User talk:MER-C/archives/44

__NONEWSECTIONLINK__

Featured_picture_candidates/Edgar_Allan_Poe
Did you misvote here? Just you linked a Commons vote on Thoreau as your reason to oppose Poe. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 12:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. Thanks for letting me know. MER-C 13:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

About Holborn Assets Draft Page
Hello, I noticed of recent that my account is being linked to another user's action on the Holborn Draft page as meatpuppetry, the user was blocked and you left a summary that linked to my account, the summary ended "... and meatpuppetry - see User:Epaomo". Please note that I do not in any way have affiliation or connection the other user. Yes I created the Draft page but left it to work on later as I know it doesn't fit in yet to Wikipedia Article Mainstream. I know the other editor nor did I ask him to edit the draft, Kindly make further investigation on this issue as I really want to prove I'm not in anyway a meatpuppet, I would also appreciate if my username is removed from the summary "...and meatpuppetry - see User:Epaomo". Thank You--Epaomo (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have taken a closer look at your editing history and have decided to block you for the exact same reason. MER-C 14:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Re-created articles
Hello. Rakesh K. Sarna is an identical re-creation by a different user of Rakesh Sarna which you drafted last month. Also, can you tell me if Draft:Anil Kumar Pandey is about the same person as the deleted Anil Pandey? Finally, it would be worth checking if Late Life: The Chien-Ming Wang Story (film) is in any way similar to the deleted Late Life: The Chien-Ming Wang Story. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Blocked as a sockpuppet and deleted G5.
 * 2) Two completely different people.
 * 3) There are similarities between the two articles. Furthermore, has created two other promotional "articles": Quorum (software) and Equipboard. I wouldn't be surprised if they were also a spammer. MER-C 13:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello. What about Hims, Inc., is it about the same topic as Hims (company)? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. MER-C 08:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Name
After writing, I want to ask: what does your name mean? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I once had an interest in space exploration and in particular, Mars. I should get a username change, though - I expect to stick around for a lot longer. MER-C 19:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Deleting the Adnuntius article based on criterion A7
I noticed that you deleted the Adnuntius article that existed based on the A7 criterion: No indication of importance.

The Adnuntius article was listed to fill the links that existed on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emediate

It seemed to me that if the Emediate page should exist, so should the Adnuntius page, as Adnuntius is now the new owners of Emediate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonemaster (talk • contribs) 15:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It isn't surprising that Wikipedia, as a volunteer service, is full of crappy articles that shouldn't exist which we haven't got around to deleting yet, and yes, Emediate is one of them. I have nominated for deletion. Do you have any connection with this company? MER-C 17:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I have a connection with Adnuntius. I work there. Tonemaster

Please see
This edit by. The history at Tether (cryptocurrency) (before the GS notice) and the discussion at the talk page might interest you as well. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... clearly inappropriate but a problem I take on rarely. I'm not entirely sure what sanction(s) to issue - 48 hour block and/or indefinite topic ban? The problematic behavior is not limited to cryptocurrencies. I suggest asking someone who has more experience in dealing with battleground behavior - TonyBallioni perhaps. MER-C 16:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Battle for Dream Island
Hey MER-C, I would like to thank you for deleting Draft:Battle for Dream Island. Back in 23 November 2018, I thought about making that page. When I was putting it up in the Article Wizard, It sent to that page that was already created, so I had a head start. I expanded the draft. Way bigger. Way later that day, the draft was being destroyed. A user requested the draft to be deleted. Hell in a Bucket rejected the submission, CD (CommonsDelinker) removed the logo, and some user i forgot its name (it’s not a IP user) erased all my hard work, it hurt me real bad, but I just let it slide, because the page was getting destroyed. Till then, It finally got deleted. Then later a IP user recreated the draft, I saw on my watchlist, I didn’t even bother. I had figured it will get deleted again, it did, deleted. Recreated again, deleted, Something has to be done. Maybe prevent the page from being created? Do something you can. Thanks, HappyINC. HappyINC (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have indeed protected it from recreation. MER-C 16:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Submission of draft Draft:Daniel Erickson
It looks like the account User:Neelsau which you blocked, has just submitted the draft you moved to draft space again without improvements via the IP. Do you want to block the IP (it has only been 50 mins since the IP's edits)? Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 09:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know if the IP is definitely connected, but it seems strange that they would only make two edits and those two edits to the draft (without actually improving it). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 09:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Dynamic Indian IP, Reliance Jio. Probably not worth blocking, given how quickly IPs in that part of the world change hands, but it confirms that the draft is spam. MER-C 09:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
   

