User talk:Drm310

Reply to your message to me

DavidAllen,TheBMJ (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC) I updated 2 pages, and created 2 new pages for people at BMJ Publishing yesterday. I did this as part of my employment. At your suggestion I have added a CoI statement to my User page. The pages in question are: Dr Fiona Godlee (pre-existing page) Dr Kamran Abbasi (pre-existing page) Dr Theodora Bloom (new page) THIS IS THE PAGE YOU SLATED FOR EARLY DELETION Peter Ashman (new page)

I see that the entry for Dr Bloom was rejected for plagiarism. I checked the page in question, which I have never seen before and it different in quite a few respects from my own wording--BUT, seeing as they are both biographies of the same person, it would be natural for them to be very similar. I hope that this page can be reinstated.

Best,

David Allen

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Drm310, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanos Hotels

Thanks for your message. Yes I am a paid employee of Thanos Hotels and was requested to load this article on Wikipedia by a colleague. Sorry but I can't figure out how to declare this interest, although I would like to. The page you directed me to has a list of templates but none of them are clickable. And the list of templates all mention ACME, what does this stand for? I do apologise but it's my first time trying to upload content on Wikipedia, and it's a bit confusing. Thanks for reviewing the article as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frances Higgins (talk • contribs) 12:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Frances Higgins: ACME is just an example to illustrate how to use the template. I've placed the template on your user page, User:Frances Higgins. You can make changes to it as you see fit.

I didn't review the article and it looks like it was deleted by an administrator. Before making any further edits, I suggest that you review these two pages:

• Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
• Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations

In a nutshell, we discourage people from writing about subjects where they have a personal or professional affiliation. It's not prohibited outright, but we highly discourage it due to the inherent difficulty in adhering to the required neutral point of view and policy against promotion or publicity.

In order for an article to be accepted here, it must be a paraphrased summary of previously published material that comes from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Company-authored material can be used for basic facts only (e.g. date of establishment, number of employees, etc.), but other things such as press releases or interviews with company officials are not considered reliable as they lack the necessary independence. The subject must also meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, as mere existence doesn't mean that the subject is notable enough for inclusion.

If an article about your company is accepted, please note that the company has no right of ownership or editorial control over its content. Articles can be edited by anyone, and can change substantially over time. Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies.

Lastly, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. 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. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Reply to message on Evieshofur usertalk

I've disclosed my employment status with GOGO Charters. Would it be possible for one of the editors to restore the GOGO Charters / Gogo Charters page?

Evieshofur (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Evieshofur: The page was deleted as the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gogo Charters. It appears that the consensus was that the company is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, and that it was written in a way that was overly promotional.

Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a business directory, and not every company will or should have an article here. A company doesn't get to have an article on Wikipedia simply because it wants one. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) describes the criteria that determines whether a company is deserving of a standalone article.

Articles about any topic consist of paraphrased summaries of previously published material, written by writers from reliable sources that are independent of the topic. They must also be written from a neutral point of view, as if written by a third party with no interest in how the topic is portrayed.

Which leads to the next point, that being conflict of interest. Since you are not a disinterested third party, you have an inherent bias towards the topic of this company. That is why we discourage (but don't prohibit) persons with a personal or professional affiliation with the topic from writing about it. Even a well-intentioned editor will find it difficult to write objectively and use information from independent sources.

If you still disagree with the deletion of your article, you could try discussing the matter with Michig, the editor who closed the deletion discussion. If you are still not satisfied, then you can try Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Response to Managing a conflict of interest

Hello Drm310

In response to your comments on my user talk:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stevepiercy#November_2017
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stevepiercy#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest

I certify that I have no conflict of interest for any page I edit.

I further certify that I am not paid for any contribution to any page I edit.

Stevepiercy (talk) 06:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Stevepiercy: I will accept your word that you're not being paid, I'm not entirely convinced you have no conflict of interest. There is off-wiki evidence to suggest you have some involvement with the Pylons project. Wikipedia's policy on WP:OUTING forbids me from posting a link, but it's not difficult to find from a simple search. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Drm310: The Pylons Project is a loose collective of developers of free and open source software. I am one of hundreds of contributors to its projects and I use the software that the collective creates.

