User talk:Pplc

Speedy deletion nomination of Henokiens
Hello Leo Fischer,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Henokiens for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox bank
Template:Infobox bank has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not opposed to deletion but then Infobox company needs to be modified, which I can't do. Leo Fischer (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Leo Fischer! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 09:07, Thursday, August 6, 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi Leo Fischer! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

-- 16:40, Monday, October 12, 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited European Athletics Association, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spar. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Swiss Private Bankers Association, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Credit, Succession and Calvin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

COI tags
Hello-thank-you for your message, and information. Yes, I do see that about starting discussion on article TP. OK then, I'll probably do that? I wasn't really sure what kind-of tag to use to alert readers and editors that there was COI/promotional work there, so that's why I put a note on the Signpost discussion. Also-yes, I did see that the article had passed your self-requested review, but I'm not sure that means that the COI should be removed? Also, I don't know if you noticed that another editor also requested that COIs be added to the EN Wikipedia articles.TeeVeeed (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo Biopole.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Logo Biopole.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Disclosures and COI tags
Hi. You inferred on Andy Mabbett's talk page that it was inappropriate for the Saidler article to be tagged with coi because the COI had been disclosed. I've no idea how you came to that logic, but disclosing a COI in no way means that a tag can't be placed on an article. Disclosing a COI does not mean that article content is neutral, which of course is the reason for the template. SmartSE (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello,


 * well I guess everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but I agree with Andy and others that at this stage it is used as a badge of shame: either an article is factual, or it isn't - and in which case whoever put the tag better get down to fixing what's wrong. I generally reject most generic, top-page tags/templates because they essentially say that whoever put them is too lazy to do the job, and the ugly, useless marks end up staying untouched for years (refimprove is probably the worst of all). But then that's my own take, and I certainly won't participate further in the discussion: I've been around for quite some time, yet I'm still waiting for one where people would have an Eureka moment and change their minds. If anything, I do feel sorry that good editors could be at each other's throat for philosophical issues rather than spend probably half the time and a tenth of the energy fixing what needed to be. Don't you agree?