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 03:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Category:Crimean Tatar heroes CFD discussion
MER-C, Thank you for helping to clear out the backlog in categories for deletion. You closed this discussion as delete a week ago but the category remains. I'm happy to tag it for deletion for you but, as the nominator, I didn't want to take action without your OK. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's been listed at the manual page for emptying before deletion (it was requested in the debate, I put it there just to be safe). MER-C 17:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! RevelationDirect (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Notification on my talk page
Hi, can you please explain why you have posted the recent notification on my talk page (and logged my name on a list)? I have not edited *any* articles on those subject matters (to my memory; there is a small possibility I may have years ago and don't remember). I have only just recently posted on a talk page and did so because I saw a notice inviting comment to an RfC. I feel like I am being unfairly singled out. I had already seen the notice at the top of the talk page; your putting an additional notice on my talkpage was not necessary and frankly, somewhat intimidating. Do you do this with every new participant in a talk page on these subject areas? Oska (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are not being singled out. All of the other participants got the same notice, some not from me. The Bitcoin Cash/Bcash dispute is external, was imported into Wikipedia, is petty, is one of the reasons why the article has been protected and has been burning slowly on Wikipedia for the last year. While I appreciate the outside input and was unaware the RFC was advertised elsewhere, if you are going to substantially participate in this topic area you need to know the sanctions exist. I cannot assume you have read the notice on the talk page. MER-C 19:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you telling me that every new contributor in this area, even if it's just on a talk page, is receiving this notice? If so, I see this as a practice hostile to participation. The notice being placed on one's personal talk page and a username recorded in a list, when the contributor has (so far) done nothing wrong, is intimidating, despite whatever wordings are included about 'not being singled out'. It very much feels like you are being singled out.
 * Usually notices are used to serve as warnings when a contributor has started to step outside the lines. To use personally directed notices in advance of any bad behaviour feels wrong to me. We should assume good faith first until there are signs that that assumption was misplaced in the instance of a particular user. Oska (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No. You got yours because you waded into the Bitcoin Cash/Bcash dispute. Most of the warnings have been handed out for creation of promotional articles or drafts i.e. the primary reason why the sanctions exist in the first place. There is a zero tolerance approach taken towards promotion, conflicts of interest, whitewashing and use of unreliable sources because literally billions of dollars have been lost in cryptocurrency scams. I don't want Wikipedia being used for securities fraud (especially pump and dump). MER-C 20:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I am quite dissatisfied with this answer. Firstly, suggesting that I 'waded' into a dispute. I did not wade into anything; I responded to an RfC on an article on which I had never previously edited or joined in discussion on the talk page. I made my response; the response was quite neutrally worded and, in my opinion, a sensible one. That would have been where things would have ended for me. However, I was then jumped on by the two editors who had previously responded by choosing the other provided RfC option to the one I chose. One alleged that I was engaging in 'blatant original research'. The other indulged in a lot of wikilawyering time-wasting objections, not dealing with the substance of my answer but trying to discount the substance by discounting the sources (despite my sources including references to original sources).
 * Secondly, you appear to be lumping me in with people who have engaged in 'promotion, conflicts of interest, whitewashing and use of unreliable sources' and also people who have used wikipedia for securities fraud. If this is what you are doing or even insinuating then that is a very serious accusation and I am more than unimpressed that you are going there. Please clarify your position before I take this further. Oska (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The implication in your latter paragraph was not my intention. I apologize. In hindsight, I have realised that I should not have issued the warning either. I'll retract it. MER-C 19:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the apology and for retracting the warning. I'm happy to leave it here now. I actually got a bit upset from this affair and took a little time out from wikipedia to calm down. I've never been accused of pushing any agenda on wikipedia before and so getting the notice when I had just commented on a talk page (after seeing the RfC advertised) was a bit of a shock. Even though I've followed the bitcoin story quite closely for years now and have been a wikipedia editor for all that time I've never made edits to any articles in this area (and still haven't, although I might now on the discussed article). Anyway, have calmed down now and appreciate your mature response in re-evaluating the action you took. Oska (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Winter Paralympics
Hey, I screwed up and deleted Portal:Winter Paralympics when D-Batching the results of Portal:Winter (totally forgot that Special:Prefixindex would also pull unrelated things starting with Portal:Winter, not just subpages). I !voted in the Winter Paralympics discussion, so it probably shouldn't be deleted per me. Can you reverse your close, and I'll undelete the portal? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. MER-C 08:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