Now Drm310, if that constitutes a COI, then your involvement with Wikipedia would also be a COI. Not only that, but every developer of free and open source software who has contributed anything on Wikipedia on behalf of the open source software that they use or to which they contribute should have all their posts removed from Wikipedia for similar COIs. This is a slippery slope. Stevepiercy (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Stevepiercy: I will cite the example from Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Archive_20#Writing_about_"open_source"_(you_may_want_to_or_have_contributed_to). Saying "I contribute to the Pylons project in a volunteer capacity" on your user page is a simple but clear statement of your involvement, as you're not a disinterested third party with that topic. You will note that on my user page, I have disclosed my employer, should I choose to write about a topic with some connection to it. If I were involved with an organization in a volunteer capacity and created/edited an article about it, I would be obligated to disclose that too.

Note that COI editors are not prohibited from contributing. Therefore your statement that "every developer of free and open source software who has contributed anything on Wikipedia on behalf of the open source software that they use or to which they contribute should have all their posts removed from Wikipedia" is not correct. But developers should be transparent about any connections to a topic they write about here. Doing so shows other editors that you are acting in good faith, and you will find they will be more willing to help. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Drm310: I give up. Done. What other hoops do I have to jump through?

lack of objectivity of JZG on biography of Maximiliano Korstanje

JZG is not doing his job as editor helping me editing a biography, he is callous, and very nasty, a mere vandal who frustrated liked to be an academicians, I am an academician, and his observations, respecting what is Vannity Press rests on shaky foundations. One ona hand, Cambridge Scholar publishing is a publisher founded by former direcors and professors from Cambridge U, this is not vanity PRess. On another, IGI global is based on Clarivate Web of Science, but of course, since he is not a real academician he destroys what I write without any rational basis. I need you or other editor helps. David

Wikipedia is in decline because of editor like him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockdavid1999 (talk • contribs)

Next time follow the proper dispute resolution process instead of resorting to block evasion. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Drm310, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding 4 musics edits

I comply that the edits done by me are not by any means of paid editing. Frizel Francis 11:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frizel Francis (talk • contribs)

@Frizel Francis: There is off-wiki evidence that suggests you work for a company that has 4Musics as a client. Please do not write about any of your company's clients without making the mandatory disclosure per WP:PAID. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Re recent advice form both of us

As mentioned, I wrote out some advice, and didn't want to simply abandon even though I saw that you had responded. After reading both sets of advice, it is possible that the editor will come away with the feeling that we've provided conflicting advice. I don't think that's the case, but I'd like to have a brief conversation so we can make sure we are on the same page.

We have evolving standards regarding editors who have a conflict of interest or who are paid editors. I think it's fair to say that a paid editor is a special case of the conflict of interest editor. We have some requirements applying to both with some more significant requirements applicable to paid editors.

I initially viewed Jscott482 as a COI editor. I'm rethinking that. I picked up on the editor's connection to the organization and it is my belief that an individual can be employed by an organization, make edits about that organization but not necessarily be treated as a paid editor. (Happy to discuss if you disagree.) However, I think that's a moot point, after picking up on this editor's position with the organization. Given their position, I think there's no question that they qualify as a paid editor.

There are disclosure requirements applicable to both the COI editors and paid editors but they are not exactly the same.

My understanding is that a COI editor does not have to openly declare the conflict of interest on the user page (of course, they can, but I don't believe it's required). They must, however, declare their COI "when involved with affected articles". It is my opinion that if you post on the article talk page and request a COI edit be made that this would constitute disclosure. I don't think you have to separately explain that you have a COI. I don't believe we fully prohibit direct editing, but we do say it is " strongly discouraged ". Frankly, I'm not quite sure what that means. Are there examples of edits that are permitted? Does this simply mean that it is not a blockable offense? If we have some explication of this distinction I haven't seen it.

In contrast, a paid editor must disclose certain information on the user page as well as the relevant talk pages. The admonition against direct editing is somewhat stronger stating that "you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly". As above, I'm not sure what this means in practice.

My main concern is that your second numbered item starts "after you make this disclosure, you are allowed to edit the article". You follow that up with a caveat that it is highly discouraged, but at the risk of over parsing, I'm mildly concerned that the editor might jump on the first sentence and not take the subsequent sentence on board.

