Jump to content

User talk:Nagle/Archives/2016/September

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


520 West 28th

I created an article that you PROD'd because someone whose article I put up for deletion tried to claim I had a COI; though I do not, you did put it up for deletion for CRYSTAL. I may or may not agree with you, but I found about two dozen more major sources, most of which discuss almost nothing but the building--I also found a significant history for the address from over a hundred years ago that could probably stand on its own (one of the key homeless shelters in NYC back in the late 1800s). Either way, I wanted to reach out and let you know, so that you knew my intentions. I didn't care about the article, as I was just playing around, but having been bullied so thoroughly by the person who brought the article to everyone's attention, I thought it'd be a shame just to let it die on those grounds. Please feel free to AFD if you still see the article as non-notable of course. I apologize for not writing anything very thorough, I was just trying something and didn't realize I'd need ten or twenty sources to assert the notability. Again, if you want to AFD, please do so! Grump International (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

User: Grump International removed your proposed deletion tag on 520 West 28th, added material about the history of that address in New York, and left in all the blatantly promotional material about the proposed condominium, which they obviously have a keen interest in keeping up. I think it's not going to be enough to deal with the specific articles of this editor. The COI account itself will need to be dealt with, as per Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Brickell_Flatiron BC1278 (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)BC278

Re: Admin Board referal

Hi John,

The admin board referral was a good call. You can look at my reply if you care to give it the time.

Just one note, which I make on the post: your summary is correct except... I've never directly edited, tagged or proposed for deletion any articles with edits by User: Grump International. Not sure how that misunderstanding happened. I know it's time consuming to check (please do), but I'm sure Grump has and would complain if it was the case.

I no longer do direct editing on articles that have anything to do with business, even those where I don't have a COI, just to avoid the possibility of any issue under WP:COI. I disclose my real identity at User: BC1278, which I do just to be sure people know I'll be publicly accountable for abiding by Wikipedia's COI policy's, especially disclosure and no direct editing. Being a "white hat" is important to me.

If you correct the record on the admin board I would very much appreciate it, as that behavior would be a serious WP violation. If you have any specific instances in mind, I'm happy to look into it and show you the pages to clear up any misunderstanding.

BC1278 (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Just looking for an update here, as I think it's not fair to leave the record uncorrected with an assertion that I edited, tagged or proposed for deletion any articles that were ever touched by Grump. I, in fact, have never tagged or proposed for deletion any article by anyone during my 18 months on Wikipedia. And I didn't make any direct edits (or even write on the Talk pages) of articles touched in any way by Grump, except if you count those involving Conduit, where I disclosed my COI and all changes I suggested were made on Talk pages. Regarding anything to do with Grump, I think I followed the correct procedures -- I tried to engage with him about his COI on his own Talk page before COIN. And I also engaged with him on the Article for Deletion proposal he made on Ronen Shilo, the founder of Conduit. Those all seem like the proper forums -- I didn't try to change anything on any article he worked on, even where the promotional issues were obvious. I just reported it.BC1278 (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278
Just a question on this: does the archiving of the ANI discussion mean no one is looking into this matter any further? If so, I found the process disappointing. By characterizing this as a feud rather than a complaint, User: Grump International suffers no consequences (e.g. he still doesn't have to disclose his COI anywhere) and I have to still deal with the tagging and AFD the editor engaged in (I believe as part of a pattern of attacks on this company, although I can't know for sure without a WP: CheckUser) which is not easy when I have disclosed a COI. My WP:AGF goes out the window, no matter how valid my point. Look, if an admin looked at this and said that there was not enough evidence to merit any action against the editor, then I'd be fine with it. I don't know exactly how high the standard of proof is. I understand why you might think this whole thing is just a pain in the ass and I am wasting your time, but please know that your actions here could be influential in promoting the disclosed COI policy in the wider world. You can look at my bio at User: BC1278 - I am in a very good position to influence a lot of tech companies to not dodge COI disclosures, precisely because they very well might get caught.BC1278 (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278
AN/I archived the discussion because the bad editor behavior has stopped. Grump International hasn't edited in article space for a week, and has said they will back off from that area. Admin action is taken to stop future bad behavior, not to punish. Wikipedia tries to assume good faith. Now, if the bad behavior resumes after they said they would stop, that would be considered worse than the original behavior. Sometimes they come back, and that usually means being dealt with more harshly. Meanwhile, don't obsess on this. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hi John, I see an issue with my Wikipedia page and I do not want to do anything that can be a COI or make the situation worse. I am officially a CEO and Intelligence Director. My official title and occupation is Intelligence Director https://tacticalrabbit.com/intelligencedirector/ It was previously in the post but was removed. Do I post it on the talk page and hope someone makes the change? Please advise. Thank you for your time and help. Everettstern (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The best thing you can do now is to leave your own article alone for a while. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

BTLS

I took a look at your contrubs after your AfD of the Bubba the Love Sponge Show page and I'm a little concerned. You repeatedly removed sourced content, engaging in an edit war with an anon. At the same time, you repeatedly warned the user for vandalism when what they were doing was reverting your removal of sourced content, not vandalism.