account creation backlog
I didn't want to suggest this at the discussion because I have no idea whether this idea has already been proven hateful to the community, and I agree with you on 'pruning the bureaucracy.' But: is there any merit in the idea of a sort of 'pre-admin' level that would carry with it the expectation that a person who wants to be an admin show work in dealing with backlogs at places that don't require an admin but have significant backlog issues? Maybe not even an official "level" of bureaucracy, I don't know. Maybe it could be the kind of thing that RfA voters are encouraged to consider? It feels like a lot of people who want to be admins kind of try to clerk notice boards in an attempt to be visible, and that just doesn't seem all that useful. I'm really just thinking out loud. Feel free to ignore me if I'm being an idiot. --valereee (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There are already noticeboards with backlogs that can be tackled by non-admins that have slightly "special" clerk statuses, such as Copyright problems, Contributor copyright investigations and Sockpuppet investigations, and some that admit experienced non-admin closures, such as Categories for discussion. Lack of admin tools can be worked around by CSD G6 tagging. Is/should there be more of them? I don't know. Unbundling the tools is a perennial proposal. MER-C 20:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm a proponent of unbundling as much as possible, but I've found life is more peaceful when I don't stick my oar in lol --valereee (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * You're welcome. MER-C 20:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Cheers and thanks

 * And a sincere thank you to you as well for dealing with spammy shit more than I do. MER-C 16:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Kochartech redirected to Draft/Kochartech
Hi, MER-C, why did you redirected kochartech to draft folder. Let me know the reason and solution to publish this on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabhsahni (talk • contribs)
 * See WP:PAID, WP:NOTPROMO and WP:COI. I am not here to help you promote your employer - quite the opposite, actually. MER-C 12:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User blocked for sock/meatpuppetry (see ). MER-C 12:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Mail
--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Reinstating the article on Somdip Dey
Mer-C, recently you deleted an article with title, "Somdip Dey" because the article was created by a banned user. But the conetent of the article seemed relevant to artificial intelligence and computer science topic. The topic itself also seems notable. Shouldn't the article get the opportunity to remain on Wikipedia given the notability criteria? GeekDude92 (talk)
 * No. It was paid-for, but undisclosed, advertising. MER-C 18:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I was not aware of that. All the best.GeekDude92 (talk)

CoinMarketCap
Hi mer-c, i want to write about crypto and blockchain becos it is what interests me. i'm not here to promote anybody.n i write what i find interesting ok? you can check CoinMarketCap on google.com, every trader, investor, enthusiast know CMC. I dont know your problem with the article. there are refernces there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animunie marie (talk • contribs)


 * 1) Please use grammatically correct English. This is the English Wikipedia, you are expected to be competent in written English.
 * 2) You were directed to Identifying reliable sources and were explicitly told that "Cryptocurrency enthusiast websites, social media and the company's own website are not reliable sources". Many cryptocurrency websites carry undisclosed advertorial content, reprinted press releases and/or do not exhibit critical thinking. Draft:CoinMarketCap only cited one reliable source (and 3 crypto ones). HYGH only cited crypto sources. By citing crypto sources, you are regurgitating blockchain/crypto hype. That is promotional and not allowed. MER-C 11:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

FPC suggestion
If you haven't yet gone through c:Category:Featured pictures by User:Poco a poco (617!!), I'm sure many of his great images would be fairly easy nominations here on WP. Diego Delso is easily the best and most prolific high-end photographer on Commons. Have a good day. Geoffroi (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I mention this to you because I'm expecting to lose internet access within the next few days, and I might not get it back for a month or two. Geoffroi (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I am aware of his photos, yes. However many of the architectural shots have lens distortion, slightly overdone high dynamic range imaging or miscellaneous issues (e.g. see right of File:Colina de las Cruces, Lituania, 2012-08-09, DD 12.JPG). It's not an automatic yes. MER-C 16:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I should have known you'd be familiar with his works. As regards the issues you mention, I don't doubt that you can pick out his best work and get it passed here as easily as the nominations I've seen here by you usually do. Thanks again. Geoffroi (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Aragon (project)
Hello,

I wanted to ask for further clarification on why the page was moved into Draft as per your revision of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Aragon_(project)&oldid=897819712 ?

And also why I have been added to the Log of notifications?

I have disclosed my affiliation with the project on the user page as well as on the article Talk page.

The article should have a sufficient amount of reliable sources, very few self-sources and meet the notability and content policies.

