User talk:KDS4444/Archive 7

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Innisfree987. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Stewart Levenson, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Innisfree987 (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha, sorry--this notice is generated unavoidably (apparently even to autopatroled pages--didn't know that til now)! I've left you a message over at the NPP talk page where hopefully you'll get some more advice about how to proceed with these cases going forward. Thanks again for your care with policy on COI. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Innisfree987. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Tom Paradise, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Innisfree987 (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Stewart Levenson for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stewart Levenson 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/Stewart Levenson 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.  DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

current policy
On your user page, you say: "I have sometimes been paid to create Wikipedia articles for individuals or organizations. However, as Wikipedia does not allow its editors to market, advertise, or discuss the details of their paid service on its site, if you are considering hiring me to create a Wikipedia article on your behalf, you will need to contact me directly for more information.". But the current policy at WP:COI requires that you do indicate what articles you have received pay for. I quote you should make the disclosure on your user page, on affected talk pages, and whenever you discuss the topic; The purpose, of course, is so the community can give them the necessary scrutiny. Any side effect of advertising is irrelevant, and the policy is unambiguous.  DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay,what I meant by "not discuss the details" was "not explain my rates, a breakdown of my services, give detailed explanations of what notability will entail, itemize the steps involved, tell clients what they can expect from me, and outline the limits of my ability to control article content."  I would be glad to state all of that, but I don't want to run afoul of WP:NOTADVERTISING.  I had created a user subpage where I laid all this out, but then decided it would be a policy violation to link to it so removed the link.  Do you think I should put it back?  I have itemized my actual paid edits in userboxes on my userpage and on the talk pages of the articles I have edited.  Please advise.  Thanks.  KDS4444 (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What you need to do  is to list the pages; the usual place is on your user page--most people distinguish the ones they have written in while or largepart from the ones where they have contributed a minor part. For each page, you must on that article's talk page disclose who paid you, on whose behalf the work was done, and any intermediaries.  There is no rule saying you need to list the amounts paid, and I do not think anyone has done so. You need not disclose exactly what you tell your clients. But that whole statement as it reads on your user page is a disguised advertisement. Replace it by a list of the pages.
 * I think it's fair to tell you what you have no doubt realized yourself, that I am examining the pages, as I do those of any paid editor I come across, and  as I intend to try to do for every declared paid editor. I try to support the work of those who follow the rules and write decent NPOV articles on notable subjects; I try to delete the articles that do not meet that standard. In a few cases where I have special interest in the topic, I will rewrite or help rewrite the inadequate articles if the subject is particularly notable.  DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have created a new userbox template, UserboxCOIpaid, which allows me to list the edited articles along with the employer and client for each article. I can simply remove the paragraph from my userpage altogether now, if you like.    KDS4444 (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Yandex maps
I want to create an article "Yandex maps". About the global map site, which is better than Google maps. And that site is known by millions on Europe. About him there are several articles in other languages in Wikipedia. But that article you deleted, as an advertising site. Why?--Ffederal (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Directly editing Template talk:Paid
Hey KDS4444, as someone who does paid editing, you should not be directly editing policies, guidelines, and templates related to paid editing, or for that matter you should be extremely cautious about directly editing any policy, guideline, or widely cited essay. The last paid editor who started doing this sort of thing was indefinitely blocked by the community.

You are welcome to give input on talk pages, of course, but you should make sure that people with whom you are speaking are aware that you do paid editing.

