User talk:Mbarywiki

Mbarywiki, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Mbarywiki! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Dathus (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Cumming, Beisel & Partners

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 Cumming, Beisel & Partners requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. reddogsix (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Cumming, Beisel & Partners. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. reddogsix (talk) 02:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove all content from pages without explanation, as you did with this edit to Wikipedia:MTR. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. Hayman30 (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Dustin Cumming

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 Dustin Cumming requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. reddogsix (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:Dustin Cumming, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dustin Cumming for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dustin Cumming 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/Dustin Cumming 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. reddogsix (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Hello, I'm Anmccaff. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dustin Cumming have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Do not change other people's words unless there is a clear reason to do so, and then show that a change has been made. Don't vote twice. Anmccaff (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Anmccaff. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dustin Cumming that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Anmccaff (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anmccaff. I wanted to let you know I have a nice essay called How newbies see templates. Next time, say why it is not constructive in your own words, not just dishing out jobsworth boilerplate that newbies don't get. Thank you. I can't see anything wrong with this comment, they are disagreeing with you politely. It seems like you are biting the newbies. If I see repeated behaviour, I may be forced to block you for disruption (Anmccaff, not Mbarywiki) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does it say anything about how spammers see templates, @Ritchie333:? That would surely be far more relevant here. If you saw anything worthy of blocking, then please open it at ANI now, rather than play knight-errant here.

I suppose you also saw nothing wrong with this edit? Anmccaff (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me; then again, I'm more interested in getting 100 confirmed GAs before the year is out. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive, especially because it's obviously one hand typing. Do you use the dominant hand for patting yourself on the back, or vice-versa? Anmccaff (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ritchie333 with regard to the comments by Anmccaff, I am a new volunteer trying to contribute. You have been respectful and gracious and I apologize to you that you would be subjected to name calling. I should note, that this user was blocked apparently before. Is cyber bullying in keeping with protocols on Wikipidia? Mbarywiki (talk) 06:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you work on core articles, particularly sourcing, writing and copy editing, then things aren't so bad. It's the project discussions mainly where things get a bit hot headed. See Talk:Georgina Downs for a similar incident. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ritchie333, thank you again. Just read the Talk: Georgina Downs page, and I agree: "there is at least one Wikipedia editor with some common sense." As a journalist and teacher, I am edited numerous times a day, and the more open you are to criticism, the better you are as a writer. Thank you again for your invaluable feedback. Mbarywiki (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article's been kept for now. If you're a writer and teacher, you're probably the right demographic to do lots of serious Wikipedia writing - if you have the time and patience. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 I am grateful for an invaluable learning experience from everyone involved. I will contribute much more, and I hope to inspire and encourage my college-aged students do the same with classroom assignments. Wikipedia is a valuable resource of information. I am truly honored to contribute to such an important community, and apologize again if any of my mistakes or omissions offended anyone. With thanks and gratitude. Mbarywiki (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of edit summaries

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North America Thank you. I will absolutely do so from now on. Is there a way to go back and add the notes retroactively?? Mbarywiki (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it helps out. This was in part in regard to the Jim Weatherly article. You can perform dummy edits to add Edit summaries afterward. Check out Help:Dummy edit for more info. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North America I have added notes as requested and will do so going forward, without exception. Tomorrow I will look at the dummy edit instructions. Thank you again. I am new to Wikipedia, but have a lot of professional writing experience. I look forward to learning the ropes.

References

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Mbarywiki. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing. Your edits to date are very promotional with regard to Cumming, Beisel & Partners and Sherry Argov, and it appears that you know subjects of articles you have worked on, are a freelancer editing for pay, or work for a PR agency.