I also don't understand and reject the notion of "blocked editor collaborating with covert advertising sockfarm" which is totally false, I have never done such a thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatu.karki (talk • contribs)
 * I am referring to, who accepted your submission and was blocked for corruptly accepting undisclosed paid-for advertisements. You are also advised to read this, which states that "Any celebrity or other individual who promotes a virtual token or coin that is a security must disclose the nature, scope, and amount of compensation received in exchange for the promotion. A failure to disclose this information is a violation of the anti-touting provisions of the [US] federal securities laws." MER-C 14:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for the reply. But I nor the project has any relation to the mentioned user, including any payments to have the page accepted. Nor has there ever been any paid promotion used, celebrities or otherwise. Subject in case is an open source software project, and yes, it does have a token, but I don't see the relevance to the SEC article as it was in relation to this event. As I want to make sure that this is handled properly, what steps should there be taken to get the page back into the accepted status? Tatu.karki (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just resubmit (add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the page) and wait. MER-C 11:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Kgayhart
Hello, I'd appreciate any additional comment you might have on Kgayhart's unblock request and statements. Thanks. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The unblock request is reasonable to the extent it agrees with off-wiki information (search the username) confirming that we're dealing with undisclosed paid advocacy by a PR agency. However, therein lies the problem - why didn't they declare in the first place (as one should do with all paid advertorial content, irrespective of medium), and are they actually here to improve the encyclopedia? I'll leave those questions to you. MER-C 16:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Why?
Why was User:Stone cold Staffordshire blocked? All paid editing was declared. All rules were followed.Midlands FC fan (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No they weren't. Disclosure is necessary but not sufficient. They were using Wikipedia to promote their clients and moving the spam into mainspace in violation of the conflict of interest rules.


 * You're not a sockpuppet of that user, are you? MER-C 09:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Suggested "userspace crap search"
Hi! I've found the spam-finding notes on your userpage really helpful, wanted to suggest another: "pay per click"/"pay-per-click". I've found a good number of old promotional pages that way recently, and it has fewer false positives than "search engine optimization" (plenty of users mention they do search engine optimization, only a few mention PPC). creffett (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Added pay per click to Special:Abusefilter/354 which flags pages in real time. I don't have the time to look at these, but please also consider cost per click, cost per mille and similar advertising metrics. P.S. The SEO keyword doesn't just find content. MER-C 18:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and good suggestions! Is there any way I can make use of that filter without having to dig through the full abuse filter log (and without having edit filter viewing privs)? I search by a specific list of filters to find likely spam/promo, but 354 is hidden, and so if I manually specify the it as one of the filters I get a warning about results being hidden (presumably so that I can't piece together the filter contents by looking at what it flags). creffett (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You won't be able to see them because you are not an Edit filter helper. You should be able to see the results at Special:Tags under "possible self-promotion in userspace". MER-C 17:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Got it, I'll keep an eye on that tag. Thanks again! creffett (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Detroit Trading Wikipedia Page // Redirect Question
Greetings:

I reviewed the edit history for the Detroit Trading Wikipedia page, which was initially approved earlier in the month. I see it was placed back into draft format for the following reason:

"MER-C moved page Detroit Trading to Draft:Detroit Trading over a redirect without leaving a redirect: Quarantine paid-for spam"

Could the example of the "redirect without leaving a redirect" be provided so that we can fix? And what would be an appropriate fix in this situation?

Thank you for your consideration of this request,

Matt Clayson 96.66.42.177 (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The reason for the move is "paid-for spam", which makes it anathema to the purpose of Wikipedia. What is your connection with Detroit Trading? MER-C 16:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.

I am Detroit Trading's general counsel, and draft much of our corporate communications.

What would not constitute "paid for" SPAM? For example, I used to work at HelloWorld and helped our marketing director, AlesyaO draft our Wiki page. It was accepted. I used the same format for the Detroit Trading page, it was initially approved and then denied.

Thanks!

Matt Clayson 96.66.42.177 (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.66.42.177 (talk)
 * To save you looking, that's referring to SmartSE (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia contributors are volunteers. Our readers expect encyclopedic, reliable, neutral and independent coverage of our subject matter. Material written by the marketing department is unlikely to be any of those things. We are not interested in what a company has to say about itself but what others have to say about it. To not be "paid for spam", an article needs to be written by a volunteer who proves the topic is worthy of inclusion based on substantial coverage by reliable media outlets based only on merit (and not marketing material). You should also be aware of FTC guidelines on native advertising which requires more prominent disclosure than our Terms of Use. MER-C 13:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

MER-C - thank you for the response. Detroit Trading clients are large, sophisticated automotive brands. Our clients expect knowledgeable, innovative, responsive, attentive and value-added services of our design. Material written by either our marketing department or a *volunteer* and published on Wikipedia is unlikely to provide our clients with any of those things. We are not interested in securing new clients or sales via Wikipedia but rather want to provide additional insight into key milestones that we developed in the automotive digital marketing industry. To not be *approved* by one *volunteer editor* at Wikipedia doesn't affect or sales or marketing efforts in any way, rather it deprives those looking for key milestones in the automotive digital marketing world one less source of information. You should also be aware that a Wikipedia entry outlining key milestones applicable to the digital automotive marketing industry and recognized by reliable media outlets and trade publications is not "native advertising" as defined by the FTC in its Native Advertising Guidelines, which requires specific intent to promote a product, amongst other things.