I hope that makes sense. Happy to discuss if it doesn't. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I am becoming concerned that by admitting and reporting that I do paid editing— something which I have tried to do very carefully and according to every extant policy and guideline I could find— now means that I am no longer really welcome to participate in most parts of the project, including ones about which I may have legitimate relevant views. It is as though the good faith assumption is now gone— 20,000 unpaid edits and a string of diagrams including several Pictures of the Day now of no bearing.  Yes, I can withdraw from NPP, and can resign my autopatrolled rights as well, as I am certain those will be considered circumspect.  I can also drastically cut back on my editing generally.  If I ever thought I'd be a site administrator someday, I now understand that I had better kiss that one goodbye, yes?  At least next month's rent will get paid, and on time for a change.  Barely.  But that's my problem, I know, and not yours.  Honesty is a bitter pill.  It tastes a lot like regret, though it doesn't make one choke quite so much.  Thank you for the suggestions, let me know of any others that come to mind.  I had never read anything about paid editors being asked to excuse themselves from various parts of the project.  That wasn't in the job description.  But I guess it is now. Maybe I was never really all that good at them anyway.  Am I expected to resign my OTRS access as well?  That would finally leave me with autoconfirmed rights.  Which maybe I can also resign, if you know how (?). KDS4444 (talk) 06:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I am sorry, paid editing is a charged thing here; choosing to edit for pay, as not as simple as say choosing to create an article about something or improving content elsewhere.
 * Overall yes it is ... tricky to edit for pay and to edit as a volunteer.
 * I actually believe that it completely possible for someone to do both, and to scrupulously disclose each edit for pay and never edit directly for pay, and all other edits are therefore truly volunteer.
 * The problem is, it is also completely possible to only disclose sometimes, and hide some paid editing inside the set of edits done "as a volunteer."  We have uncovered many, many cases of this.   This is just a fact.
 * So it is ... problematic to try to do this. You are free (of course!) to try to do it.
 * But as your response shows (I think it does anyway), you understand the trust issues that it raises.
 * We really count on people NPP to be honest brokers and get rid of unacceptable new pages. And in my view, the trust issues get too thorny if somebody edits for pay sometimes and also works NPP.  But maybe my judgement is wrong here. I am pinging User:Kudpung and User:TonyBallioni so you have more thoughtful feedback on this issue (Kudpung and Tony, please see my note below, which KDS replied to here)
 * The issue of directly editing policies/guidelines etc is hopefully more clear to you.  Please be aware that I am really glad that you wanted to give input on the formatting of the PAID template.   As somebody who actually uses the thing in good faith, there is nobody better to give feedback on how well it works and what could be done to make it easier to use.   But offering those arguments and making those changes yourself are two different things.
 * I am really grateful for your gracious response. I don't know what the right path is for you here in WP, but again I appreciate very much your openness to discussing what you should and should not do, as somebody who edits for pay sometimes. Jytdog (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I take a pretty hardline stance on paid editing, but I also appreciate that you do follow the terms of use: I certainly think it would be appropriate to resign the autopatrolled flag, and to send anything that might be paid through AfC rather than create it directly in main space. Re: NPP. The issue is that we currently have a paid article at AfD that everyone but you thinks is non-notable promotionalism. I know you don't feel that way, but much of the community does. On the question of how this impacts you doing NPP, I'm not sure. The largest concern is that a paid editor might approve articles under a valid alternative account or that a client paid them to edit after someone else had created, both would be inappropriate. Having a longstanding community member with some of the unbundled rights involving page creation that is a paid editor I don't think has happened before. We don't have a clear policy to work through it. Hope these musing have offered some help. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I was pinged. Just confirming that I have read this discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

New page patrol
As someone who does paid editing, it is very unwise for you to participate in NPP. Would you please withdraw from that project? If this request doesn't make sense to you, I would be happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
I'm sorry that the article you created, Stewart Levenson, is in a consensus to be deleted, but just remember that this gives you a learning opportunity for future article creation. Just remember the guidelines on creating articles as well as how to manage a conflict of interest. And remember: in case the subject is notable for only one particular event, it's always a good idea to consider the option of creating an article about that one event instead, if one hasn't already been created. Hope this helps, and happy editing!

jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC) 
 * As a matter of fact, let me add on to clarify: because you hold a conflict of interest with Dr. Levenson, instead of creating an article about the event he is notable for, I'd rather you ask someone else to do it for you. This way, it will allow the user to be assistive in finding references that do not appear promotional and do not look like they were requested by the subject himself. Also remember that paid editing can be frowned upon in certain situations. See WP:PAY for a better explanation, and if you have any questions, there's editors like me,, and that have dealt with COI editors before that can answer your concerns. If there's anything I missed as well, I will leave that open to the editors I just pinged. Again, happy editing! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am rather fond of kittens, you know. Thank you for that one!  So now I have a question: if I have a COI with regard to Dr. Levenson, and Dr. Levenson (and because Dr. Levenson) asks me to write an article about an event that he believes he is notable for, then you believe that what I should do is ask someone else to create that article...  and then still expect Dr. Levenson to... pay... me for the work?  That feels a bit like asking someone else to do my work for me and then taking their paycheck, no?  Please share your thoughts on that.  It seems like if Dr. Levenson is paying me to create an article, that I should do the legwork of creating it.  I explained to him that one of his alternatives was to submit his name to our Articles for Creation list and wait for someone else to pick the subject up, but I know from experience that names can languish there for months or even years without being written and that many will probably never be written at all.  He wanted an article now, which is what he believed he was paying me for, and looking at the sources I was able to find, he did appear to be notable and therefore worthy of an article (or rather, the event appeared notable and his role within it was large, which ends up being very much the same thing).  Am still finding my way forward in the dark here.  The kittens help, but mostly what I need is a flashlight!!  KDS4444 (talk) [Note: This user has admitted participating in paid editing, though he has no COI with regard to this edit whatsoever.] 06:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, the words "dealt with" seem to suggest "discovered and excised." Am still hoping that is not to be the case with me.  I am not a lump of cancer, I swear it.  I checked.  KDS4444 (talk) [Note: This user has admitted participating in paid editing, though he has no COI with regard to this edit whatsoever.] 01:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
 * has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
 * Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

Jytdog
You made this comment on the Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers|Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers page: "User:KDS4444 Thanks for telling your story. This is the first time I have looked at what you actually did in the case of these four articles. What you did in all four cases that was very wrong. You published the articles yourself instead of putting them through AfC so that they would be reviewed before they published in WP. This is what we ask all people with a COI to do - namely to not edit existing articles directly but rather propose edits on the talk page, and put new articles through AfC, each with disclosure so that the content can be reviewed in light of the COI. It is decent that you had the autopatrolled tag removed, but you shouldn't try to claim "above and beyond" at all, since publishing them directly was incorrect.  You appear to be unaware that this is what the PAID policy and COI guideline both say. If you are ignorant of what that policy and guideline say, I find that in itself disturbing - we rely on people with advanced permissions to understand the policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)" (emphasis added).

Why do we have to have a fight about this? Why do you need to wrap it up with an insult at the end like I am a kid getting spanked? Do you really think I have been acting in bad faith? Does my behavior suggest to you that I have been deliberately deceitful? Because I don't see any other way to read that statement. What I did was not incorrect— what I did was try very hard to follow all the policy I actually knew and to take steps not even suggested in any guideline to ensure my work got reviewed here. I get the sense that you feel I have been somehow leading you on, and either pretending to be ignorant or downright stupid. Why do we have to do this? You found a flaw in my "above and beyond" claim— congratulations. How does this now make me someone you dislike so very much? Unless you think I deliberately did not send my articles through AfC on purpose and then omitted that detail from my account of what I did... Even though if I had done it on purpose, asking another user to "un-patrol" those articles would then have been pointless, which should tell you that I did no such thing.

