where I was the article creator? If there is an issue with Wikipedia policy clearly being violated, as you have noted is an exception to WP: Hounding, and it has already been raised by another editor, can you have a neutral discussion if the same editors keep showing up again and again for the discussion? And if Wikipedia policy is so clearly being violated, why is it votes on Ecoscraps and Assembled Brands, for example, are divided? How can the exception to hounding apply in these cases, especially where you have already seen other editors weigh in in favor of an article? Do I really need to bring this to ANI when it's obvious Wikipedia processes for review would stop functioning if others acted like you? BC1278 (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)BC1278

I believe that it is perfectly legitimate to keep an eye on an editor whose sole aim is to create pages for clients who wish to use Wikipedia for their own benefit (otherwise why pay for it). Your job is to make these articles look as notable as possible so close scrutiny of these articles is also legitimate. If your aim is to frighten away editors that !vote delete then it ain't gonna work. I am an experienced editor especially in terms of deletion discussions (you can check out my stats if you like). Let me just remind you that you have not been very wise in asking specific inexperienced editors to review your articles and move them to mainspace this looks like you may be gaming the system. This behaviour has allowed a number of non notable articles to enter main space and the nomination by editors to generate a more in depth scrutiny of these questionable articles is perfectly legitimate. Threatening me with ANI because I have !voted delete is very questionable itself, in my opinion, but please feel free to if you wish to as I may be wrong. Dom from Paris (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I could agree if you were the first editor to raise an issue, especially in the type of instance your describe. But where an issue has already been raised, a neutral discussion should follow. The same editors appearing over and over, expressing the same interpretation of NCOPR, interferes with a neutral discussion. You must see that if your actions are OK, and many others followed suit in article after article, it would be obviously unfair and make these votes kangaroo courts. And if that is the case, then it is not OK for any single editor to act us such, especially in situations where there is closely divided opinion and your vote is altering decisions. This is surely not the exception to hounding that the policy envisions -- addressing clear violations of Wikipedia policy. The hounding policy very sensibly requires that I try to work this out with you on your Talk page. I'll note that Assembled Brands, Ecoscraps, for example, were both AfC approved articles through the normal approval process. So your other objection carries no weight here. Can you really not be convinced to step back in following me from article to article with ongoing discussions, out of a sense of fairness? And preserving Wikipedia-wide integrity of AfD, RfC and other consensus discussions already underway? I do not want to have an ANI discussion if I can avoid it. BC1278 (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Ok let's try and see if there are any other problem articles. Can you give me a list of the articles that you have created and had reviewed by asking a specific editor to review rather than going through AFC as you are supposed to? Dom from Paris (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@BC1278: did you see my last message? If you give me a list of the articles that you asked to be reviewed by inexperienced editors rather than going through AFC as should be done according to paid editing behavioral guidelines then I can have a look and see if they are up to WP:AFC standards and would have been accepted at the time. I don't particularly want to trawl through your paid edits to see if they are in violation of the guidelines. Just to remind you, you have directly edited certain articles in contradiction with these same guidelines. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

An apology

I should not have brought up perceived conduct issues in a deletion discussion at all, and only did so in the heat of debate. Please accept my apology, so this issue can be closed. Modernponderer (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)