User talk:TubeGod

Speedy deletion nomination of The David Berning Company

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Sionk (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, TubeGod. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 15:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please take a look at WP:PSCOI for more info on this. I've advised on my AfD !vote that you step away from editing this article. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 15:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The David Berning Company (September 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

I would not resubmit as there's still nothing coming close to both convincing independent notability and substance.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The David Berning Company and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 22:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natural News

Nope. That site is not appropriate to link here. Guy (Help!) 01:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The notice above warns you about conflict of interest editing, you have continued to do that, and nothing else. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you claim is false. I have edited numerous other articles; I've probably been here longer than you. You have driven away yet another primary source. Everything negative said about wikipedia, you show is valid. Your cronies propose deletion, due to 'no published sources'. We provide them. You erase them. We request clarification and provide the sources in improved format. You erase that and block/ban our ability to edit. Instead of fostering veracity from those who know, you repel it, driving it into anonymous oblivion. TubeGod (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for adding Sources to prevent Speedy Deletion

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TubeGod (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Under "Sources" section on Milbert Amplifiers, we had a list of links back to PDFs and JPGs on our website of articles printed in publications no longer in print. This content was added previously, in response to thwart an attempt at "speedy deletion" of the entire Milbert Amplifiers article from Wikipedia. Nonetheless, JzG Guy wholly removed these links, citing them as "spam". In response, we consolidated the several links to one or two links to a summary page (also on our website) that listed the publications in improved format and provided links to PDFs and JPGs of that material hosted on our site. Instead of perhaps more constructively editing our latest contributions to remove links and instead listing the publications in bibliographic format, or whatever might have better met muster, JzG Guy wholly removed our latest contributions and blocked / banned us from further editing, citing 'conflict of interest' -- which is, in growing opinion, a ridiculous and self-defeating policy, since who would know better about sources supporting a company's 'newsworthiness' than person(s) close to and even inside the company? This is not vandalism or make-work. The edits were not made in bad faith. Instead of providing anything constructive, anonymous administrators simply erase our content and ultimately throw us out of the sandbox. It seems that growing comments leveled against Wikipedia regarding its repulsion of veracity and favoritism of anonymous editors aligns with our recent experience. We request this ban/block be reversed. TubeGod (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You say "we had a list of links...", "our website", "we consolidated the several links", "hosted on our site", "our latest contributions"... etc. Wikipedia does not allow company or group accounts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Wikipedia policy repels primary, identifiable sources and prefers edits by anonymous anyone. Incredible. TubeGod (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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