Specifically:

for Cumming, Beisel & Partners
- You created Cumming, Beisel & Partners which was deleted for being promotional.
- Dustin Cumming is an article you created and developed to look like this. The sourcing is terrible and the content is promotional.
  - In defense of that article article at AfD, bludgeoned the discussion per the edit count, which included editing another user's comments, personally attacked that editor, and ~possible~ use of a sock per this (was filed and found not technically same, per this)
- on Monty Beisel, you made these promotional edits
- on Jeffrey Hyland, adding a link to cbluxuryre.com
- on Million Dollar Listing Los Angeles, adding a promotional section referring to the firm, and a bunch of spammy external links to the firm's website.
- Selling LA. created and edited a ton, all promotional. not directly connected to Cumming, Beisel & Partners... yet?
- Holmby Hills, Los Angeles added spam link here referring to Cumming

added 100% advertising content to Why Men Love Bitches and the parallel promotional edits to Sherry Argov, the author of that book, in these diffs

these edits to Jim Weatherly appear OK to me

None of that matches up with these statements about being I am a teacher, and I was trying to develop my skills on Wikipedia so I could teach my college students how to contribute also.. These are very commercial edits, systematically made.

I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Mbarywiki. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies.

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with subjects about which you have edited, directly or through a third party (e.g. a PR agency or the like)? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works.

If you have some connection, and if you have been freelancing or working for a PR agency, please disclose it so things can move forward. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog I HAVE NEVER WORKED FOR A PR AGENCY. Not at any time in the past, and not in the present. Not as a "freelancer" and not in any capacity, whatsoever. I have not profited one dime from Wikipedia. No such evidence could ever be produced because I have never been paid. You cited five article subjects above. I have made edits to many more pages. I also teach the students how to write ad-copy, for magazines. You seem to be suggesting my edits are not objective in tone and that is fair. But the totality of the accusations I have faced seems disproportionate. It does not create an environment conducive for learning. The perception issues started when I wrote a page for Cummings & Beisel. I would like to explain why I wrote about a business. Last year, I gave an assignment to my class to write a Yelp page or a Google maps page. These two apps (google and Yelp) require that the new page be for a business, not an individual. Wikipedia has the opposite policy. It is a violation of Wikipedia's rules to write an article about a business. I learned that this was not in accordance with Wikipedia's policy. Since then, I did not make a mistake. I've been accused of COI and then I was accused of focusing too much on entertainment, and was subjected to so much character assassination that I had to take a break from Wikipedia. Due to school starting in September (I am a teacher) I could not contribute in early September. Yesterday, I made an edit to a medical page and I thought "No, they can't bully me because its not entertainment related." Apparently, it started a firestorm because apparently user: Doc James was offended that I edited his medical content. I think I edited five words on a Parkinson's Disease page. (My father died of Parkinson's and I have read extensive literature about it. As his primary caregiver for 12 years either, but I did learn a thing or two about the disease from leading experts, so I thought I could help. He took Seroquel, which is an anti-dopamine agent that landed him in the hospital. In my naivete, I thought I may help someone else from making the same mistake.) Rather than just undo my edits, Doc James took the following actions: (a) he logged onto several pages I edited that had nothing to do with medicine; (b) he added a notice on these pages suggesting that I profit or receive compensation for my contributions; (c) he then reduced several articles and whittled them down to one sentence; and in doing so, (d) he deleted my work as well as the work of several editors before me. That seems punitive and malicious. When I saw all the notices that Doc James added to recent pages and the latest round of accusations, I had to leave my office and come home to respond because I couldn't let my students see me so upset. I thought, "What if I used these articles as an example for my students? I would have been totally humiliated." I started this process wanting to learn the ropes so I can teach my students how to contribute as part of the curriculum--I now will tell my students to avoid this Wikipedia platform at all costs. You call it "biting the newbies?" but I call it cyber-bullying, and the fact that any of my students could be subjected to this amount of character attacks for making editing errors on Wiki--it does not create an environment conducive for learning. I am a teacher. This amount of cyber-bullying and punitive editing is NOT reasonable. This experience will be shared with other teachers and administrators, and I will fight hard to strike the Wikipedia page assignment. I do not feel that I should apologize for trying to learn something new, because making mistakes is a part of learning. I have never insulted anyone intentionally, nor have I taken any malicious steps to get into edit wars or engage in "punitive" editing. If you don't believe me, I'm sorry. I've tried to learn something new, and if I wasn't good at it, so be it. Mbarywiki (talk) 06:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Four main responses:

1) The following is false: It is a violation of Wikipedia's rules to write an article about a business..