I'll emphasize that my concern, and part of the reason I'm taking the time to write this, isn't the advice you are giving, but my concern that our general advice is not as clear as it could be.

What on earth does it mean to say you are permitted to edit but very strongly discouraged from editing? One possible interpretation is that you absolutely should not do it but the only repercussions will be reversion, not something more serious like being blocked. Another interpretation is that if the edit is sufficiently benign (correcting a misspelling, updating the name of an officeholder, or something similar) than it is permitted without posting a COI request, but unless advice has been written in a place I haven't seen we don't make this clear.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I think the rules about paid editing are pretty clear, in that you are prohibited outright from editing a topic where you being compensated do to so, without declaration. I've seen plenty of clear-cut cases of undisclosed paid editors who were blocked because they continued to edit a topic after being asked to disclose their employment, but they refused to do so.

I agree that the rules around general COI/disclosed paid editing are very wishy-washy; they're more strong suggestions than hard and fast rules. In essence they say "you can, but you really, really shouldn't!" Somewhere in WP:DCOI is the suggestion that one should use {{request edit}} for "significant or potentially controversial changes"; however that's a pretty subjective statement. There's also the section WP:COIU which seems to give a pass to "unambiguously uncontroversial edits", and it's a bit better by providing specific examples of what it defines as uncontroversial. Both are scattered amongst the COI page and isn't helpful for a COI editor who's trying to figure out what they should do.

I'll admit that I could have done a better job of explaining it to her, so I will be more mindful of what I'm saying in the future. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

My main point wasn't to outright or even indirectly challenge your advice. In fact I was prompted to write because I think both of us have read the relevant guidelines, and both of us gays some advice that was drawn from those guidelines yet on the surface we seem to be saying different things. So I agree with your point that the rules are "very wishy-washy" which can lead to the situation where apparently different advice can be gleaned from the same set of guidelines. This isn't terribly surprising — any large set of guidelines created by multiple people at different times and in different places and without strong coordination are almost certain to contain inconsistencies. I don't have the energy at the time to sort out how to take them up, but we may have to do so in the future. Again agreeing with your observation that one summarization of the rules is "you can, but you really really shouldn't!" is the type of guideline that begs for cleanup. Okay, you shouldn't most times but you can sometimes, so which times, under which circumstances? A project for another day.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Re Regarding COI

Hi @Drm310 i need some clarification on reflecting COI in my talk page.

• Will COI reflect publically in the article i create
• DO i need to mention CO! in my own talk page or article talkpage?
• Will it affect any other editing
• Will it blacklist my username

Need your help as iam new to wiki edits and guidelines(please do simplify them instead of sharing links) Thank you

Frizel Francis 11:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Frizel Francis: There are two scenarios of COI editing. What you would do depends on which scenario applies:

1. Someone is paying you (directly or indirectly) to write about them
2. You are not being paid, but you still have some personal or professional involvement with the topic

Scenario 1

This qualifies as paid editing. Disclosure of receiving payments, who is paying you and what articles you are editing in exchange for payment is mandatory.

You must place the {{paid}} template on your userpage, User:Frizel Francis. This is how you would write it (but replace "Employer you work for" with the actual name of the company you work for, and "Article you're editing" with the name of the article you're editing):

{{paid|employer=Employer you work for|article=Article you're editing}}

Also on the article talk page, you would place the following:

{{connected contributor (paid) |User1=Frizel Francis |U1-employer=Employer you work for |U1-EH=yes |U1-otherlinks=Disclosure on userpage.}}

Scenario 2

This is a general COI where you not being paid but have some involvement with the topic. Disclosure is not mandatory, but it is highly recommended as a sign of good faith.

You should place this code on your userpage:

{{UserboxCOI|1=Frizel Francis}}

Also on on the article talk page, you would place the following:

{{Connected contributor |User1=Frizel Francis |U1-EH=yes |U1-declared=yes |U1-otherlinks=(Optional) Insert relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts or diffs showing COI contributions.}}

Either scenario 1 or 2

If you propose significant or potentially controversial changes to an affected article, we advise you to propose the change on the article talk page instead of directly editing the article. You use the {{request edit}} template for this. Place this at the bottom of the talk page and state your suggestion beneath it (be sure to sign it with four tildes, ~~~~). If the proposal is verifiable and appropriate, it will usually be accepted. If it is declined, the editor declining the request will usually add an explanation below your entry.

