User talk:Duffbeerforme/Archive 9

Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Organisation
If you would like to have this page be deleted, it would be more suitable for you to put it through an AfD rather than another CSD. Air.light (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Tribunal Records
Hello Duffbeerforme. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tribunal Records, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article contains sources that were not published when the lack of sources led to deletion last time, so it's not substantially the same. Thank you.  So Why  19:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories
This is a notice that a discussion you participated in, either at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or at Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 8 has resulted in a Request for comment at Wikipedia talk:User categories ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

For your information
Check contributions by User:Justthemusic, here and by User:110.20.42.44, here. The two users appear to be the same person according to this.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, no prizes for guessing it was Iforgetsorry. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Freeman article.
You are 100% wrong about freeman. He invented Electronic Talk'N Play. I know for a fact. One should do some research before making such aspersions −	Duffbeerforme, your tone to me is accusatory and misguided. What matters is the man is notable and tons of references back this up. Plus there are tons more never used. What zealots might have done prior should have no effect on the future of the article. Recently a re-post of an old Larry king interview came up where Larry refers to him as “One of America’s reigning geniuses.” Can you post this to the article, assuming something like this is an acceptable wiki source, so it is done properly and non-promotionally to your standards. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ecpub7_y7o4 −	 anthonydelpregno@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.124.47.51 (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC) −		 −	Everything I say is correct but inappropriate to disclose on a public format like this. Easily provable. Easily verifiable. Can you email me so we can get this article resolved? The goal is simply to meet the wiki criteria? Nothing more. Nothing less. Nothing is being sold, promoted, or is there any wish to be promotional. Thanks, anthonydelpregno@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.124.47.51 (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC) −		 −	We are about 800 students (with a group) who still follow Dr. Freeman, who was our professor. He is not involved in the group. None of us are wikipedians and have little idea how to fix this article to your liking. Please email me so you can give us guidance so this gets back up properly. That is the only goal!! anthonydelpregno@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.124.47.51 (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC) −
 * "We" are 800 people. Really, they know you're talking on their behalf? He was your professor? Check out WP:COI. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