For someone as smart as you are and for someone who has been here as long as you have, you should know better. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, but if you exhibit this behavior again, I will report it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I had misgivings about that too, but there was so much promotional content there that something had to go. Per WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE, Wikipedia doesn't do channel guides. We'd never keep up with changes. Even Rush Limbaugh doesn't have a channel guide. Do you think the article should have a channel guide? John Nagle (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
If BLTS's affiliate list ever got to the size of Limbaugh's, then or even Bob and Tom's, then no. But since it is, what, eight stations...I think it would be acceptable. BTLS has a regional network...along with that station in Denver. Even though he is nationally syndicated, he really doesn't do well outside of Florida for whatever reason. Sourced with his affiliate list on his site, I see no problems with it....for now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Riathamus000.

If you have any additional evidence or commentary that could shed light on the matter, that would be appreciated.

Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any additional info. Most of the articles associated with that promotion are surviving AfDs, so they'll have to be cleaned up. John Nagle (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I more really meant about the possible socks themselves? — Cirt (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Most of those are dormant accounts. Some haven't edited in five years. Some are blocked. Only Emongami (talk · contribs) and TriJenn (talk · contribs) are still active, and only TriJenn is doing anything interesting. As a sockpuppet issue, this seems to be moot. John Nagle (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
The sockmaster I listed is still active within the time period to Checkuser it, and that could reveal other sleeper accounts or active accounts we haven't spotted, possibly related to the wider topic involved with the SPAs. — Cirt (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rapeandrepresentationcoversmall.gif

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rapeandrepresentationcoversmall.gif. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

ZeroTurnaround

Thought this looked like your kind of thing. ZeroTurnaround financial data just ends in 2012, all happy writing, lots of redlink editors, major contributor has vanished. Brianhe (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

4INFO is similar, but worse. John Nagle (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Department Store Editor

Hello. I have not heard from you on my talk page, as I requested for any concerns regarding my edits. I have explained in detail all of the changes I have made, I do not believe I removed any "negative" information as you say. In fact, most of the information was necessarily transferred to the parent company's page. I do not believe I have violated any terms or conditions, if you believe I have could you please explain to me exactly what I have done? I would really appreciate it, for a m quite passionate about my encyclopedia edits during my limited free time. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.148.38 (talk • contribs) John Nagle (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest and WP:PAID. It appears from your edit comments that you are editing on behalf of the Hudson's Bay Company. See [1]. Wikipedia has restrictions on that sort of thing. You can register for an account, declare your conflict of interest, and ask for edits on article talk pages. Blanking the discussion on the adminstrator's notice board [2] was totally improper, and now you're blocked. John Nagle (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Your input?

Greetings John Nagle, perhaps you could add your input here: Talk:Moller_M400_Skycar#Joint_Venture_section_of_article? Thank you. 90.44.214.96 (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. but....

Any ideas as to where I can link this blasted The Hemp Trading Company article from? Been looking all over but can't find anywhere to link it from. Been trying to think of possible link-froms. Incidentally, it was not meant to be advertising, I was looking for other examples of hemp fashion to cite alongside it but The Hempest seems to be the only other article on a similar company and that's not really a notable article. Getting a bit exasperated trying to work out how to de-orphan it. Thanks for any thoughts you can offer.... Mabalu (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Does that article pass WP:CORP? John Nagle (talk) 06:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
It's recently survived an AFD. Mabalu (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Bullied by JIDF?

Hi Nagel,

I'm a new user who has tried to be bold whilst learning the rules and trying to edit certain heavily biased pages. A number of admins have consistently reversed everything I've done, acted aggressively, failed to show any good faith, banned unnecessarily and effectively locked me out of Wikipedia. Initially I was astonished. However, after some research I discovered the existence of the 'JIDF'. They displayed a lot of information about you. I was wondering if there was anyone I could contact to complain to about this and to find out what is going on. These editors seem to work together to back each other up and, because of the way Wikipedia is structured, progressing any sort of complaint becomes impossible.