2) What you write about Doc James is not true and does not reflect well on you.

3) Most importantly, your explanation of your editing about the real estate company and the author and her two books isn't credible. As I noted above, you edited on both topics very methodically across several articles, and all of it was very promotional. The editing is very typical of what we see freelancers and PR people do all the time here. We see this all the time.

4) I (and other experienced editors here) are not going to listen much to your claims about what you do in the real world or about your personal life, because on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog and we have no process, and no interest in developing a process, to verify what people say about themselves. What we look at are edits, and I raised questions here because, as I noted, your editing has been exactly like that of a freelancer or PR person.

I posted here hoping to hear something that made sense, so that I could work with you, but that is pretty apparently not going to happen.

This matter has already been escalated to the Conflict of interest noticeboard at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Mbarywiki and the community will take it from there. You are invited to participate there. You don't need to repeat what you wrote here because I will link to this conversation there. Jytdog (talk) 06:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog (talk) I understand that you want to know about the edits I've made. I am not in the PR business, in any way, shape or form. I was trying to get away from entertainment articles. Yesterday, the book pages had "stub" notices and the stub pages specifically asked for more citations and references. I did not create the author page, and I was not the last editor on the author page. I did not see any notices indicating it was was marked as improper. I responded to those posted notices "this is a stub page, please add references." I took the same content already appearing on the author page, verified the references, and supplemented the references on the book pages. I did so to fulfill the posted request "This is a stub page, please add references."Mbarywiki (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. You are not engaging with the reality of the edits you actually did, which were methodical and thorough - going from article to article relevant to the real estate company -- as well as explicitly promotional. Your edits about the author and her two books were the same. Somebody who is just experimenting and learning does not edit this way. You are not addressing what you actually did, and what you are writing here remains not credible. Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog (talk I do understand your criticism. I hear you. When I created the Selling LA page, I looked at the Selling NY page as my guide. When I worked on the Shery Argov page, I looked at "He's Just not into you" and the author's page Greg Behrent. If you look at those pages I used as my guide, they sound promotional. I thought the "monkey see, monkey do" approach was a safe way to go. I transferred content from the author page to the book pages because the book pages were "stub" pages and invited revisions and references. I thought it was "safe" to use content that nobody flagged. During this whole process, I was focused on how to do a heading with two ==equal marks, how to do boxes, how to hyperlink, how to bold, how to italicize, how to link to another page--whether the text is blue or red and what it means--when you are learning codes for the first time and you are not code-savvy, its daunting.I should have been focused on the tone of the content and whether it was sounded too promotional? In retrospect.... you are right. But I was modeling my pages after other similar pages that I found on Wikipedia and that are still posted as I write this. I was never told my tone was improper. I was told that I was focusing on real estate shows too much. If Wikipedia does not want me to to contribute, that may be better for the best. Being treated like this is not rewarding and its not good for my health. I think its too easy to be hurtful on the internet, when you cannot face the person and see how deeply the unkind behavior is affecting them. I just don't want to be the target anymore. If you would like to completely remove the pages I worked on and wipe them off your site, be my guest. Do whatever you want.I am not attached to any of the contributions I made. Life is too short and life is too precious. I'm not willing to be treated like this anymore. Mbarywiki (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that you followed examples you found in Wikipedia; that makes total sense. But that is still not on point; it does not explain what could have driven you to be so focused and methodical in touching every article relevant to the real estate company and likewise the author. Again it is the care you took -- the methodicalness - that is not explained by what you have written. I have no way to understand why anyone would focus like that, and generate such commercial content in doing so, except for some external interest driving them.