−		 −	Freeman article. Hi Duffbeerforme, I noticed you have stubied this article on more than one occasion. The article has been fixed to a great extent, the man quite notable, supportive references in place, and unlike so many other articles on Wiki, there is no commercial bent here. Nothing is being promoted or sold. The man is widely known (which is obvious from the references) and your unwavering negative bias seems odd. You should recuse yourself from further involvement with this article and person. If the article is truly so onerous that it requires stubied, others will figure this out. I am also not sure why you think everyone is a paid-spammy? I know I am not so please do not put that title on me as well. Thanks, Frank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.124.47.51 (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC) −		 −
 * The man is being promoted, the sources are being misrepresented, the people writing these articles are paid promoters normally writing in violation of Wikipedia's Terms Of Use. As you say "If the article is truly so onerous that it requires stubied, others will figure this out." As can be seen from the article's history the first editor to do the stubifying was someone else . Another editor entirely has also removed promotional material from the stubified version . So clearly it's not just me. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Question, How best to proceed? Can you please answer this question? Freeman (Michael j.freeman article) is a truly accomplished guy and was my professor. Larry King called Freeman one of America’s Top Reigning geniuses (hear is a recent re-post of what King said here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ecpub7_y7o4, Freeman won the intel science fair at 13 by inventing computer memory (Time Magazine article), he invented touch tone phone branching, i.e. touch #1 for this choice or #2 for that (Kiplingers magazine and US Patent), he spoke at Harvard (I was there), he invented the first smart toy (named 2-XL), won Mattel’s inventor of the Year Award for Kasey the kinderbot in 2001 etc. How does this article get fixed properly? Who knows how to do it so it meets Wiki’s strict standards? This article deserves to be up in a clear and non-promo way? But how?  Who can do this so it is proper? Please advise? Thanks AnthonyDelpregno@gmail.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.124.47.51 (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello. Visiting here on my matter and I noticed this. WoW the article has been ruined. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_J._Freeman&oldid=744757302 (previous version). Where exactly is the "paid editing" you mention? The COI is obvious, but that is an on going problem with professor articles with many of them being allowed to make a big COI mess on the project. This particular subject seems to me an uninvolved editor, to be worthy of more encyclopaedic coverage here.TeeVeeed (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So I have manually restored the article. That was just sad Duff! I have opened a discussion on the article Talk Page which is where COI editors need to be Talk:Michael J. Freeman.TeeVeeed (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * TeeVeeed "Where exactly is the "paid editing"". Perhaps have a look. Who created the article? That would be User:Renzoy16. Check out his user page. Under the heading of "Conflict of interest" is the statement "The following is a complete list of paid freelance projects;". On that list is "Michael J. Freeman — done for a brother of Mr. Freeman.". Clear belatedly declared paid editing. Others did not disclose but were clearly paid.
 * In case you are wondering why I did not answer the last comment above from the 800 people above, they removed their question here. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. Oh Okay, the article was essentially a paid creation. The 800 or so interested COIs have been directed to the article Talk Page and I am hopeful they like it there? Paid articles are a three-way prob. for me. Onevolunteer editors such as myself, and you I presume, giving paid articles "extra" TLC and attention when that is not exactly organic and we are doing work for someone who got paid for it yuk. BUTon the other hand it is a slippery slope to "punish" the articles or topics, (we are punishing the project users at that point and the project), for any ignorant or mercenary problems by editors, and THREE the insidious possibility of "punishing" a subject topic, or article, like a company for instance who has diabolically COI-edited a competitor hoping that we will "punish" the article. I showed the topic a little ♥ and hope for more improvement. It was correct that refs were bad, but I think I checked them all nowTeeVeeed (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Duffbeerforme, I tried to eliminate the 2 templates you placed on the freeman article after the fix up, but soon realized it is "protected", so you can do this and not I. Please remove the two templates. Thanks, Drycroft4 (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no special powers to remove templates that others can't. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Skipp Williamson
I see you previously deleted the Skipp Williamson article as sockpuppets of Mamadoutadioukone had created it. Well, the article is back again; another sock drawer may need cleaning out.  Schwede 66  19:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And not surprisingly it's gone again. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:24, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

James J. Leonard Jr.
hello. I created the article using an old account which I do not use anymore-forgot password and using a different account now. Soin this matter I have been using my IP so as not to appear as a SP, not sure if this is the best way to go here. And, I don't quite understand your points? If you do a search for James Leonard lawyer, you will find a lot of references. The news link checker in your AFD goes to "nothing" but that is not correct because of the name. 2601:80:4300:155E:80A8:B5DF:D340:7D46 (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/James J. Leonard Jr. is the place for this discussion. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Our Home, Our Land, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Neil Murray and Tiddas. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Jack McCauley
You deleted cited articles. What is your purpose here? You cannot delete correct citations. Please respond as to why and how these violate Wiki rules on articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MintonBrice (talk • contribs) 16:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The articles talk page is the best place to discuss your Wiki rules violations. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Ill Slim Collin
You deleted a article with strong sources. What is your purpose here? You delete correct article. This Article got so many sources like THIS IS 50, DUBCNN, SICCNESS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickEAST83 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have never deleted an article. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Redcola music
Since you PRODded this article, please also look at those that Grindlechee mentioned on that page's talk page: As it may well be that several of those are also problematic. These were cited as examples in a WP:OSE argument. Thank you, — Paleo  Neonate  — 05:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The Hit House Music
 * Sencit Music
 * X-Ray Dog
 * Immediate Music
 * Future World Music
 * LiquidCinema