Many thanks159.15.128.174 (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to edit in controversial areas, please register an account. Your editing history matters on Wikipedia. As for the JIDF, they seem to be inactive, if not defunct. John Nagle (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Bartmann Page

Hi John,

I noticed that you recently flagged Bill Bartmann's page for sounding like an advertisement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Bartmann I have worked with Bill off and on over the years and have done some writing for him. If possible, I'd be very interested in your pointing out the specific areas that you thought came across as too promotional. I'm pretty sure that Bartmann wants it just to state facts, so I'd appreciate your observations so I can see what we might modify. Thanks.

Copywriter12 (talk) 05:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are writing this on behalf of the subject of the article, Wikipedia considers that a conflict of interest. See WP:COI. Since you have edited no other articles, it looks like promotional editing, which Wikipedia discourages. John Nagle (talk) 06:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

FocusEconomics

I just wanted to let you know that an article that you proposed for deletion and was deleted, FocusEconomics, has been recreated. Deli nk (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Wishes

Happy Diwali!!!

Sky full of fireworks,
 Mouth full of sweets,
 Home full of lamps,
 And festival full of sweet memories...

Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali.
 §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Unify Square

Would you look at Unify Square and see if any COI action is needed? I'll recuse myself from further involvement because I might know some of the people who work there. – Brianhe (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. Took out "awards" given to 15 to 100 companies, and removed buzzword "unified communications" because they just manage Microsoft's voice products. John Nagle (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Warring?

Confused at your demanding tone regarding Saks Fifth Avenue, this has not been previously discussed. These sources are unacceptable. The data is not supported by supplied cite, I removed it per WP:OR. Brad90210 (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That was addressed to 172.100.212.147 (talk · contribs). See their talk page for the history. They just came off a block a few days ago, and it's part of an ongoing problem with COI editors for the companies in the Hudson's Bay conglomerate that's come up at AN/I three times. John Nagle (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Not editing for Saks Fifth Avenue...

Very confused, I worked very hard on my addition to the saks fifth avenue page. The details of the renovation of the fifth avenue store is promotional ?I'm very confused. New store additions are added to every department store wiki. Also the locations had multiple references I worked hard to find. They are verifiable and can't be removed per WP:CRYSTAL172.100.212.147 (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for looking into and raising awareness of the Edwardpatrickalva COI editing issue. I've opened a general discussion on my talk page about what we should do in the future in terms of changing our practices to better guard against this kind of embarrassment. I hope you'll join in with some thoughts!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:10, 20 November 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) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laser bonding, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Substrate. 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) 10:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

WashPost

Good find.[3] I'm quoting it already.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Our search engine

Hi John. I just noticed your thread about WP:NOTDIRECTORY and the mention of Wikipedia's search engine. I don't know much about this, but why do we even have our own search engine? Why not use Google Custom Search engine which will search through a whole website? It works much better than ours, which is woefully deficient. Their search engine can search so deep in websites that I once found a page used by drug smugglers in British Columbia. It was buried behind multiple layers of empty pages on an otherwise empty website. The Index page was blank, and each layer seemed to be blank. The page contained a chat forum where they only used their first names and discussed growing methods and the safest routes for smuggling over the border into the USA. We need to use Google's search engine, not our own. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the Wikimedia Foundation, but the answer is probably that the Foundation doesn't want to depend on Google, which tracks searches and has different goals than Wikipedia. John Nagle (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help.

Hi John, thank you, the email verification process has been completed. One note, I'm okay with the book if someone wants to include it (personally I didn't think it was notable), the history concern involves disclosure of my spouse's full name and other details not included in the book -- it was before I met her and while she most definitely is central to my personal life, I do not think she is linked to my professional life so she deserves privacy. Re: the article, I'm okay either way delete or keep if either option removes the history to provide her that respect? Let me know if there's more I can do and thank you for your help. Northernva (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi John, I see you reverted the redirect for David A. Bray, I'm actually okay with the redirect and would prefer it. This is consistent with the original request to delete that I submitted about two weeks ago. Are you okay with reverting back to the redirect? This was discussed on the talk page after the deletion. Thank you. Northernva (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Singly fed electric machine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Faraday's Law. 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) 09:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thank you John Nagle for all your help, and patience while I figure out how these "thank you" barnstars work. Northernva (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Armature (electrical engineering)
added a link pointing to Rotor
Doubly-fed electric machine
added a link pointing to Armature

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Doubly-fed electric machine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AC. 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) 09:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You forgot to notify

When you propose deletion without notifying the creator, some editors see that as a breach of etiquette. I went ahead and notified the creators of Gun trust and NFA trust. Cheers! - Brianhe (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. The most recent edit by either creator was in May 2015, though. Both articles were created by SPAs who edited for a few days long ago, then disappeared from Wikipedia. John Nagle (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Reuters?