You have assassinated my character without good cause, and are eating away at the remaining assumptions of good faith I still have in the editing community. You don't have to do this. I am not a child, but neither have I memorized every section of every page of policy and guideline on Wikipedia. Please don't fault me for missing one that didn't matter anyway, okay? I am not asking you to join me in concealing a mistake I made, I am asking you to acknowledge the efforts I made and the color of my hat. And to not call me "incorrect" when I am not actually incorrect about something, and then claim it is disturbing that I am unaware of how to do things. I don't see the point in it. I just don't. It's baseless, and it is humiliating, and it is inaccurate. If you think I am fundamentally a liar and a cheat, then please show me what have done to give you this impression. KDS4444 (talk) [Note: This user has admitted participating in paid editing, though he has no COI with regard to this edit whatsoever.] 01:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. Sorry that you remain upset. I never said that you were a liar or a cheat, and I don't believe that you are either thing, and I am sorry that you feel that I implied that.
 * I do not believe we are "fighting", but we do appear to be disagreeing.
 * It isn't clear to me if you want to discuss or not, or if the four questions you asked are actual questions or were rhetorical. So I won't write more, for now. If you like, please let me know if those were actual questions, and if you would like to talk. Jytdog (talk) 02:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. What I was hoping you would do after reading what I had written was acknowledge that you had mischaracterized me and offer an apology (not the, "I'm sorry you're a jerk" or "I'm sorry you have issues" but the much more sincere and meaningful, "I am sorry, I made a mistake", that sort of apology).  I guess that didn't come across in what I wrote.  Ah, well.  Also, I've been thinking (and would like to discuss, if you are willing) your request to surrender my new page patroller rights, a request I now believe I understand (and please correct me if I am wrong): you are concerned that while having this right, I might be tempted to sell my services to someone to patrol their pages without asking too many questions, and that therefore I might let some non-notable stuff through in exchange for cash (did I guess right?).  If that is it, my response is this: those kinds of acts are being done by undeclared paid editors, yes?  People who are not actually writing content but who are being paid (quietly) to help manage the flow of information onto Wikipedia, and who make no statement about doing such, people privately selling their user rights.  If that is it, then I have figured out the myopia.  But tell me if I am wrong! (and if I AM wrong, then can you explain further?).  Thanks!  KDS4444 (talk) [Note: This user has admitted participating in paid editing, though he has no COI with regard to this edit whatsoever.] 05:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I see that you read my note at WT:NPP about the issue being structural, not personal -- you replied there.  So yes, it has nothing to do with your actual, personal integrity, but rather about any person being in the situation of editing for pay sometimes, and having a position of trust (like the NPP permission), here in Wikipedia, where everything is based on trust.  And yes, the issue with NPP, is being in position of temptation to pass articles that should not actually come in to WP.
 * In the real world, somebody in a position of trust, say a judge, works under his or her real name, and undeclared conflicts of interest will generally come out, eventually. Here is WP, we have no way of knowing who anybody is, much less vetting their COI.
 * Conflicts of interest are handled in the real world in two ways - by managing them, and by eliminating them.
 * If an academic scientist has a conflict of interest (say she invented a drug, and has started a company to develop it, and writes a paper about), the conflict of interest is managed by the person declaring their interest, and the paper going through peer review, and the declaration being on the paper after it publishes, so readers read the paper with the COI in mind.
 * In the case of a judge, the COI is eliminated by the judge recusing him or herself from a case where they have a COI.
 * In either case, there is hell to pay if the COI isn't disclosed and either managed or eliminated, as the case may be. That can and does happen, since people are working under their real names.
 * Here in Wikipedia, generally we as a community ~try~ to manage COI of paid editors by having them declare and then put paid articles through peer review before they publish.
 * It is another matter, of somebody who edits for pay sometimes, having a position of trust like NPP or being an admin. In those cases, it seems better to me that the COI be eliminated, generally, by people not having those positions of trust if they edit for pay.
 * Anyway, that is where the request came from. Again, not personal, but structural.
 * In my view, the presumption should be against somebody who edits for pay sometimes, having such a position. But allowable, on a case by case basis.
 * If the paid editing precedes getting the advanced permissions, the paid editing should be disclosed at the time the request for the permissions is made, so the request can be considered with that in mind.
 * If a person with the permissions already wants to start editing for pay, they should bring that to the community and ask for thoughts before doing it.
 * In my view. Jytdog (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you show me where a person might seek such community opinion? An RfC on the user's talk page maybe? Also, how do you think such a statement should be phrased?  "I am a longstanding editor with a clean edit history and some advanced user rights who is considering accepting payment for some of his editing of Wikipedia— what do other's think?"?  Help me out here. KDS4444 (talk) [Note: This user has admitted participating in paid editing,— trust but verify.] 05:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean exactly by "show you". I would suggest that if you had an NPP right, that you would pose the question at the talk page for NPP. I don't think it would have to be as formal as an RfC. And i wouldn't make it that self-promotional but rather just ask: "I have the NPP right and am thinking of writing an article for pay. What do you all think of that?" would be plenty. A perhaps better place would be WP:AN, for any advanced right including NPP.  There are not precedents that I am aware of.
 * btw, the tag line in your signature now about "trust but verify" is odd and I am not sure what you are trying to communicate with that. If it relates to the first part of your signature, where you disclose that you have edited for pay... How can we "verify" if someone is disclosing all the edits they do for pay? It raises questions that are probably unhelpful to you. Jytdog (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Context
It kind of seems to me, that you are perhaps not aware of feeling in the community about paid editing. I talk about this on my user page a bunch, here: User:Jytdog. Jytdog (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There are some people who absolutely, deeply hate that activity.
 * There are some people who absolutely, deeply, do not care and don't want anybody else to care. (they think only about content)
 * Most of the community is ... pretty darn uncomfortable with it, for a bunch of reasons. They want the integrity of Wikipedia to be protected, but they don't want a boatload of drama.