Matt Clayson96.66.42.177 (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "it deprives those looking for... We don't care and neither do you. You're a salesman making vague references to your potential customers. We happy few that write an encyclopedia for nothing but satisfaction do not welcome your efforts. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Stanleytux sock
Regarding Rexchuqa who you – do you think they might be a WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Stanleytux sock? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't know. I couldn't find any intersection. That said, I did find another sockpuppet. MER-C 14:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Intersection: requested move & AfD vote (Stanleytux), request for undeletion (Rexchuqa) ☆ Bri (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Found another sockpuppet. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Special:Undelete/Young Stunna and Special:Undelete/Draft:Young stunna leave no room for doubt. MER-C 19:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

About a deleted article: Sheikh Abdulla Bin Mohamed Bin Butti Al Hamed
Hi how are you? a few days ago you deleted this article because it was uploaded by a user who did not have permission to do it. I want to clarify the situation: I work with Bin Butti Al Hamed, and some time ago we contacted a freelancer to make an English version of Bin Butti's article (Arabic version was established some time ago). The article was published and was three months online, it was even reviewed and (as I see now in the record) the reviewer thanked its publication. We never assumed that the editor would act illegally on Wikipedia, we always thought that the publication had been made transparently. I would like to ask you if the article could be online again; I read part of Wikipedia rules, I understand that, as an interested party, I can not make direct editions in the article, but propose them. We can do it? Thanks for your time.Myounes22 (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. If you understood and respected what the goals of this website and the volunteer community that runs it, you wouldn't have commissioned the edits in the first place. Hint 1: see the thread three items up. Hint 2: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/business/north-face-wikipedia-leo-burnett.html . MER-C 18:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. In the same article in which I read that a person related to the subject of the article can not directly edit it, I see that paid editions are contemplated in the Wikipedia rules, fulfilling, of course, certain requirements that are clearly established (and that obviously the editor we hired did not meet at all): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_disclose_a_COI. Why do you say we should not have hired someone, if this modality is regulated in Wikipedia? As for the references you point out, Bin Butti is an Arab minister, we do not try to cheat Wikipedia, we have trusted someone and she cheated us. And as the article did not have observations when it was reviewed or in the following months, we understand that there are no problems with Bin Butti's notability, nor with the references that were used.

I understand that an article with a conflict of interest may be online if that conflict is declared openly. I have no problem declaring it, and it would not have been a problem if the editor we hired had done it.

Another question, based on the thread about Detroit Trading: in that case, you did not delete the article but you transformed it into a draft, why was the article about Bin Butti directly deleted? Thanks!Myounes22 (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) Again, you're failing to understand the nature of this project. Wikipedia contributors are volunteers who write an encyclopedia for fun. Our readers expect encyclopedic, reliable, neutral and independent coverage of our subject matter. We have articles on government ministers because volunteers wrote them and deemed them worthy of inclusion. They are not official government profiles or state propaganda. By commissioning an article - which cannot fulfill our readers' expectations - you are disrespecting and degrading the work of volunteers like myself.
 * 2) Disclosure is necessary but not sufficient to edit. Paid editing is begrudgingly tolerated. Promotional editing is grounds for blocking and banning irrespective of paid status.
 * 3) Sheikh Abdulla Bin Mohamed Bin Butti Al Hamed was deleted because the person you hired was banned for promotional activity and violated their ban when posting your article. The user who reviewed the article was also corrupt and is now blocked. That wasn't the case for Draft:Detroit Trading, but I blocked the creator for posting it. MER-C 18:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I have understood the nature of the project, you are very clear, but what I still do not understand is why then there is a regulation for COI editions. I understand why paid editions are hardly tolerated by you because you are volunteers, but they are within the rules, and they are allowed if they are done transparently (otherwise, they would be directly prohibited, and it would be clearly established that any COI edition should be deleted). The reviewer is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doomsdayer520. Is he blocked? (the review was made at 13:19, 6 February 2019). So for having hired a paid editor who did things wrong, behind our backs, the article is prohibited forever in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it meets the requirements of notability, references, etc.? In summary, I have acknowledged my mistake and i am reaching out to you to correct it and do things properly. appreciate your consideration. Myounes22 (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Everyone is expected to put the interests of the encyclopedia first when editing it. Information where there is a conflict of interest is intrinsically less trustworthy than independent information. The topic is not verboten, it's just you shouldn't be writing about it. MER-C 18:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Anandmurti Gurumaa Page Deleted
Hello,

I was writing in regards with the deletion of our page Anandmurti Gurumaa.