You said Reuters here, but linked to The Guardian. Maybe a mistake? - Brianhe (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Oops. Fixed that. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Slander

Perhaps you apologize for something that is not figuring call " troll Kremlin " user created 150 articles in Russian Wikipedia , and who has brought up a good status 5 articles for 7 years ? And that is to take part in the conflict around one political article and already there is paranoia accusing me work for the government Solaire the knight (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this issue. I was just pointing out that, since it was being handled at the Administrators Noticeboard, it didn't need to be handled at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard. John Nagle (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

COIN

In this edit you wrote; The result is a rather blah article about an organization. Commenting on a potential COI is one thing, but is the insulting criticism necessary? - theWOLFchild 02:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's "just the facts" house style is rather blah. That's sort of the point of it being an encyclopedia. John Nagle (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, not everyone may see it that way, they could take offence at your comment. If we have a knowledgeable content writer willing to contribute to an area that sorely needs it, I wouldn't want to see them driven away. I think the UAA/COI process is bad enough already. - theWOLFchild 00:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coupa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SAP. 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) 12:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Please see Talk:Nassim_Nicholas_Taleb#His_next_book. – Smyth\talk 19:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Replied there. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Israeloncampuscoalition.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Israeloncampuscoalition.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Coupa at COIN

Hi, I posted about some COI edit requests for Coupa on COIN several weeks ago. You replied and made some edits to the article, but my initial requests were not addressed. I've replied with some additional info to help address some of the concerns raised. I know you're a very busy fellow, but if you get a moment to take a look I'd really appreciate it. Thank you. Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply

I have replied to you at the School of Economic Science Talk page. -Roberthall7 (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you could chime in there, in the section you started a few months ago.-Roberthall7 (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

hi

I opened a section at COI but haven't gotten a response[4] (there could be a sock involved as well) any help is appreciated, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

OK. Why me? Kind of busy right now. John Nagle (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I saw your name on that noticeboard answering other posts,(whenever you have a chance.... usually I would take COI to Jytdog however[5])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Defending America for Knowledge and Action for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Defending America for Knowledge and Action 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/Defending America for Knowledge and Action (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. Prevan (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dafkalogo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dafkalogo.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

re Banc De Binary

They are at it again. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Tianderni_reported_by_User:Smallbones_.28Result:_.29

Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Empirica Capital

Wanted to send you a quick note - thanks for the revert on Empirica Capital. No doubt Malcolm Gladwell is credible. I think when I initially skimmed over the content, my interpretation was that it read promotional, which is why I removed it. Looking back that was an error on my behalf. Have a good one! Meatsgains (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Binary Option

With all due respect, it would be much easier had you specified which of the guidelines you consider to have been violated. If you were to read the works that I linked to, then you will notice that both of them are among the foremost gambling sites on the Internet and are well-regarded. Furthermore, Brandon James (the author) clearly did extensive research into the matter and it is through that research that the conclusions in those works (over 10k words apiece) were made.

Anyway, I can't meaningfully debate a blanket statement, so please be specific as to what guidelines you believe may have been violated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavlovianmodel146 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The long essay from Ample Chance Group Llc (HK) [6] is interesting, but read WP:RS for what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. Wikipedia generally avoids linking to sites like that. The essay at Wizard of Odds [7] is the same material by the same author with slightly different wording. Both are opinion pieces; neither cites any sources.
There is a long history of attempts by binary option firms to influence the Binary option article. Read the article talk page Talk:Binary option for some of the history. There has been big trouble at the Banc De Binary article. At one point the company offering $10,000 to have their article "fixed", to avoid mentioning their legal problems (they were booted out of the US by the CFTC). Thus, edits by new editors with few previous edits in other areas are viewed with some suspicion. You might try editing in some other areas for a while to build up your reputation. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

520 West 28th

I created an article that you PROD'd because someone whose article I put up for deletion tried to claim I had a COI; though I do not, you did put it up for deletion for CRYSTAL. I may or may not agree with you, but I found about two dozen more major sources, most of which discuss almost nothing but the building--I also found a significant history for the address from over a hundred years ago that could probably stand on its own (one of the key homeless shelters in NYC back in the late 1800s). Either way, I wanted to reach out and let you know, so that you knew my intentions. I didn't care about the article, as I was just playing around, but having been bullied so thoroughly by the person who brought the article to everyone's attention, I thought it'd be a shame just to let it die on those grounds. Please feel free to AFD if you still see the article as non-notable of course. I apologize for not writing anything very thorough, I was just trying something and didn't realize I'd need ten or twenty sources to assert the notability. Again, if you want to AFD, please do so! Grump International (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