More context

 * I started a discussion at NPR  without  pointing  the finger at  anyone in  particular although the catalyst  might  have been fairly  obvious. Now that I have been drawn into it less neutrally by KDS4444's posting on my talk page I feel free to speak up. My  interest in this particular issue, as an editor dedicated for years to  developing  systems to keep junk, spam, and vanity pages out  of Wikipedia, and spearheading one or two reforms already, was aroused by Articles for deletion/Stewart Levenson.  I have AfD on my watchlist and pay particular attention to cases involving BLP and corporate articles. When I discovered that  the article had been autopatroled, I dug deeper, which is quite a normal thing to do for anyone who also works at COIN and SPI.
 * The Levenson article demonstrates quite unambiguously how totally inappropriate it is for autopatrolled users to writing articles that end up with a huge unanimous consensus to delete. The double shock that sent me reeling was the revelation that  the article had even been paid for. The triple shock that  finally left  me gobsmacked was that the author even had patroler and OTRS rights. Now if that isn't akin to  putting a thief in charge of a jeweler's shop while the owner pops out for five minutes to buy  buy a portion of fries, I don't  know what it is. In the worst cse scenrio, as in that of Wifione as  mentions, the fox in charge of the henhouse is an admin. But it doesn't stop there, as he also describes, even Arbcom s not fee of corruption - but Arbcom members who are aware just don't want to rock the boat.
 * As a Brit, I'm the wrong person for you to be making analogies with your US system of gun ownership. Gun crime in the UK is extremely rare and the average Brit (even the cops are not armed) has never even seen a real gun up close unless they have been in the army. When I'm riding the subway  I do what every one does: I look at the other passengers and wonder about them, the difference in America in NY or D.C. is that I'm thinking Holy Cow! How many of these have a gun in their pocket or purse?.
 * On Wikipedia every time I see an immaculate new article, I think: Holy Cow! How much did this user get paid for writing this? Paid editors will always ultimately bring the entire Wikimedia movement into disrepute. As long as people think hey can make a fast buck out of writing an article and having advanced permissions to avoid scrutiny and OTRS to allow otherwise copyrighted content through, and as long as they advertise it, and as long as there are people willing to pay, the integrity of the project is tainted. Already a catch phrase across Europe is 'If you have read that in Wikipedia, you'll believe anything'.


