User talk:Beritagsier/Archive1

Nomination of Paul Pedana for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paul Pedana is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Paul Pedana until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Praxidicae (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020
Hello Beritagsier. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Beritagsier. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Praxidicae (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I am not a paid editor, sir. --Beritagsier (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems unlikely given your persistent recreations. Praxidicae (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am re-creating because you are moving my page based on your suspicion even though she is notable. Can you please be neutral and check my article again? --Beritagsier (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * COI and paid editors are required to go through draftspace. Why are you unable to wait for the article to be reviewed? Half of the sources are flat out fake news sources or press releases. Please explain why you're using them. Praxidicae (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You're a reviewer. Why don't you review it yourself? If I believe that half of the sources are fake then what about the rest of the sources? Do you think she's all fake? --Beritagsier (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And you're not a reviewer, so why exactly are you moving things repeatedly from a users space that isn't yours? Praxidicae (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, i will not move again but please tell me is this link fake? Also you have nominated it for CSD. I do not think this is a CSD candidate. --Beritagsier (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Deccan Chronicle like ToI will publish anything for pay. Though I'm quite impressed by your knowledge of Wikipedia considering your lack of experience here. Praxidicae (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? You mean Deccan Chronicle will publish anything for payment? Can you please show a reliable source to establish this otherwise I will take it as your original research. --Beritagsier (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Feel free to take a look at the many discussions at WP:RSN. Many newspapers that are otherwise reputable do not distinguish between their PR content and their editorial content. In this case, take a look at the author byline. Even if we were to use that (which I disagree in using) it's just a mirror of 5 other press releases published by other sources which do indicate it as a PR. Praxidicae (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * OH and had you bothered to read the source you're quoting, it's from this which is clearly a press release pushed by her PR people and the DC source even has this: Disclaimer: This is featured content. No Deccan Chronicle Group journalist is involved in creating this content. The Group also takes no responsibility for this content. Praxidicae (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, this is interesting! But I will keep looking for more reliable sources. --Beritagsier (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Jerry Abramov for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jerry Abramov is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jerry Abramov until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Praxidicae (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * please explain my which edit was disruptive? --Beritagsier (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, targeting another user because they disagree with you on content is not acceptable, which is what you were doing to . I've blocked you as the disruption was ongoing and targeted at a specific individual, and thus required a block to prevent ongoing disruption. If you wish to appeal, follow the instructions above. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * please check the edit history. He has been harassing me and tagging my articles for undisclosed paid and nominating for deletion. Why he has not blocked yet? Beritagsier (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * She is not blocked because she has legitimate differences with you on content and has requested that the community review your work. When she started this, you began to tag her articles with maintenance tags for what appears to be no other reason than revenge, and then edit warred with her to restore the tags. You also left multiple warnings on her page that can't be seen as anything other than harassment of her by you. Like I said, read the above if you want to appeal, but if you aren't unblocked and the conduct continues after this block expires, I'll warn you that the next block will very likely be indefinite. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, so you think edits like this means leaving it for the community to review? or this one even though I told her long ago that I am not being paid. She even nominated this article with tags then took it to AFD! How would you feel is someone hounding for your contributions and tagging your articles with paid editing tags? Beritagsier (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd seek community review at WP:ANI. I wouldn't randomly start making obviously false charges against them to get revenge. I especially wouldn't edit war to continue the harassment. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * understood, sorry for the trouble. I didn't know WP:ANI could be used in such cases. Can you please reduce the block to 24 hours instead of 31 hours? Beritagsier (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)