I was informed by one of the staff at Wikipedia about the recent deletion and the reason citied was,"11:17, 13 January 2018 MER-C talk contribs block deleted page Anandmurti Gurumaa (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block, also repost of deleted material -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anandmurti Gurumaa) (view/restore) (thank)." As the page is deleted I'm unable to login into the account and check the history of the case.

I would like to apologies for any violations happened on our part. I would like make a sincere request to allow us to re-create the page Anandmurti Gurumaa. We have got an entire new team onboard who are dedicated to adhere with the regulations of all the online platforms in order to build our digital presence. Hence, be rest assured for we would follow all the rules and regulations provided by Wikipedia for recreating the article.

I would appreciate if you could look into the matter and give us a chance to rectify the mistakes we have done. I ensure we will abide by Wikipedia's guidelines.

I will look forward to your response.

Many Thanks!

Kind Regards, Kajal (123.63.148.90 (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC))
 * > Hence, be rest assured for we would follow all the rules and regulations provided by Wikipedia
 * Oh really? How does that square with this:
 * > We have got an entire new team onboard who are dedicated to ... build our digital presence.
 * Clearly, you have not made the slightest effort to understand the purpose of this website... or even read my response to the query immediately above this one. MER-C 09:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting.

I'll be honest with you, that I'm new to this section of raising and reverting to talks on Wikipedia. Please forgive if mistakes have been committed.

The mention of new team on board.. by that I meant that no room of error will be left as we would have a dedicated team solely to the task of adhering to the online rules and regulations. Previously we didn't have anyone who would take care of all these regulations. But I ensure, if allowed to re-create the article only reliable and genuine content will be uploaded which in no way would mis lead the readers. I do understand Wikipedia is not a place for marketing or promotional activities. I referred the statement in general sense, I didn't mean it otherwise.

It's a honest and genuine request, kindly allow us to re-create the article.

I would really appreciate if you give us one chance to rectify the mistakes done by us.

Thanks! (123.63.148.90 (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC))
 * If you are writing on behalf of Anandmurti Gurumaa, then creating a page on her is a marketing and promotional act regardless of whether the content is neutral. MER-C 11:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert.

I don't understand why an article on Anandmurti Gurumaa will be considered as an act of marketing and promotion irrespective of the content neutrality? Please explain.

The followers of the master would like to read about her early life, spiritual life and get inspired to make their lives more meaningful.

If an article on the master helps to change the perception of a person towards life for better than I assume it should be considered a good thing rather than considering it as a marketing act. The master works towards the betterment of the society with a selfless motive.

I would request you to please reconsider your decision and allow us to re-create the article.

Thanks. (123.63.148.90 (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC))
 * (1) The article will boost her profile and search engine rankings just by existing, because that's how search engines work. (2) Our readers expect encyclopedic, reliable, neutral and independent coverage of our subject matter. That's why it is important that people affiliated with article subjects do not make inclusion decisions. Creating an article is an inclusion decision. MER-C 17:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

There are several articles listed on Wikipedia that belongs to various spiritual leaders. If I were to name a few it would be Ravi Shankar, Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, Mata Amritanandamayi and several others. If Wikipedia can allow articles on these prominent spiritual leader then why not Anandmurti Gurumaa? Why are the pages of these prominent spiritual leaders considered to be more reliable and neutral than Anandmurti Gurumaa? Why do you think the information provided by us won't be reliable and neutral?

The page was very much active before it was deleted by you'll. No apparent reason as well was been provided. Coming back to the inclusion point, we are not the people affiliated with the article subject but infact we are the subject itself. We are writing on behalf of Anandmurti Gurumaa. It's quite obvious she won't make the request by herself, someone will raise the request on her behalf. If you want we can provide you with evidences that we aren't any affiliated people to the subject but we are the subject.

