User talk:FeldBum/archive 2

Draft: Olivia O'Brien
Hi Feldbum, Thank you for your review on my draft Olivia O'Brien, I really appreciate it! If you have any suggestions or idea for the article let me know! Tomatodelavegas (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Feldbum! Do you have any information about what's going to happen? it's been more than 2 weeks now without any news. Thank you, Tomatodelavegas (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help
Hi ,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted. Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Prepex
Sorry. Dr Aaij (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * For editing an article I created three years ago? No need to apologize. Edit away. That's how Wikipedia works! --FeldBum (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I was really hoping you'd see that you made what one might call a somewhat noteworthy error. Dr Aaij (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well a snarky "Sorry" (and deleting my comments on your talk page) was clearly the best method of edification, so thanks! --FeldBum (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

COI Requests
Hi FeldBum. I was hoping you might have a minute to take a look at a few discussions where I have disclosed a COI and asked a question or requested a change. Most of these pages probably aren't on many watchlists and don't have much editor interest.

Here I asked a basic question about the best approach to fixing 100+ broken links where the archived links do work (I can do the grunt work). discussion Here I've raised an issue with a BLP page that is mostly made up of poorly-sourced controversies and promotion, suggesting an axe to half the article. draft Here I've taken a second stab at a draft page proposed as a replacement for a poor-quality/promotional page in mainspace now, that consists mostly of indiscriminate lists.

If you do have a minute to take a look into any/all/some of these, your time would be appreciated! Best regards. CorporateM (Talk) 19:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure. I'll take a look now. --FeldBum (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi FeldBum. Is this still on your radar? There's no rush; just trying to figure out if I need to keep shopping for someone willing to take a look. CorporateM (Talk) 13:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Proper No. Twelve


A tag has been placed on Proper No. Twelve, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations 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 "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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the.  DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Slutever (TV series), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Golden and Platonic ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Slutever_%28TV_series%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Slutever_%28TV_series%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Proper No. Twelve Irish Whiskey (March 18)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SoWhy was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Proper No. Twelve Irish Whiskey and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Proper No. Twelve Irish Whiskey, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Proper_No._Twelve_Irish_Whiskey Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SoWhy&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Proper_No._Twelve_Irish_Whiskey reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

So Why  14:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Proper No. Twelve Irish Whiskey


Hello, FeldBum. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Proper No. Twelve Irish Whiskey".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia!  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Blatant Conflict of Interest Notice
It has been brought to my attention that you are a paid PR/SEO professional, and Doppler Labs (the company that Noah Kraft founded and ran) was one of your firm's clients. Your undisclosed relationship to Doppler and your direct edits on controversial questions violate Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy. It is highly unethical for you to be acting as Noah Kraft's paid advocate while hiding your relationship with him and his company.

"An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship."

NOTE: "If you receive or expect to receive compensation (money, goods or services) for your contributions to Wikipedia:"

-- "you must disclose who is paying you, on whose behalf the edits are made, and any other relevant affiliation;"

-- "you should make the disclosure on your user page, on affected talk pages, and whenever you discuss the topic;"

-- "you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;"

You should disclose your conflicts of interest immediately, both here and on each and every one of your clients' talk pages that you have directly edited. You should also disclose any other clients whose pages you have edited (e.g. edits on the page for a program produced by Vice Media). You should cease making direct edits on Noah Kraft and Doppler Labs' page immediately. Note that you have also violated the conflict of interest policy in at least one other case by opposing the deletion of the Doppler Labs' page without disclosing your that they were your client. I will consider reporting this on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard and compiling other examples of your unethical editing if you continue to airbrush this page (I am leaning towards reporting this regardless, because it is so flagrant). DaRonPayne (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * While I know Noah Kraft, and previously had Doppler and 300 as marketing clients, I am not editing pages on their behalf. I am, because I care about Noah and Doppler, working to prevent blatant editing violations on those pages, such as the ones you are making. My username is my name and I explain my profession on my user page, so it's clear who I am, and if I have ever done work at a person's or client's behalf, I have disclosed that on Wikipedia as per the disclosure policy. I'm not getting any compensation here (as you have often noted, the company closed long ago); I am protecting you from flagrantly violating policy on these pages. Same with the Slutever TV Series, which I'm assuming is the other entry you're making assumptions and insinuations about, as well Karley Sciortino's page. She was a client ages ago too, and I've made edits to those pages, but not at her or Vice's behest. I'm aiming for neutral content, which is why I have an issue with you calling something "failing" or "imploding" on an entry, or relying on first-party sources and original research, when you know both are not OK. I really don't feel like spending all my time fighting this one edit, but here's the bottom line:


 * You should follow Wikipedia's guidelines for citations. They say that first-party, or primary, sources are not a good source of information. In other words, you should trust what verified third-party sources say about a topic. Want to say that Doppler closed? They are plenty of sources for that. Want to say they lost all the money? You need to find a source that's not Doppler or Kraft to verify that. First-party sources are inherently untrustworthy; anyone can say or write anything about themselves.
 * No Original Research, which includes something that implies a conclusion, which is what you're doing when you assume that a Kraft video where he talks about losing money has to be accurate, because, otherwise, why would he do so? Find a source. Or do the research, publish it elsewhere, and make yourself the source. Just don't make Wikipedia the place you publish that article.
 * Back to me. I edit Wikipedia a lot, because I love it. I know music, Judaism, Google, travel--so I edit those pages. I meet interesting people, so I edit their pages too. I met Jessie Reyez, and went to an amazing show of hers, so I edited her page. I put up her picture. We met, but she didn't compensate me for editing, but editing is something I enjoy (although, obviously not tonight, having to write this). Seeing crazy edits to Kraft's page, on my watchlist, prompted to edit as well, especially when I saw editors with 90%-100% of their edits about him. It reeks of malice. I don't know why, but I do know that you are trying to make edits that don't belong. I'll happily submit a request for intervention (actually, let's just do that; it's the easiest solution here), since I think this is beyond the two of us to solve. --FeldBum (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I have reported you to the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard . I am open to adjudicating the substance of Noah Kraft’s page, but first I would like to get preliminary ruling on the propriety of your involvement on this page (and others). Please refrain from any further action related to this page until your reported conflict of interest has been resolved.


 * On a personal note, I find the fact that you lectured me on "neutral point of view" without divulging this financial relationship astonishing. DaRonPayne (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)