User talk:BiH/Archives/2014/November

Nomination of Marko Stout for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marko Stout 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/Marko Stout until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Widefox ; talk 16:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at Craig Sherman, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''Removing maintenance templates (as I noted above) on BLPs that fail V having no RS to create BLP. Creating BLPs Marko Stout for promotional reasons. Another editor has already informed you that you must disclose paid editing. Note editing pattern (see next warning)...'' Widefox ; talk 19:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Widefox ; talk 19:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Have you seen that
Hi BiH, just wanted to check with you why you removed the maint tags on Craig Sherman, and I notice you created Marko Stout which has many allegedly paid editors on it. Have you seen that? Thoughts? Widefox ; talk 16:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to improve Craig Sherman's page in my random patrol over the articles. I am OK if you think the tags should remain though. As for Marko Stout, I was watching his work and decided to create an article about him. Those users have nothing to do with me nor with my account, any CheckUser can confirm that, if needed. I will take a look, but I think the original article was not promotional. However, the refs were marginally acceptable, I have to say. Thanks for letting me know. --BiH (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Removing the tags without an edit summary is the MO of the paid editors. Why did you do that? I'm just trying to understand how your editing is different, and why paid editors would be on an article you've created. Can you understand that? As the paid editors may be MEAT, asking to be cleared by checkuser when I'm just trying to understand the edit similarities wouldn't clear anything up. I hope you understand that. Widefox ; talk 17:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I probably forgot to include edit summary. I usually do that, especially when removing the tags and fixing the disambiguation. Additionally, I use WP:TW to ease my efforts. I will keep this in mind for the future. I am very sorry for any trouble, but it wasn't my intention. As I could see, those users created WP:SPA and contributed as such. I can't explain why they were editing my article in that manner. Are they proved to be paid? --BiH (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * At least one of the collection of them has self identified, yes. Four days after it was created User:Cristine nickol added a picture. That's odd. User:Logical Cowboy - you've been looking at the article, what do you think?  Widefox ; talk 17:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I see another editor has informed you about paid editing . So far I've held back as you are an experienced editor, but can you explain?  Widefox ; talk 18:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response. When I was "warned", it was pretty much the same situation as this one. Most of the time, I patrol recently created articles, where I propose speedy deletion for promotional and spammy ones, while I try to improve the seem good, assuming good faith. During that process, I have encountered editors that did not like what I was doing for their own reasons (probably some of them were paid, and did not like what I was doing to their articles). Most of those accounts are SPAs, mine is definitely not a SPA. I created Marko Stout page in a good faith, and I am completely fine with the fact that you and other editors have different opinion about it. Again, I am sorry for any trouble I've caused. --BiH (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think what Widefox is asking is whether you were paid to create Marko Stout. Thanks.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I stated above that I created the article in a good faith, so my answer is no. I will say it again, I have no connection with edits made after my work, nor I support such edits. I am merely a fan of his work. --BiH (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. Marko Stout When you created it it failed WP:GNG - quite serious for a WP:BLP. In itself promo editing using WP:UGC CNN sources - not at all as you say fixing someone else's article. (those sources fit the profile we're investigating BTW). 4 days after you created it User:Cristine nickol and then every substantial editor User:WeistenGalleryNYC User:NLZ06 User:Lyndasim User:Hillysilly User:Emilysantoss User:Chastized User:Kat Szczęsna are socks - either blocked or about to be. So, to confirm, you're claiming every one of those editors has a COI/SOCK/MEAT/paid, but not one - which happens to be your account? You just happened to create it at the same time? How likely does that sound? You've been advised to do a full disclosure  by another editor as required. Can you point to the disclosure?  Widefox ; talk 15:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2. Craig Sherman created and edited by exactly the same set of COI/SOCK/MEAT/paid User:Christina.simmons User:Stuartfost User:CraigSherman. Are you going to answer why you removed the COI and deletion tag ? (another MO we're looking for, and with more of the same socks - is that another coincidence?) So you didn't say why you removed the tags? Can you explain?  Widefox ; talk 15:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, your previous editing may or may not fit, so is it that you were tempted to do a little paid editing, and if so, disclosing that will be the easiest way forward before this escalates. Regards Widefox ; talk 15:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Electronic Recycling Association another link with the socks User:アスペルガー POV addition by sock User:アスペルガー  removed by  to be re-inserted by you  . Can you explain?

