User talk:Bbarmadillo/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Welcome!

Hello, Bbarmadillo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! : Noyster (talk), 13:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 13 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Piroxicam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression. 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) 09:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tenoxicam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spine. 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) 08:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 1 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reach (brand), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colgate. 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) 14:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bbarmadillo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Rentier (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Please disclose all contributions you made in exchange for a payment as soon as possible. Rentier (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. My paid contributions have been disclosed. One of the articles has been deleted before I was able to dislose my affiliation. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Marisa Peer

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Marisa Peer, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Jim Adler for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jim Adler 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Adler 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 ) 19:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Reach (brand)

The article Reach (brand) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Blatant advertising. COI. Possible paid editing. If anything, belongs as an item under parent company.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. John Nagle (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

John Nagle thank you for the notification. Reach (brand) is not a paid entry. It is a legendary American brand with a history. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: User:Bbarmadillo/sandbox has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Bbarmadillo/sandbox. Thanks! Sulfurboy (talk) 21:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Please stop spamming

Please stop asking every reviewer to review your draft. If it has been submitted, it will be reviewed in due time. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joe Ikhinmwin has been accepted

Joe Ikhinmwin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-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!

Sulfurboy (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cold Water Cowboys has been accepted

Cold Water Cowboys, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-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!

AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Cold Water

It's looking good nothing missing that I can see it formatted as it should be JMichael22 (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@JMichael22: Ok, thank you. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Bbarmadillo/Paolo Costagli

Hi Peter, looks like you saved this on your user page by mistake. --JAMillerKC (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@JAMillerKC: you mean it should be turned into draft? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd say it's fine where it is, but when you're ready to submit just place {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page. Primefac (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac: Ok, ty. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, what I meant was the page name is now User:Bbarmadillo/Paolo Costagli and should just be Paolo Costagli.--JAMillerKC (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@JAMillerKC: it is a draft now, not yet submitted for the AfC. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Got it, my apologies.--JAMillerKC (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paolo Costagli has been accepted

Paolo Costagli, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-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!

 — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
@Mr. Guye: Thank you very much for approving the article. I plan to work a bit more on this article (wording and shortening). -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bbarmadillo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Babak Hodjat has been accepted

Babak Hodjat, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-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!

Theroadislong (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
@Theroadislong: Thank you for reviewing Babak Hodjat article. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Reid Collins & Tsai has been accepted

Reid Collins & Tsai, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-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!

!dave 14:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@My name is not dave: thank you very much for reviewing this article. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
You're welcome. !dave 14:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Marisa Peer has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Marisa Peer. Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Dial911: Thank you for taking a look at the article. I am sorry, but I don't understand your comment. There is a COI tag at the article's talk page that gives all the information about this task that I have. I wrote this article from scratch and published to Wikipedia. I have no information about other editors who worked on the article or the nature of their edits. This article was deleted because the COI has not been stated (my bad). I asked the editor to recover the article to my userspace and reworked it, adding more information. Hope it helps. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marisa Peer has been accepted

Marisa Peer, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-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!

Dial911 (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Dial911: thank you for reviewing the article. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for your message on my talk page - I'll have a look at the article shortly. Just one thing, your user page declares your conflicts of interest but not paid editing, which needs to be done more formally. The simplest way is to use the Template:Paid and it would be helpful if you could have two separate lists of those articles you just have a COI with, and those you have been paid (broadly construed) to edit. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I have done a quick review of the article, there were plenty of words and phrases that were not neutral as well as overlinking and unnecessary headings.
But the biggest problem I see is that the "history" section was purely (and is still almost completely) a list of 'most popular' pieces or achievements. This is the kind of list a website or publication would write about themselves. A history should include facts about when and where it started, who is involved, and perhaps a brief overview of key achievements (as well as any key criticisms or problems), but at this stage, that section is not at all neutral and encyclopedic.
Overall, the article needs more third-party sources, that is, what do other published, independent sources say about it (not about one article, but about the site as a whole) - if these can't be found, then perhaps the notability tag which you removed (side note - as a paid and COI editor you should let someone else do this, not you) should be reinstated.
Finally, as a paid editor, you are kindly asked to suggest changes on the article's talk page (using the Template:Request edit) rather than editing the article directly. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Melcous: Thank you for your edits and comments. Will take them into consideration and act accordingly. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
@Melcous: please check my userpage. I've tried to add two articles to template and it doesn't seem to work. :{ -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:The National Memo