Oculus VR
Just wondering why you deleted sourced text here. Yours, Quis separabit?  22:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, "Sourced" text that says something the source does not.
 * The page said "To develop the new product, Luckey founded Oculus VR with Scaleform co-founders Brendan Iribe and Michael Antonov,[7] engineer Jack McCauley,[8] Nate Mitchell and Andrew Scott Reisse."
 * The source (press release straight from Luckey himself) used says "We’ve expanded the team with some amazing key hires." The source says Jack McCauley was hired by Oculus VR, not that he was a founder. Since he was not a founder I removed him from the list of founders. See my comment "source says McCauley was not a founder" the first time I removed that text.
 * See also the source from the Jack McCauley page that has been used to support the claim he was the founder. "The company hired Jack McCauley, the lead engineer of Guitar Hero, to oversee the Rift’s manufacturing process." . duffbeerforme (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Message to you
Took some doing but I know who you are now. See you in court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.142.35 (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * To expedite the situation it would be best if you could put me in contact with yourself and your lawyers. Could you please provide details so that I can get in touch with the first point of contact. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks for your help! --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your great piece of advice!
After taking your advice into consideration, I did few exercises to have better understandings of the Wikipedia New Article Creation Guidelines and gone through all the Wikipages you have advised me to go through like conflict of interest, conflict of interest guideline, FAQ for organizations, WP:DISCLOSE, WP:SPAM, content policies, WP:PAID, neutral point of view, sourcing, autobiographies

I would also like to mention that I don't have any external relationships with any of the people/place neither getting WP:PAID to do so.

Its my personal interest to try and create my first successful article, I started creating article with Toradex first, I'm working on to meet the Wikipedia guidelines to get my first article to be live, And I have also created couple of other articles too, but those articles also got deleted, So I have started again with my first article, recently found few reliable sources which are valid.

I hope that I've answered to your questions and I'm not here to WP:SPAM. - Suniltx (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about just being paid directly to create an article. There is also, as a non specific example, working as a companies SEO Specialist and writing about that company is a COI that NEEDS to be declared. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Oleg Bezuglov for deletion
Dear Duffbeerforme,

Since you sometimes contribute to AfD discussions, could you, please take a look at the Oleg Bezuglov article and express your opinion in discussion on whether it should be deleted or not. It was nominated on suspicion of not passing the WP:MUSICBIO criterion. The discussion is currently dead in the water, and I'm afraid it might be relisted again because of that. Thanks in advance! Fiddler11 07:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am currently not in a position to do a full check so won't be !voting at this point but a quick look suggests that this page is pure promotion so should be deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Concrete Roots Is Not A Bootleg
Duffbeerforme,

Is their some personal reason you continue to refer to the Dr. Dre Concrete Roots Compilation album as a "Bootleg" Aside from just being untrue & Your Personal Opinion. it's also slanderous to the Attorneys, Record Labels, Publishers and Distributors who invested their time & money into the album. At the time the album was created Dr. Dre had long ago signed away his rights to any of the Material utilized on the album. All songs were legally licensed through the Publishing Co. & the Record Labels who Owned All Rights & Licensing Authority to the Compositions. Concrete Roots was Mfg & Distributed by Rhino/Warner Brothers (who to my knowledge have never & would never touch a "Bootlegged" album) Just because you keep ref. to Dre's comment on MTV stating that he didn't like the Album, Tuff it doesn't mean it was "Bootlegged" At the time Dre made that statement he was in the mists of "Creating a New Gangster Image" for himself. Understandably Concrete Roots may have been "Inconvenient" for the narrative he was trying to promote, but it certainly doesn't Mean it was Bootlegged, That is just something you made up in your head. So unless you can produce documentation such as a Lawsuit or a court action please leave your personal opinion out of the article ... Respectfully !!! Wiki-dos808 (talk • contribs) 07:11, 12 July 2017
 * Lee
 * Thanks for pointing out my mistake, such unethical releases are not bootlegs. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