User: Grump International removed your proposed deletion tag on 520 West 28th, added material about the history of that address in New York, and left in all the blatantly promotional material about the proposed condominium, which they obviously have a keen interest in keeping up. I think it's not going to be enough to deal with the specific articles of this editor. The COI account itself will need to be dealt with, as per Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Brickell_Flatiron BC1278 (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)BC278

Re: Admin Board referal

Hi John,

The admin board referral was a good call. You can look at my reply if you care to give it the time.

Just one note, which I make on the post: your summary is correct except... I've never directly edited, tagged or proposed for deletion any articles with edits by User: Grump International. Not sure how that misunderstanding happened. I know it's time consuming to check (please do), but I'm sure Grump has and would complain if it was the case.

I no longer do direct editing on articles that have anything to do with business, even those where I don't have a COI, just to avoid the possibility of any issue under WP:COI. I disclose my real identity at User: BC1278, which I do just to be sure people know I'll be publicly accountable for abiding by Wikipedia's COI policy's, especially disclosure and no direct editing. Being a "white hat" is important to me.

If you correct the record on the admin board I would very much appreciate it, as that behavior would be a serious WP violation. If you have any specific instances in mind, I'm happy to look into it and show you the pages to clear up any misunderstanding.

BC1278 (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Just looking for an update here, as I think it's not fair to leave the record uncorrected with an assertion that I edited, tagged or proposed for deletion any articles that were ever touched by Grump. I, in fact, have never tagged or proposed for deletion any article by anyone during my 18 months on Wikipedia. And I didn't make any direct edits (or even write on the Talk pages) of articles touched in any way by Grump, except if you count those involving Conduit, where I disclosed my COI and all changes I suggested were made on Talk pages. Regarding anything to do with Grump, I think I followed the correct procedures -- I tried to engage with him about his COI on his own Talk page before COIN. And I also engaged with him on the Article for Deletion proposal he made on Ronen Shilo, the founder of Conduit. Those all seem like the proper forums -- I didn't try to change anything on any article he worked on, even where the promotional issues were obvious. I just reported it.BC1278 (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278
Just a question on this: does the archiving of the ANI discussion mean no one is looking into this matter any further? If so, I found the process disappointing. By characterizing this as a feud rather than a complaint, User: Grump International suffers no consequences (e.g. he still doesn't have to disclose his COI anywhere) and I have to still deal with the tagging and AFD the editor engaged in (I believe as part of a pattern of attacks on this company, although I can't know for sure without a WP: CheckUser) which is not easy when I have disclosed a COI. My WP:AGF goes out the window, no matter how valid my point. Look, if an admin looked at this and said that there was not enough evidence to merit any action against the editor, then I'd be fine with it. I don't know exactly how high the standard of proof is. I understand why you might think this whole thing is just a pain in the ass and I am wasting your time, but please know that your actions here could be influential in promoting the disclosed COI policy in the wider world. You can look at my bio at User: BC1278 - I am in a very good position to influence a lot of tech companies to not dodge COI disclosures, precisely because they very well might get caught.BC1278 (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)BC1278
AN/I archived the discussion because the bad editor behavior has stopped. Grump International hasn't edited in article space for a week, and has said they will back off from that area. Admin action is taken to stop future bad behavior, not to punish. Wikipedia tries to assume good faith. Now, if the bad behavior resumes after they said they would stop, that would be considered worse than the original behavior. Sometimes they come back, and that usually means being dealt with more harshly. Meanwhile, don't obsess on this. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hi John, I see an issue with my Wikipedia page and I do not want to do anything that can be a COI or make the situation worse. I am officially a CEO and Intelligence Director. My official title and occupation is Intelligence Director https://tacticalrabbit.com/intelligencedirector/ It was previously in the post but was removed. Do I post it on the talk page and hope someone makes the change? Please advise. Thank you for your time and help. Everettstern (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The best thing you can do now is to leave your own article alone for a while. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

BTLS

I took a look at your contrubs after your AfD of the Bubba the Love Sponge Show page and I'm a little concerned. You repeatedly removed sourced content, engaging in an edit war with an anon. At the same time, you repeatedly warned the user for vandalism when what they were doing was reverting your removal of sourced content, not vandalism.