 * Talking about inferences, I also could not help but notice your own "We know it was written by a paid editor whose articles have from experience been less than exemplary in terms of sourcing and NPOV." Since I did not write or even edit the article I don't really take it personnally (also, my current for-fun editing is all about sourcing), but I just wanted to make sure it wasn't some hasty remark made to win an argument and/or that you had something solid against the poor kid who wrote the piece (ok, I checked his current drafts and I do have reservations: nonetheless, I don't think it strengthened your overall argument). Cheers, Pplc (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Let's keep everything in one place please. I was speaking generally, not specifically. The disclosure is something that paid editors must do, but that doesn't mean that the content they produce is neutral and if an editor has doubts about it, then a tag is entirely justified. Yes the tag backlog is an issue, but there is no deadline etc. There's no obligation that someone adding the tag fixes the article, and many people who patrol COI-affected articles believe in the concept of WP:BOGOF in which case they are very unlikely to spend the time fixing the promotional content that someone else was paid to write. SmartSE (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If an editor has concerns, then of course s/he should act accordingly and correct what he or she thinks is wrong, like any other thing. But if the disclosure has already been done, as was the case here, then there is no need to re-disclose anything as a badge of shame: this would negate the value of self-disclosure and bring honest paid editors into a dangerous catch-22 (if I declare my CoI then the article is tagged; if I don't then it is tagged anyway. I might as well then not tag it, hide it between legitimate edits, and hope for the best. Since this happens already you understand that this is no mere thought experiment). There are plenty of other, more helpful tags that can be added directly to the problematic sections and, let's be honest, the time it takes to edit out a few lines is marginally longer than that needed to add a template.
 * I was not aware of the BOGOF piece and read it with great interest: except for a catchy title, however, I think it is off-key in a remarkable number of ways. I won't say it is wrong, because I'm sure the main author wrote from experience and is very sincere in his concern (and I do share some of it). But I would also say there's quite a bit of confirmation bias in it... mostly because the author probably never edited for money. The basic dynamics of paid editing are therefore largely ignored -or worse, misunderstood- and the whole text starts with a fundamentally wrong premise: that paid editors want their articles to be on anyone's radar (as opposite to themselves, which they certainly don't want: bullying is a real thing, and that some people's toxic behaviour could be tolerated for the Greater Good of the Cause is part of the problem).
 * I don't think there's a similar/opposite piece written by a paid editor (if yes, then please give me a link!), so maybe I should start writing it myself to shed light on the other side of the argument. Would you mind if I come back to you for reviewing and comments over the next few weeks? Pplc (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No there is absolutely no obligation on volunteer to correct anything. Ideally problems should be pointed out when the tag is added, but often this isn't feasible given the constant stream of COI-affected articles. Please knock it off with the badge of shame bullshit - there were problems with the content of the article which merited the tag, regardless of whether there was a discussion on the talk page. The whole reason the community demands disclosure is in order to address problematic content and often the first step in doing to is to tag it. You're arguing that paid editors can add whatever crappy content they like and so long as they disclose then the article shouldn't be tagged. If someone chooses not to disclose... well we all know what will happen when they are rumbled.
 * Nobody is under any illusion RE "that paid editors want their articles to be on anyone's radar" but 90% of paid editors either lack the skill or desire to write NPOV articles creating a major problem for volunteers. There aren't any essays written by paid editors that I'm aware of, but if you'd like to write something then I would read it. SmartSE (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A few weeks ago I removed a tag that was ten (10) years old. We're not in backlog territory anymore: banner blindness is a real thing, so we're left with useless tags whose only effect is to mildly impede reading - why do you think the Foundation does not even bother to show them in mobile view?
 * It seems to me that people that put a tag (PE-related or not, the problem is bigger than that) and don't spend an extra two minutes explaining the issue on the talk page do exactly what your BOGOF describes: they expect someone else to do the cleanup job. They get the feel-good moment of wagging one's finger and then move on. But that's a story between two editors, and none of them can be said to be better than the other. How about readers? How do they benefit from that standoff? I'm nowhere arguing that paid editors should be given free rein, but that this internal politics thing is both useless and likely counterproductive.
 * I'll be out and about over the next few weeks but will try to come up with something half-decent before pinging you for review. Thanks! Pplc (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Please pardon, but I am inserting myself here. Please feel free to delete this, if you like,
 * Pplc, what you don't seem to understand, is that paid editing is tolerated, not loved or really even welcomed by the en-WP editing community. This is because there is a fundamental exploitation going on with it, on several levels. I lay that out on my user page here.
 * Commercial paid editors who forget that, and start to act as thought they have "rights" to be here, and to make demands on the volunteer community, exhaust the patience of the editing community and end up blocked or banned. Especially when they start to do things like de-tag articles or directly edit to make changes that are not simple updates or vandalism corrections.
 * And pretty much everything you wrote above is from that perspective. Instead of going further down that very incorrect path, I suggest you re-think the basics of what you are doing here in en-WP.  fwiw.  Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I rather think that from the same starting point we are having (ad minima) two separate discussions on two different topics (banners in general vs. their use in paid editing scenarios in particular): as indicated earlier, I don't expect anyone here to have an eurêka moment from this type of philosophical discussion, so rather than continue being off-topic to one another we might as well leave it there for the time being.
 * On a side note, I'd like to point out that as an editor I've been around quite a bit longer than you and know what to expect from certain behaviours. If you think that moving goalposts and wielding threats according to your own likes and dislikes is a reasonable way to contribute, then you might want to reconsider the quality of your own involvement. It's not your first time, not your only time, and even if there's always a bit more tolerance for that kind of behaviour from established editors, others do notice and some others still are probably keeping tabs. fwiw. Pplc (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am aware of your background. Jytdog (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Then you'll be impressed to hear that the misundertanding and bad vibes have been cleared and that this gentleman and myself are now planning to work together on other projects. Pplc (talk) 09:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mirabaud logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Mirabaud logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:EuropeanAthletics.png
Thanks for uploading File:EuropeanAthletics.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pictet logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Pictet logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gibraltar Amateur Athletic Association


The article Gibraltar Amateur Athletic Association has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No sources, does not meet WP:ORGCRIT."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)