(on a separate note...)
 * Alicia von Rittberg created a BLP with no sources, and you marked as such!
 * 2014 Tour of Utah article with no sources.
 * You are still CSDing articles immediately on creation, which you've been warned about here  Widefox ; talk 00:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of WAPES


A tag has been placed on WAPES requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
 * disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Widefox ; talk 23:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Which was an unnecessary dab with one item subsequently deleted G11 ad / promo. Widefox ; talk 00:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Paid editing disclosure requirements
Hi. Back in June when we discussed this issue,, I had hoped that you would understand the importance of meeting the new Terms of Use from the Wikimedia Foundation, and would choose to disclose when you are being paid to create and edit articles. Unfortunately, it seems that you haven't been doing so - it is clear that you have been continuing to engage in undisclosed paid editing since then, in particular on Danielle Walker and Roberts Filter Group.

The problem is one of transperancy. The Foundation isn't preventing people from engaging in paid editing, but they do require that editors are upfront when they are doing so. So will you agree to disclose when you are doing paid editing on the talk pages of the articles concerned in the future? It won't solve all of the problems, but it will bring your editing in line with the Terms of Use. - Bilby (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Carter Hargrave
Here you removed the source maintenance tag and inserted a PR source. Have you disclosed being a paid editor on that article? Widefox ; talk 21:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Swpb. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Body Project, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. —Swpbtalk 00:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

*Microsoft Windows/Nokia
Please be careful to use the most appropriate speedy deletion tag for a given page. I've changed the tag on *Microsoft Windows/Nokia to A10 (duplicates an existing article). A11 (made up) is not appropriate here. I know it seems irrelevant for pages that are clearly destined for deletion one way or another, but we want to leave new editors with a clear understanding of why their page was inappropriate. That said, your efforts on NewPagesFeed are much appreciated. —Swpbtalk 16:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello and thanks for contacting me. I just left him/her a message on his/her talk page. I think I explained the issue in short and understanding manner Thank you. --BiH (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Loukas99
I did not really want to make that page in the english wikipedia, so I agree with the deletion. Thank you. Oh and I am not new in Wikipedia :) .But I only make pages in the Greek Wikipedia. Loukas99 (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Eurocom Corporation
Hello, you added an unreferenced tag to Eurocom Corporation however have not added any citation needed tags. Can you please include those as the article contains three different sources which are cited as properly as I am aware. I would love to rectify the areas you have issue with. Midousan (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Michael Stevens
It's not a duplicated article, Vsauce and Michael Stevens are not the same thing, Michael Stevens is a big contributor of Vsauce but Vsauce is not Michael Stevens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebestgroup3 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Michael Stevens (Internet personality) is redirected to Vsauce, so this applies for your article as well. I did not do this because I think it should be redirected, but because the community said so. I will redirect it once more to Vsauce as it should be. If you undo my change again, I will get the issue to admins in their Noticeboard. Thanks. --BiH (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * When you say "community", who are you talking about ? Is there a page that I can access just to confirm what you are saying ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebestgroup3 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I just gave you the page in my message above. If Michael Stevens (Internet personality) is redirected to Vsauce, then Michael Stevens (YouTuber) should be redirected to Vsauce, simple as that. When I saw your article, I did a Wikipedia search for Michael Stevens (because it was odd to me that he does not have his page, as he is a notable individual), and I got the results that I showed you. However, feel free to discuss the issue of creating his own article here. --BiH (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)