For someone as smart as you are and for someone who has been here as long as you have, you should know better. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, but if you exhibit this behavior again, I will report it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I had misgivings about that too, but there was so much promotional content there that something had to go. Per WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE, Wikipedia doesn't do channel guides. We'd never keep up with changes. Even Rush Limbaugh doesn't have a channel guide. Do you think the article should have a channel guide? John Nagle (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
If BLTS's affiliate list ever got to the size of Limbaugh's, then or even Bob and Tom's, then no. But since it is, what, eight stations...I think it would be acceptable. BTLS has a regional network...along with that station in Denver. Even though he is nationally syndicated, he really doesn't do well outside of Florida for whatever reason. Sourced with his affiliate list on his site, I see no problems with it....for now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Riathamus000.

If you have any additional evidence or commentary that could shed light on the matter, that would be appreciated.

Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any additional info. Most of the articles associated with that promotion are surviving AfDs, so they'll have to be cleaned up. John Nagle (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I more really meant about the possible socks themselves? — Cirt (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Most of those are dormant accounts. Some haven't edited in five years. Some are blocked. Only Emongami (talk · contribs) and TriJenn (talk · contribs) are still active, and only TriJenn is doing anything interesting. As a sockpuppet issue, this seems to be moot. John Nagle (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
The sockmaster I listed is still active within the time period to Checkuser it, and that could reveal other sleeper accounts or active accounts we haven't spotted, possibly related to the wider topic involved with the SPAs. — Cirt (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rapeandrepresentationcoversmall.gif

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rapeandrepresentationcoversmall.gif. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

ZeroTurnaround

Thought this looked like your kind of thing. ZeroTurnaround financial data just ends in 2012, all happy writing, lots of redlink editors, major contributor has vanished. Brianhe (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

4INFO is similar, but worse. John Nagle (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Department Store Editor

Hello. I have not heard from you on my talk page, as I requested for any concerns regarding my edits. I have explained in detail all of the changes I have made, I do not believe I removed any "negative" information as you say. In fact, most of the information was necessarily transferred to the parent company's page. I do not believe I have violated any terms or conditions, if you believe I have could you please explain to me exactly what I have done? I would really appreciate it, for a m quite passionate about my encyclopedia edits during my limited free time. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.148.38 (talk • contribs) John Nagle (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest and WP:PAID. It appears from your edit comments that you are editing on behalf of the Hudson's Bay Company. See [8]. Wikipedia has restrictions on that sort of thing. You can register for an account, declare your conflict of interest, and ask for edits on article talk pages. Blanking the discussion on the adminstrator's notice board [9] was totally improper, and now you're blocked. John Nagle (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Your input?

Greetings John Nagle, perhaps you could add your input here: Talk:Moller_M400_Skycar#Joint_Venture_section_of_article? Thank you. 90.44.214.96 (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. but....

Any ideas as to where I can link this blasted The Hemp Trading Company article from? Been looking all over but can't find anywhere to link it from. Been trying to think of possible link-froms. Incidentally, it was not meant to be advertising, I was looking for other examples of hemp fashion to cite alongside it but The Hempest seems to be the only other article on a similar company and that's not really a notable article. Getting a bit exasperated trying to work out how to de-orphan it. Thanks for any thoughts you can offer.... Mabalu (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Does that article pass WP:CORP? John Nagle (talk) 06:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
It's recently survived an AFD. Mabalu (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Bullied by JIDF?

Hi Nagel,

I'm a new user who has tried to be bold whilst learning the rules and trying to edit certain heavily biased pages. A number of admins have consistently reversed everything I've done, acted aggressively, failed to show any good faith, banned unnecessarily and effectively locked me out of Wikipedia. Initially I was astonished. However, after some research I discovered the existence of the 'JIDF'. They displayed a lot of information about you. I was wondering if there was anyone I could contact to complain to about this and to find out what is going on. These editors seem to work together to back each other up and, because of the way Wikipedia is structured, progressing any sort of complaint becomes impossible.

Many thanks159.15.128.174 (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to edit in controversial areas, please register an account. Your editing history matters on Wikipedia. As for the JIDF, they seem to be inactive, if not defunct. John Nagle (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Bartmann Page

Hi John,

I noticed that you recently flagged Bill Bartmann's page for sounding like an advertisement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Bartmann I have worked with Bill off and on over the years and have done some writing for him. If possible, I'd be very interested in your pointing out the specific areas that you thought came across as too promotional. I'm pretty sure that Bartmann wants it just to state facts, so I'd appreciate your observations so I can see what we might modify. Thanks.