A tag has been placed on Draft:The National Memo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

article already exists here The National Memo

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Theroadislong (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The National Memo October 07 2011.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The National Memo October 07 2011.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) 18:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The National Memo

Now that the other editor's objections have been assuaged, please feel free to reopen a new edit request containing your proposals for this article, at your earliest convenience. Regards, Spintendo ᔦᔭ 23:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Spintendo thank a lot for your edits. You are an awesome editor! -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Arctic Zero

Why should 'the guy who wanted to have this article on Wikipedia' particularly want to contact you? In view of the circumstances of the deletion, please start a new article from scratch. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Ok, thank you. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Don Morrison (mountaineer) (January 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
There is much here which is acceptable but a lot of unsourced content which gives opinions or is original research. Each and every statement of fact requires a source as a paid editor you should be fully aware of that.
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.
Theroadislong (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


Teahouse logo
Hello, Bbarmadillo! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply to your Articles for Creation Help Desk question

Hello, Bbarmadillo! I'm Jcc. I have replied to your question about a submission at the WikiProject Articles for Creation Help Desk. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: DiCamillo Bakery has been accepted

DiCamillo Bakery, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Bkissin: thank you for reviewing DiCamillo's! -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: William T. Reid, IV has been accepted

William T. Reid, IV, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-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. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

!dave 10:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I should note, as a warning, that this was scraping the barrel for notability. One solid source discussing him, the rest more than passing mentions but nothing too solid, just about good enough. It should be alright. !dave 10:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
My name is not dave thank you for reviewing the article. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Information icon Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to The National Memo. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Stop asking volunteer editors for technical assistance in using Wikipedia tools that apparently you aren't using effectively. I don't know what the technical problem is, but it isn't up to real volunteer editors to help you change a few words in order to make the article a better advertisement for your blog, when Wikipedia is not for advertising. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I will WP:Assume good faith in your comment. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I will WP:Assume good faith in this again. Working with improving categories I see quite many articles about the US politics. So should you be my main point of contact if I encounter an article with poor or no categories? -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
No. What don't you understand? You don't seem to get it. You ask if I should be your main point of contact if you encounter poor or no categories. You again seem to be asking me to help you, who are being paid, to do your job of editing. No. If you continue to ask volunteer editors to do your work for you on behalf of your client or employer, it may be necessary to take unpleasant action. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Robert, I am doing quite a lot of work fixing categories as part of Uncategorized Task Force. This is not paid job, it's Wikipedia mainteinance. So if I am prohibited from editing anything US-polotics related, but I see a page with no categoriez or poor categories does it still apply. Or purely technical edits (adding categoriees) is OK? Thanks. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
User:Bbarmadillo - First, you have not been prohibited from editing US politics. You have only been cautioned that editing tendentiously in that area may result in a topic ban. Second, I do not plan to be the trainer or mentor or assistant for an editor who is sometimes a paid editor. Third, I am not an expert on categories, and I know that they are complex. If you want help with the technical aspects of assigning categories, you may ask for help at the Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Remember to notify

Please remember to notify editors when you mention them at the noticeboards. See the top of page at WP:COIN for the template you can use. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. My bad. I gave my comments. And looks like (I was right) the issue has been sorted out. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Response

Thank you for your message, I just wanted to respond and state that I don't have any COI editing the pages of Harvey and Eddie Newquist. I have edited both pages with their permission but don't personally know either of them. The reason the photographs are cited as belonging to Eddie Newquist but uploaded by me is because I asked him for them. (Wafflesandpancakes (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC))

Your submission at Articles for creation: Arctic Zero (February 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TeaDrinker was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
The article is a thinly disguised advertisement, with the promotional terminology framed as quotes to seem more neutral. Although there is evidence of notability and some of the criticism is included, the tone on the positive portions is glowing, while the negative is careful and considered. The second sentence of the article is an advertising claim, which is notably contested. Much of the article needs a rewrite.
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.
TeaDrinker (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
TeaDrinker thank you for reviewing the article. Your feedback is very clear. I will work on the article further. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Whale's Voyage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Austrian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Paolo Costagli