 * Yes, a great many users hate paid editing, but oddly I'm one of only very few to deeply hate it for its blatant exploitation of our free work. Even Jytdog isn't overly concerned with this aspect whereas I consider paid editors to be a highly unethical presence in a community of volunteers. Some people don't care either way, but shopping for opinions and sympathy from minority views represented by other users is only going to alienate people and make matters worse. If anyone needs money badly enough, and can't get a proper job, they should go flip burgers in MacDonalds, stack shelves in Wallmart, or wash windshields at the gas station. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I articulate the exploitation most times I talk about paid editing. It is a fundamental reason why paid editors should be... very non-aggressive.  And anybody who works with content generated by a paid editor should be aware that they are helping someone else make money.   But all that said, I recognize that paid editors can sometimes bring valuable content in their proposals; when they do that, they add value to the project.  Most times they don't, in my experience. Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like you did not understand that I specifically requested that this article have its autopatrolled nature revoked, and that it be put through the New Pages Review process? It was autopatrolled only briefly.  The fox, having declared himself as such, felt this was appropriate.  I think you are maybe seeing the villain you wish to see, and you are ignoring the other evidence (?).  The irony here is that I, too, am very much opposed to paid editing when the paid part is undisclosed.  I think that should be the target of this visceral opposition, and I would join you wholeheartedly in it!  KDS4444 (talk) [Note: This user has admitted participating in paid editing,— trust but verify.] 01:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Exploitation
Do you really not understand how paid editors exploit the volunteer community? If not, I can explain it to you... Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If the explanation is the moneychangers in the temple, I have already been given it; I've noted that the Sophists were also condemned by Socrates and Plato for charging money to educate the youths of Ancient Greece, yet today we have universities everywhere that pay professors, and we have students who pay tuition to support them, and no one seems to object to this overmuch, though of course I do see the value of having teachers functioning only as volunteers— I would never expect them to always do it, and nearly all of my own editing is volunteer, but I also see the value in paying university professors to teach and to function in a system that would be "better" if it were also entirely volunteer but which isn't all that bad as a system in which they also get paid to teach. Paid editing seems to be to be commensalist at worst (but undeclared paid editing possibly parasitic). KDS4444 (talk) [Note: This user has admitted participating in paid editing,— trust but verify.] 04:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The explanation is so simple. It's part of the social ethics that parents and kindergarten monitors teach pre-schoolers in Europe while in the USA they  are teaching  five year olds how to  handle an assault rifle so  that  when they  are older they  can go  into  a school and kill all the kids. Sorry, KDS4444, you picked the wrong argument by mentioning guns to me, a Brit. I cannot understand how you cannot  believe there is anything  wrong with  paid editing and how it  affects the morale of the people  here, especially  those who  spend literally  hours cleaning up at SPI and COIN. and patrolling at  NPR. After the community's very clear consensus on the mini discussion, the gesture I would have expected would have been for you  to provide an example, and rather than give up  the tools you have been given, give up your exploitation of our voluntary work, join us and use the  tools to combat such disruptive abuse of the encyclopedia. The bible, BTW, is not so much about an 'angry Jesus' - when used agnostically,  is an excellent source of proverbs and tips on behaviour, and there's is a story that covers this too; I believe it was about  a bloke who  was an apostle, or something, called Paul. Apparently all you would need to do is completely close your eyes for three days. When open them again, you would see it  all in  a different light. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Kudpung, my argument had nothing to do with guns. I cannot understand how you cannot understand that.  That I am American and you British has no bearing here.  I was searching for an analogy, and you have decided to dwell on the analogy and not its meaning.  Not helpful.  The analogy still holds, and you have not refuted it.  There is no right or wrong with respect to our national experiences of the analogy.  Why do I have to explain this?  I am vehemently opposed to American liberal gun laws, and find such laws appalling— that wasn't my point.  My point is that you appear to have lumped me with those who kill people with guns (another metaphor) which I think is inapt and unfair and disregards my editing history of nearly a decade.  I think that my declaration as a paid editor (rather, as an editor who has been paid to make a handful of edits) means I have made myself an easy target for you, when I am not, in fact, the person you intend to be targeting.  And I am hoping I can convince you of this, because it is the truth.  I have already seen you fail to take notice of my acts to un-patrol one of my paid article creations, and you have yet to acknowledge that you made that mistake— this shows me that you are operating with blinders on, and are unable to apologize when you make such a mistake, even when it is pointed out to you, which bodes poorly for us as colleagues.  Which is a shame, I reckon: back when I used to patrol new pages I was a regular deletionist when it came to new suspiciously COI BLP articles, and find undeclared sockfarm paid editing to be at least as wrong as you do.  We are not as unalike as you seem to want to paint us!  KDS4444 (talk) [Note: This user has admitted participating in paid editing,— trust but verify.] 03:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * KDS444, in the context section above, I tried to give you a heads up about how paid editing is viewed in the community.