No Air
I added the official Broadcast Music Incorporated listing, which does credit Steve Russell as a writer. No idea why the liners omit it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice work. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Limey
How is it not an A7? The article as it currently stands makes zero assertations of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They released two albums through RCA, satisfying wp:music#5 duffbeerforme (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Joe Clifford
Good day. I see that you've added a tag regarding neutrality regarding this bio. However, I don't see any further information on the talk page. If you could please shed some light, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Rory1262 (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do let me know your thoughts. If there's no further discussion on this topic after another couple of weeks, I'd like to see about removing the tag. Rory1262 (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello — this article recently attracted input supporting its neutrality. Yet still, after that I did some more editing to give it a more “encyclopedic” tone. I’d like to know if you could please revisit and potentially undo the tag questioning neutrality. Thank you. Rory1262 (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2018
 * Whenever convenient, I would still welcome your revisit, please. Thanks. Rory1262 (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Stevan Harnad and Animal Sentience (journal) entries
Dear User:Duffbeerforme: Soon after User:DGG (David Goodman, whom I have known personally for 30 years) removed the close-connection/NPV tag from the entry for Stevan Harnad (a tag which had been left there since 2014), you have now put the tag on it again, just after putting the same tag on the entry for my journal Animal Sentience (journal). I don't think it is necessarily a symptom of non-NPV if one has a connection with an entry. I don't think anyone reading the text of either entry itself would have thought it non-NPV based on the text alone: it is clearly because I have identified myself that some WP editors sometimes have this suspicion. I think this is unfortunate, because it just encourages users not to remain anonymous. The watchfulness for non-NPV is a good idea but I think the content should be judged on the basis of what it actually says, and whether there is anything in it that might reflect a non-NPV. There is no self-praise in any of these entries; just simple verifiable facts. Can I ask you to reconsider and remove the tags? Best wishes, Stevan HarnadUser:Harnad 06:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Someone with a personal connection removed the coi tag? Hmm. Putting aside that issue for now. No I have no intention of removing it. Wikipedia is not here for you to promote your journal. One of the thing that was decided before removing that last COI tag from the biography was that you stop editing it. You didn't stop so the tag went back on. And you need to fix your signature. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how to fix my signature. I click on the --User:Harnad 12:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC) link: is that not the right way to sign? --User:Harnad 12:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * not the using 4tildes to sign, the actual signature itself. SIG. You may just need to uncheck the treat as wiki markup field in the special:preferences. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. I have a suggestion: Editing entries with which one is connected is not necessarily a sign of bias, or spamming. Especially when doing openly (non-anonymously). It could be bias or spam, I agree. So vigilance is a good idea. But doesn't it depend on what is actually being posted? There was a longstanding tag on the entry for me, asking for references on the influences. The influences had been inserted by others. When the coi tag (there since 2014) was removed, I provided the references requested, and did some other updates and corrections that I thought were low-key, factual, and relevant. If they are found to be factually wrong or irrelevant, it's fine to remove or edit them, but I don't think that just the fact that they come from me is a good reason to remove them. As for David Goodman (user:DGG), I believe he has the reputation, across many, many years, of being one of the fairest and most patient and polite WP aditors. Here too, the fact that I know him, and he knows me, and can vouch for my character, does not seem to me to be improper. Surely it's the validity of the content itself that should be evaluated: After all, that's the only information a WP editor can go by in the case of entries by anonymous users. Now let's see if the new signature, with the new setting, works: Best wishes, Stevan Harnad User:Harnad (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Prodding
Please inform article authors when you attempt to have their work deleted. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC) FloridaArmy (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Nick Phoenix Redirect
Quick question. I noticed that you redirected the page Nick Phoenix to Two Steps from Hell. Looking at the page content, it seems that there is notable content that is different from the TSFH article (ie his participation with EastWest and Crater Mountain, his personal album Speed of Sound, his son, etc), and the article for Nick Phoenix isn't redirected either (and I'd argue shouldn't be for similar reasons, though to a lesser extent). I'm curious why you did this - could I request that it be reverted? Thanks. Luxaritas (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

deleted sources as reliable?
I have undone an edit you restored on Wikipedia page for Elissa Sursara. The section was removed by an editor after correspondence with Wikimedia Foundation where defamation requests and retraction letters were provided. Please check the correspondence of this issue before restoring the section. Deleted sources were determined to be unreliable in this context. The section is sensational and not part of an appropriate discourse about the article's subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Australia20172017 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)