Copywriter12 (talk) 05:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are writing this on behalf of the subject of the article, Wikipedia considers that a conflict of interest. See WP:COI. Since you have edited no other articles, it looks like promotional editing, which Wikipedia discourages. John Nagle (talk) 06:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

FocusEconomics

I just wanted to let you know that an article that you proposed for deletion and was deleted, FocusEconomics, has been recreated. Deli nk (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Wishes

Happy Diwali!!!

Sky full of fireworks,
 Mouth full of sweets,
 Home full of lamps,
 And festival full of sweet memories...

Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali.
 §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Unify Square

Would you look at Unify Square and see if any COI action is needed? I'll recuse myself from further involvement because I might know some of the people who work there. – Brianhe (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. Took out "awards" given to 15 to 100 companies, and removed buzzword "unified communications" because they just manage Microsoft's voice products. John Nagle (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Warring?

Confused at your demanding tone regarding Saks Fifth Avenue, this has not been previously discussed. These sources are unacceptable. The data is not supported by supplied cite, I removed it per WP:OR. Brad90210 (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That was addressed to 172.100.212.147 (talk · contribs). See their talk page for the history. They just came off a block a few days ago, and it's part of an ongoing problem with COI editors for the companies in the Hudson's Bay conglomerate that's come up at AN/I three times. John Nagle (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Not editing for Saks Fifth Avenue...

Very confused, I worked very hard on my addition to the saks fifth avenue page. The details of the renovation of the fifth avenue store is promotional ?I'm very confused. New store additions are added to every department store wiki. Also the locations had multiple references I worked hard to find. They are verifiable and can't be removed per WP:CRYSTAL172.100.212.147 (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for looking into and raising awareness of the Edwardpatrickalva COI editing issue. I've opened a general discussion on my talk page about what we should do in the future in terms of changing our practices to better guard against this kind of embarrassment. I hope you'll join in with some thoughts!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:10, 20 November 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) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laser bonding, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Substrate. 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) 10:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

WashPost

Good find.[10] I'm quoting it already.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Our search engine

Hi John. I just noticed your thread about WP:NOTDIRECTORY and the mention of Wikipedia's search engine. I don't know much about this, but why do we even have our own search engine? Why not use Google Custom Search engine which will search through a whole website? It works much better than ours, which is woefully deficient. Their search engine can search so deep in websites that I once found a page used by drug smugglers in British Columbia. It was buried behind multiple layers of empty pages on an otherwise empty website. The Index page was blank, and each layer seemed to be blank. The page contained a chat forum where they only used their first names and discussed growing methods and the safest routes for smuggling over the border into the USA. We need to use Google's search engine, not our own. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the Wikimedia Foundation, but the answer is probably that the Foundation doesn't want to depend on Google, which tracks searches and has different goals than Wikipedia. John Nagle (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help.

Hi John, thank you, the email verification process has been completed. One note, I'm okay with the book if someone wants to include it (personally I didn't think it was notable), the history concern involves disclosure of my spouse's full name and other details not included in the book -- it was before I met her and while she most definitely is central to my personal life, I do not think she is linked to my professional life so she deserves privacy. Re: the article, I'm okay either way delete or keep if either option removes the history to provide her that respect? Let me know if there's more I can do and thank you for your help. Northernva (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi John, I see you reverted the redirect for David A. Bray, I'm actually okay with the redirect and would prefer it. This is consistent with the original request to delete that I submitted about two weeks ago. Are you okay with reverting back to the redirect? This was discussed on the talk page after the deletion. Thank you. Northernva (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Singly fed electric machine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Faraday's Law. 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) 09:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thank you John Nagle for all your help, and patience while I figure out how these "thank you" barnstars work. Northernva (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Armature (electrical engineering)
added a link pointing to Rotor
Doubly-fed electric machine
added a link pointing to Armature

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Doubly-fed electric machine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AC. 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) 09:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

You forgot to notify

When you propose deletion without notifying the creator, some editors see that as a breach of etiquette. I went ahead and notified the creators of Gun trust and NFA trust. Cheers! - Brianhe (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. The most recent edit by either creator was in May 2015, though. Both articles were created by SPAs who edited for a few days long ago, then disappeared from Wikipedia. John Nagle (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Reuters?