Hello Bbarmadillo,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Paolo Costagli for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth please nominate for the normal deletion or remove the tag and suggest for the improvement. The article has passed AFC process and has been reviewed by an independent moderator. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I was reviewing the article as a new article (there is a bit of a backlog in reviewing them) and I started to remove all of the content from the "Philanthropy and sponsorship" section onwards as spam, but decided in the end that the whole article was too promotional, its even got 16 citations in the lead, so I think I will leave it to an administrator to decide. I can see you have put a lot of work into it. I suggest you keep a copy in your sandbox in case you want to recreate a less promotional article in future if it gets deleted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth I am ready to rework the article by removing the content that looks promotional (including the lead section). Please give me some time. - Bbarmadillo (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth please check the article again. I think I've removed most of the promotional content now. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The page is improved somewhat, and I will just leave it to the reviewing admin to decide what to do. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
There was a lot more that needed improvement, such as the name dropping and the list of dealers. I kept the key item, the work in the museum. I'm not sure about the importance of the awards. If you restore them, do so as concisely as possible, and don't put them in the infobox. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
DGG thank you for your contribution. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Follow up

Hey, just following up from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William T. Reid IV - I figured this was a more appropriate place. I appreciate your apology and kind words, and yes, I wasn't meaning that you had asked for my edits and I have been happy to do some tidying up of your work. However, I do choose to keep an eye on edits that have potential conflicts of interest because I believe in the neutrality of this project, and I would say that it does feel like too many of your paid articles have the same issues with content that is verging on promotional, as well as not being properly sourced and some questionable notability issues. After the time you have been here, this should be improving and you should know that paid editing it always going to be more heavily scrutinised. In terms of my comment about time, for example, when I follow some of your comments at Talk:The National Memo, it can feel like you are expecting volunteers to spend a large amount of time justifying their edits to you, when you perhaps should be realising that as a paid editor, the onus is going to continue to be on you to very carefully demonstrate notability and neutrality in the first place. I hope that helps clarify. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Melcous "more heavily scrutinized" is a nice word for "double standards" :) You are completely right and I am learning some lessons. Note that I don't always disagree with the edits made to my articles. Sorry again for getting personal at the WTR discussion. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to add my two cents. UNLIKE some other American lawyer articles (yes, I am full aware of WP:OSE, no need to remind me about it) that were created from one-time, zero-history accounts and contain "exactly the sort of advertisement masquerading as something else" I agree with you here, you are treated much more harshly than most of the obviously paid WP:SPAs whose useless promotional articles pass the New Page Patrol easily, and whose assumed good faith would be defended to death by a large part of the community. I guess that's the price you pay for the doing the right thing. That's not to say William T. Reid IV should not be deleted, it should, but there are tens of thousands of articles by undeclared SPAs that could be deleted first.

I disagree that stopping the flood of undeclared edits with current measures is a total utopia. Any competent management could do it overnight, but Wikipedia doesn't have a management. The flood could be stopped if the community wanted to, but it doesn't. Even the disclosure requirement was essentially imposed from the top by the foundation. There are people who troll any discussion about paid editing because some guy was blocked for promotional editing more than a decade ago. It blows my mind.

The handful of activists who want to protect the neutrality and intellectual independence of the encyclopedia are prevented from doing anything truly effective. So they (or "we") resort to doing what they can do, which sometimes amounts to scrutinizing the handful of disclosed paid editors. Rentier (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Rentier thanks. As you see, I am not giving up and not going "black hat", making my edits from this account and trying to defend them where I feel it is right. I actually agree with Justlettersandnumbers that paid edits should be clearly seen (much like media articles have "Advertising" tag). But I think there is a thin line here. I've noticed that many subjects are not on Wikipedia not because they are not notable, but because it is simply too hard for the people to make it right (knowing the rules, how to code and so on). I also think that there is no such thing as an un-biased article (possibly, some Ancient Greek history articles and even there one would see multiple sides trying to impose their point of view). Also, over time many things that started as "paid" or "advertising" become history (as an example "Marlboro Man" article created in 1954 would be a "promotional", "no depth coverage" and "passing mention", now it is history and deserves an article). This is why the community should probably not try to stop the flood. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Arctic Zero (March 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KJP1 was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Not that well-disguised! It's an ad., for a desert, and it's not suitable. Tagging for Speedy Deletion.
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.
KJP1 (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Arctic Zero

Draft:Arctic Zero, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Arctic Zero and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Arctic Zero during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

RHaworth thank you for such a clear demonstration of WP:GF. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Message

Hi Bbarmadillo, you sent me a message, an email. scope_creep (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Reach (brand) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Reach (brand) 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reach (brand) 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Splat-Cosmetica

The article Splat-Cosmetica has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

High promotional article.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. scope_creep (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbarmadillo/Archive_1&oldid=1076867876"