Again I do not know you, and I cannot know you, and I have no desire to harm you. All I can see are your edits, which have violated several of our policies. I wrote here looking for an explanation, and hoping to help you. But I cannot help you when your story makes no sense. That is the problem. Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more explanation about conflict of interest in Wikipedia. This stuff matters. It is about the integrity of Wikipedia - about whether or not people can trust what they read when they come here.

People with a COI can be part of the community, but they have to work with the community to have the COI managed. That starts with disclosing the COI, and from there it goes to submitting proposed edits for peer review before they are published. It is not OK for people with a COI to edit directly and to not disclose their COI. People with a COI tend to edit promotionally, in way that violates our policies, and that discredits Wikipedia and harms readers by presenting them with content that is actually advertising. (My first edit to Wikipedia was removing an ad from article -- I had come here because I needed to learn something for my job, and was just aghast when I came across the ad -- it was just so.. crass and ugly. (and so obviously was not trying to present objective information)

We have had big problems with COI editing that has been covered in major media, to the extent that we have an article about it - see Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. PR companies had been part of the problem; some of them decided to try to become better citizens, and generated this: Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms. Some people and PR companies remain outside the pale. That is bad for everybody.

That is the context here. Your edits look exactly like a PR person's edits. Exactly. Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog (talk Its unfortunate that the companies and opportunists pose as unpaid editors. I will read the articles you shared this evening. If someone had told me "your edits sound like the way a PR person writes" I would have gladly worked on it and considered it a constructive criticism to have that feedback, and I appreciate this honest input and I would teach it to the students as the first order of business with review of the articles you shared. I was never told this quite as directly -- reference to COI is not as clear. I probably do need to work on sounding less like a PR person, as you described. I think your question regarding my pattern of edits is separate than the issue of tone (promotional). I was focused on the two subjects because I wanted to use it as a sample in the classroom and I wanted it to be better before I use it as a sample in a lecture. I did not feel confident so I circled back to edit repeatedly. I was thinking of how to present an assignment. With students ages 17-22, you lose their attention if you talk about something too dry or boring. A popular TV show or popular books--keeps them engaged. I'm probably not going to hold their attention with a serious war page or medical journal. If I made too many mistakes, and Wikipedia wants to delete every page because my editing was deficient in some way, and block me, I accept this outcome. I have to go to work shortly, I don't log onto Wikipedia from work. Thank you again for your feedback.Mbarywiki (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, and the Wikipedia software converts that into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons, which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What has flagged your editing is the methodical focus across several articles for each topic (the company and three people connected to it and the TV shows etc etc), and the promotional tone, and the terrible sourcing. There is nothing in your edits about providing well-sourced, neutral content to readers, and everything about burnishing the image of the company and the author. The edits were commercial/promotional and systematically so. The methodical editing of several articles is not "circling back" but rather moving across WP to promote the company and the author methodically. Again this is exactly what PR people do, all the time. Methodical editing of all the related articles with promotional content and bad sourcing. That's the PR package.

I'll invite you to read User:Jytdog/How which is my effort to provide a brief-as-possible orientation to the mission of WP and how this place actually works. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog (talk Your article about the mission and rules was very helpful, thank you. I wish I had read this article sooner. I will read this article several times and the others you sent by tomorrow after a good long sleep, so I can really absorb it. I will contribute in a more neutral way if permitted. I do see the error of my ways, but still hope I can make a meaningful contribution. Thank you. I appreciate your time and I respect your principles.Mbarywiki (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you found it useful. However, I still do not believe you are being honest with us. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Sherryargov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dustin Cumming for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dustin Cumming 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/Dustin Cumming (2nd nomination) 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. Anmccaff (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Selling LA

The article Selling LA has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2017

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. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:22, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]