Like the readers of the above mentioned spiritual leaders, the readers of Anandmurti Gurumaa too should know about their spiritual leader's life and hopefully change their lives for better. We don't see any harm in relying true and honest information to the readers.

The reasons cited for not allowing us to create the page seems insufficient if compared with the existing articles spiritual leaders.

Thanks (123.63.148.90 (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC))
 * See Conflict of interest and Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Chances are those other articles were written by volunteers because they wanted to improve the encyclopedia and nothing else. MER-C 19:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problems at Slovak Air Force
Hello there, MER-C, and apologies if this message isn't wanted; I would pursue this elsewhere if I knew how to do it. Unfortunately, the copyright deletion template says that it should not be used for complex cases, pointing to Copyright problems; and that page doesn't seem to allow editing by IP addresses. If I blanked the page regardless, I would likely gather a knee-jerk revert for vandalism by an IP address. So I've selected you to bother based solely on the fact that you were the last person to edit the copyright problems page - the reward for a job well done is just more work, sorry.

To summarize: beginning in the section 1993 - present, almost every paragraph of the Slovak Air Force article is a copyright violation of its various listed sources. It may actually be every paragraph, but I can only check the English-language material. A great deal of the copied material is actually off topic, or only marginally related, as well. You can easily check this by doing a web search for the first sentence of each paragraph, which comes back with multiple sources, but you can just check the references in the article as well; that's where they were copied from. The topic of the article itself is obviously something that Wikipedia should have an article on, but a large portion of the article text is copyright violations.

I'm not experienced in Wikipedia's actual process for dealing with such things, but since I apparently can't use the suggested processes, I hope that you can see this gets looked at. Feel free to leave me a note if you need more information, and thank you for your time. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Listed at Copyright problems/2019 June 6. Thanks for the report. MER-C 19:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that's fast. Thanks again. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

10 edits, then a new article
Please have a look at User:Opalwilt. Edwardx (talk) 10:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Paid Edits
Hi User:MER-C, I have found one paid editor, can you review his contributions Plastiq, Mark Kendall (filmmaker) and CancerLinQ? 157.47.246.89 (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Another Paulina Larocca, Gabrielle Ryan. 157.47.246.89 (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's and . Looks like a CU might be in order. SmartSE (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, they're different people. I've already found the corresponding social media profiles. They confirm paid editing, but yikes. These are not easy blocks to make. MER-C 18:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Venezuela? If so then agreed. Hopefully they can make the necessary disclosures. SmartSE (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * hello, I have editted Plastiq, Mark Kendall (filmmaker) and CancerLinQ articles but I have not received any undisclosed payment. Cancerlinq article was reviewed by through the article for creation process, I believe these articles have been flagged for no reason and I don't know why that indian ip is accusing me of violating wikipedia terms Javieralexvr (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm terminating your editing privileges as this comment is materially deceptive. MER-C 16:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that you wrote this entirely by yourself and with no financial incentive? That seems very unlikely to me and the involvement of Stevey7788 is not a good thing either, considering they were involved in an undisclosed paid editing operation. I'm guessing that the IP is probably also a paid editor and has seen the adverts for these jobs posted on a freelancing site. Disclosed paid editing is permitted, but lying is not. SmartSE (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Ha I see it's not just me! SmartSE (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is pure bullshit. It took me thirty seconds to find this user advertising paid editing services on external websites. MER-C 17:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Spammers
Lot of linkspam that likely needs blacklist: Sockpuppet investigations/HayaKhanam. is also a ✅ spammer on that range with links that need blacklisted, but I think she's someone different and related to a different SPI that we've dealt with in the past. It also seems to be a weird mix of spambots and people. /me shrugs. All blocked, anyway. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Blacklisted. Katewinsletzx is also a sockpuppet: they spammed urdupoetryloves.com and screenprintingmachine.net (see earlier edits of HayaKhanam). MER-C 11:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Given some of the post-block posts, UTRS, and visual editor edits, these appear to be accounts that actual people edit from that they then let a spambot script run on. Really weird. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Blacklisted. Katewinsletzx is also a sockpuppet: they spammed urdupoetryloves.com and screenprintingmachine.net (see earlier edits of HayaKhanam). MER-C 11:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Given some of the post-block posts, UTRS, and visual editor edits, these appear to be accounts that actual people edit from that they then let a spambot script run on. Really weird. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Blacklisted. Katewinsletzx is also a sockpuppet: they spammed urdupoetryloves.com and screenprintingmachine.net (see earlier edits of HayaKhanam). MER-C 11:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Given some of the post-block posts, UTRS, and visual editor edits, these appear to be accounts that actual people edit from that they then let a spambot script run on. Really weird. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Blacklisted. Katewinsletzx is also a sockpuppet: they spammed urdupoetryloves.com and screenprintingmachine.net (see earlier edits of HayaKhanam). MER-C 11:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Given some of the post-block posts, UTRS, and visual editor edits, these appear to be accounts that actual people edit from that they then let a spambot script run on. Really weird. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Given some of the post-block posts, UTRS, and visual editor edits, these appear to be accounts that actual people edit from that they then let a spambot script run on. Really weird. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Deleted articles of blocked/banned user ChrisBlankC
Hi,