 * You -- as someone who has done (does? I have no idea if you intend to keep doing this) -- must understand the range of views.
 * Again there are people for whom paid editing is disgusting. Morally reprehensible.  I am not being hyperbolic.
 * There are people who do not care, and will look only at people's edits.
 * Most of the community does not like it, but tolerates it, barely.
 * Nobody will love it.
 * Please hear this part -- there is not a single thing you can say -- no line of reasoning you can put out there -- that will change how any one of those groups views paid editing, nor your having engaged in this activity.
 * Trying to make some logical argument is going to be either offensive (and make people distrust you even more) or boring. People who are experienced have heard zillions of discussions about this. Some people have thought deeply and carefully about it.  But mostly, it is an emotional issue here...a moral issue, really about the values that make this place work.
 * You need to understand that you have done a serious thing to your reputation.
 * I believe that you didn't really understand that when you did it. But that is what you did.
 * If you want to understand why people hold these range of views, that is learnable. And you should devote some effort to it.
 * But for pete's sake please stop trying to convince anybody (Kudpung especially) to feel differently about what you did. It is not going to happen.
 * Kudpung kind of puts the question of the future out there... as have I. I don't know if you intend to keep editing for pay sometimes, and if you do, if you will keep disclosing... or if you intend to "renounce" that activity. But you should probably think about that and about making your intentions clear.  But before you decide or say anything, you really should understand the whole paid editing thing.  I pointed you to that section of my user page, and there are links there where you can go read more. (You should be sure to read through the 5 enormous conversations the community had about banning paid editing back in 2013 - they are linked in the "historical" section of the "see alsos" at WP:COI, Conflict_of_interest.  Please read the discussions and try to really hear what people are saying)
 * You also seem to have gotten side tracked from my OP in this subsection. It is not clear to me that you understand the exploitation thing. Happy to explain that if you don't.  Jytdog (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I spent an hour drafting  a reply  but  I've thought  better of it. It would only  ultimately  left  me branded as a bully. Another hour  of my  unpaid time wasted though. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
NJA (t/ c)  06:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Gal Rasché: If it's any help, while the fleeting  mentions in the Wienerzeitung might  be enough  to justify an undeletion, all the other sources in the other language Wikis are not of the kind that add up  to  notability and Ghits return nothing remarkable. IMO it would probably not survive AfD which is where it will eventually go. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough— I knew that other Wikis had different standards for inclusion, but I didn't figure that so many of them could all be wrong about her notability. Also there is this article in Russian that mentions her as a famous graduate of the St. Petersburg State Conservatory (a trivial mention, to be sure, but without reviewing all of the mentions in Russian and other European language, I sense notability here, even if the current article does not fully demonstrate this).  Still, I placed an unreferenced tag on the article.  I've also recently edited the talk page and article on the H. L. Hunley (submarine) and the talk page of Mug shot which you may also want to look into, though I get the feeling I am being followed...(?) KDS4444 (talk) [Note: This user has admitted participating in paid editing,— trust but verify.] 05:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
NJA (t/ c)  06:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Also unwise
this. Jytdog (talk) 08:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stewart Levenson (September 13)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Narutolovehinata5 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:Stewart Levenson and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * 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:Stewart_Levenson Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Narutolovehinata5&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Stewart_Levenson reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update: General project update: If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
 * Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!
 * The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: 
 * On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
 * Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
 * To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

Medical articles
We try to write the leads of medical articles in easy to understand language. An 80 word sentence is not easy to understand.

Additionally you added "Testicular cancer, however, is a painless condition and pain in the testes is not indicative of its presence." says the exact oposite Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)