You said Reuters here, but linked to The Guardian. Maybe a mistake? - Brianhe (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Oops. Fixed that. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Slander

Perhaps you apologize for something that is not figuring call " troll Kremlin " user created 150 articles in Russian Wikipedia , and who has brought up a good status 5 articles for 7 years ? And that is to take part in the conflict around one political article and already there is paranoia accusing me work for the government Solaire the knight (talk) 10:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this issue. I was just pointing out that, since it was being handled at the Administrators Noticeboard, it didn't need to be handled at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard. John Nagle (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

COIN

In this edit you wrote; The result is a rather blah article about an organization. Commenting on a potential COI is one thing, but is the insulting criticism necessary? - theWOLFchild 02:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's "just the facts" house style is rather blah. That's sort of the point of it being an encyclopedia. John Nagle (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, not everyone may see it that way, they could take offence at your comment. If we have a knowledgeable content writer willing to contribute to an area that sorely needs it, I wouldn't want to see them driven away. I think the UAA/COI process is bad enough already. - theWOLFchild 00:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coupa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SAP. 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) 12:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Please see Talk:Nassim_Nicholas_Taleb#His_next_book. – Smyth\talk 19:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Replied there. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Israeloncampuscoalition.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Israeloncampuscoalition.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Coupa at COIN

Hi, I posted about some COI edit requests for Coupa on COIN several weeks ago. You replied and made some edits to the article, but my initial requests were not addressed. I've replied with some additional info to help address some of the concerns raised. I know you're a very busy fellow, but if you get a moment to take a look I'd really appreciate it. Thank you. Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply

I have replied to you at the School of Economic Science Talk page. -Roberthall7 (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you could chime in there, in the section you started a few months ago.-Roberthall7 (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

hi

I opened a section at COI but haven't gotten a response[11] (there could be a sock involved as well) any help is appreciated, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

OK. Why me? Kind of busy right now. John Nagle (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I saw your name on that noticeboard answering other posts,(whenever you have a chance.... usually I would take COI to Jytdog however[12])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Defending America for Knowledge and Action for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Defending America for Knowledge and Action 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/Defending America for Knowledge and Action (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. Prevan (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dafkalogo.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dafkalogo.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

re Banc De Binary

They are at it again. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Tianderni_reported_by_User:Smallbones_.28Result:_.29

Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Empirica Capital

Wanted to send you a quick note - thanks for the revert on Empirica Capital. No doubt Malcolm Gladwell is credible. I think when I initially skimmed over the content, my interpretation was that it read promotional, which is why I removed it. Looking back that was an error on my behalf. Have a good one! Meatsgains (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Binary Option

With all due respect, it would be much easier had you specified which of the guidelines you consider to have been violated. If you were to read the works that I linked to, then you will notice that both of them are among the foremost gambling sites on the Internet and are well-regarded. Furthermore, Brandon James (the author) clearly did extensive research into the matter and it is through that research that the conclusions in those works (over 10k words apiece) were made.

Anyway, I can't meaningfully debate a blanket statement, so please be specific as to what guidelines you believe may have been violated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavlovianmodel146 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The long essay from Ample Chance Group Llc (HK) [13] is interesting, but read WP:RS for what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. Wikipedia generally avoids linking to sites like that. The essay at Wizard of Odds [14] is the same material by the same author with slightly different wording. Both are opinion pieces; neither cites any sources.
There is a long history of attempts by binary option firms to influence the Binary option article. Read the article talk page Talk:Binary option for some of the history. There has been big trouble at the Banc De Binary article. At one point the company offering $10,000 to have their article "fixed", to avoid mentioning their legal problems (they were booted out of the US by the CFTC). Thus, edits by new editors with few previous edits in other areas are viewed with some suspicion. You might try editing in some other areas for a while to build up your reputation. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

EOMA68

Nagle, you've added false, misleading and factually inaccurate information on the EOMA68 page, as well as removing factually accurate information that has published public multiple sources (that have not yet been added because the page is still being developed). please CONSULT ME before editing the page about the consequences of what you're doing. Lkcl (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

For amusement

For yuks, check out this deletion log and find the notorious LTA. I don't have more time now to keep delving into this, but maybe you will care to? - Brianhe (talk) 06:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Not clear what to look for. Incidentally, it turns out that Wikipedia has Foreign exchange fraud, and that article might be expanded. Investopedia has a better article [15] than Wikipedia. John Nagle (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to be so opaque, it's the Morning277 LTA that caught my eye. That character has popped up in so many of my COIN dealings that I shouldn't be surprised anymore. I'm not sure what triggered the connection here in August 2013 but did find Meta:User:Rschen7754/Reports/Morning277 - apparently they even created a Spotware article on Simple English wiki reported around the same time. - Brianhe (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nagle/Archives/2016/September&oldid=1085976666"