I'm currently going through a phase of creating Brazilian footballer articles. Don't worry, I'm sure I'll grow out of it soon. I've noticed in a handful I've created so far have come up with a banner on creation saying 16:24, 13 April 2018 MER-C talk contribs deleted page Leandro Leite (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (ChrisBlankC) in violation of ban or block) (thank). I couldn't swear they all had your name against them, but my fading memory can remember at least two. So my long-winded question is this: Is there a list of articles that you (or other admin) have deleted that were created by this user? Is it possible to see this list? I figure it may save me some time if I can get access to the deleted versions, via userification or draftification, rather than creating from scratch. I seem to recall there are rules about taking ownership for edits of a blocked/banned editor in this case, but can't remember exactly.

Anyway, let me know what you think, please. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not willing to undelete or provide copies of deleted content by ChrisBlankC because they were blocked for copyright violations (both text and images). MER-C 09:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, that's fair enough. I will recreate articles from scratch myself as required. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

List of video game developers - unprotect?
Hello MER-C, you have pending-protected the article in March 2018 for very good reasons back then. But since then attempted disruptive editing and attempted spamming have significantly decreased. And the page has 1-2 almost "regular" IP editors who make many substantial, constructive edits and don't really need our reviewing. Of course we might regret that decision later :), but would you consider removing the page protection for now? I and apparently a few other editors have the page watchlisted and should be able to handle occasional minor issues. If all things go downhill, we could simply re-protect but it might be worth a try in this situation to make life a bit easier for reviewers and these good-faith IP editors alike. GermanJoe (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I agree with you to some extent. At the same time, the underlying reason for the spamming - that random indie game studio wants to promote itself on Wikipedia - cannot be addressed by page protection. I'll unprotect for now. MER-C 10:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Will keep an eye on future developments. GermanJoe (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Sheikh Abdulla Bin Mohamed Bin Butti Al Hamed
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sheikh Abdulla Bin Mohamed Bin Butti Al Hamed. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myounes22 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of page "Paul Outlaw"
Hi, I just tried to visit a page and discovered that it has recently been deleted: 16:43, 26 May 2019 MER-C talk contribs deleted page Paul Outlaw (G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. I had made substantial edits to this page since its creation earlier in the year and was not aware that the original author had been banned or blocked. Can the page be re-instated (as it was significantly revised), or should I consider creating and submitting a new one about this artist? Thanks! --Raybusmann (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Your edits consist of adding three sentences to the article and a photo. The circumstances of the ban - violations of Wikipedia's purpose and terms of use for promotional reasons, failure to disclose paid contributions and sockpuppetry - mean that both the content and the author cannot be trusted. Speaking of which, what connections (if any) do you have with the subject? MER-C 16:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I edited a number of clumsily written sentences in the original text in addition to adding those sentences. (But I wasn't keeping a record, so I could be wrong.) I was part of a team of graphic designers on one of the subject's theatrical productions (pictured in the photo) in 2013.--Raybusmann (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * To answer your original question - I am not going to undelete the content because it was a dishonest, undisclosed paid-for advertisement. You should start a new draft from scratch and have it reviewed at Articles for creation. MER-C 10:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!--Raybusmann (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

AN notification, I think
You seem to have been mentioned here. I do not know what it is about, but thought I'd give you a heads up. Reyk YO! 14:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent, another satisfied customer. MER-C 15:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Merseyside
I'm looking to create Portal:Merseyside but noticed you deleted it 19 May 2019. Can you advise what it needs to avoid deletion? I'm also looking to create Portal:Liverpool which is currently a redirect to Portal:North West England so any advice on that would be appreciated too.--Darrelljon (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Merseyside - broadly, the portal was incomplete, unmaintained and did not do its subject justice. Portals like this usually have single digit view counts per day. Given the general purge of portals happening at the moment and some uncertainty in what subjects qualify for a portal, I advise against creating new ones. Instead, your efforts are much better focused on improving the articles within the portals' scope. MER-C 09:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)