User talk:Silvaneus

Your submission at Articles for creation
 OncLive, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!  thesimsmania  02:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Nomination of OncLive for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article OncLive 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/OncLive 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. Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Gnome de plume (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. -- ferret (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that I have been wrongfully blocked. I have been making valuable edits to Wikipedia for nearly 7 years, primarily in the tech/healthcare space. I was even just thanked for one such edit by another member. Most of my edits directly proceeding the block were to delete marketing text that had been added to a page that I had requested to be made in 2013. This page also seems to have been caught up in the block. Silvaneus (talk) 07:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Silvaneus (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Before taking any action on this unblock request, I would like you to state what connection you have to Michael J. Hennessy Associates, a company that has clearly been using multiple accounts in an organized effort to promote itself on Wikipedia. Nearly every single edit you have made since 2011 has a connection to this company, whether it is editing pages about publications owned by the company or adding links to its webpages such as onclive.com.  It is completely unbelievable that this is a coincidence.  Before 2011, your edits were highly concentrated on promoting Forward Energy Solutions and forwardenergysolutions.com.  What is your connection to that company?  -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * A lot of my edits on Wikipedia are directly tied to my interests, as these are the areas that I am most acquainted with. In 2010, I was very into energy efficiency and thought the products offered by forward energy solutions were very unique and interesting and could make a difference. This may have influenced my edits at the time although in all honesty I cannot remember that far back with great detail. In 2011 I had a cancer diagnosis in the family and was introduced to OncLive through a family physician who found the information to be reliable. I created the page as a bit of an outlet and have had it on my watchlist to update occasionally ever since. While my grandmother has since passed, I still frequent the site for business purposes--I am in biotech investments. There is physician perspective and input on the site that I do not feel is found elsewhere, as they have a number of connections to physicians and cancer centers. I believe the edits I made to pages on wikipedia were to add value, not for marketing, such as a new drug approval, label update, or other medical information. OncLive is a niche publication but it is quite well known amongst oncologists. Silvaneus (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I find that explanation entirely unconvincing. Six years worth of editing focused only on multiple publications that belong to one company just because a relative had a cancer diagnosis?  Returning to editing after a year's absence in order to edit CURE (magazine) on the same day that a flurry of single-purpose accounts are doing the same?  I simply don't find it plausible that these are coincidences.  I'm open to being wrong here, so I invite other administrators to give a second opinion.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I honestly didn't think of them as links from a single company. It is my news source in that area. As I mentioned, its gone beyond my relative to a source I use professionally. From my conversations with physicians I knew it to be reliable and felt references to it were as good as CNN or New England Journal in the space of cancer research. I'm not a hugely active editor on here. I usually have year long gaps in activity. Part of what got me editing again this year was the activity on those pages. Before it's deletion, my changes to OncLive were to delete the mountains of weird marketing text that was getting added.Silvaneus (talk) 07:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:OncLive Logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:OncLive 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) 18:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:CURE magazine logo.png


The file File:CURE magazine logo.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unused logo with no corresponding article. Out of scope. Not related to Cure (magazine)."

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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 12:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)