Your other questions

"Will it affect any other editing"

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but no, it should not have any impact on any other edits you or other editors make.

"Will it blacklist my username"

No, it won't - actually it will do the opposite. Being truthful and transparent about your affiliation to topics will show other editors that you are editing in good faith. You will find that others will appreciate your honesty, and be more willing to help you.

I hope this answers your questions. If you need me to explain anything else further, please don't hesitate to ask. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply

@Drm310:Thanks for the explanation , Iam going with scenario 2 and starting 4musics page again Frizel Francis 05:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Frizel Francis: So are you saying that you are not being paid by 4musics to write about them? If you are being paid by them directly, or you work for a company that they pay for PR/marketing, then you are definitely in Scenario 1. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply

@Drm310: Its hard to explain and argue, i'll go on with scenario 1. Thanks again!.

Update

@Drm310: Please have a look Draft:4Musics

Frizel Francis 12:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Frizel Francis: Excellent. Thank you for making the proper disclosures. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

"We" mentions on Montres Tudor (SA) ?

Dear @Drm310,

I am writing you this message in response to your question : On the page Talk:Montres Tudor (SA), you repeatedly used the first-person plural word "we" when referring to your edits. Does more than one person use this account? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The article might be updated in the future by other wikipedia authors regarding historical/informatinoal events related to the Tudor Brand. For now, I am alone in charge for integrating it, editing it and get it online. I have searched the whole article for "We" mentions but cannot find any ... Could you please share concrete examples of what you are pointing out ? I am willing to make changes if necessary. Please let me know if I can be of further help to make sure every part of my article fits Wikipedia's rules.

Many thanks in advance for your help,

Kind Regards,

Datawords 17 (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Datawords 17 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Datawords 17: I was not talking about the article content. I was referring to the message that you left at Talk:Montres Tudor (SA), where you said the following:

We only mentionned factual and historical content.

We didn't mentionned any price or marketing content that should be contrary to wikipedia's rules : Invoking section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion is therefore unjustified. If author Shirt58 can justify through examples, we are of course willing to make all necessary changes.

We already published the Rolex Wikipedia page and followed the same structure, with the same care of rules.

Article reviewer Shirt58 requested a speedy deletion, only 2 minutes after starting reviewing it, without notyfying article author of what's wrong or what part could cause problems.

We are always of good will to make any changes in our articles in order to repect wikiepdians rules : In this perpective, we expect to have a dialogue approach at first before taking harsh decisions by simply deleting articles without reading them.

We hope to have some more constructive exchanges in the near future, [...]

By using the word "we", your message gave me the impression that more than one person uses your "Datawords 17" account. If this is true, please be aware that Wikipedia's username policy permits only a single person to use an account. Every person who edits Wikipedia must use their own individual account. Accounts may never be shared, and any evidence of shared use can lead to an account being blocked.

If I am mistaken and you are the only person uses the Datawords 17 account, then I apologize for the misunderstanding. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Drm310: : I understand now, sorry for the confusion here. I used the term "We" because indeed I had to consult several sources/people to verify information, but I am managing this wikipedia account alone. Still, I can correct the previous message so it sounds less confusing ? Please let me know if I can be of further help.

Datawords 17 (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Datawords 17: Thank you for the clarification. It's preferred that you don't edit previous talk page comments; if anyone else raises a concern, you or I can just refer them to this discussion here.

I also wanted to ask one other question. Are you employed by, or affiliated with, Montres Tudor? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Drm310: Thank you for your feedback. To answer your question : I am not employed nor affiliated by any business agreements to Montres Tudor. (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Datawords 17: Thank you for stating that. Best of luck with your edits. Just a reminder, please sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Reply to your message on my talk page

Dear Drm310, thank you for your message. We were translating the Aktion Mensch (de:AktionMensch) article as part of our translation class in Uni, so our only job was to do the translation and not to do any scientific work. We understand that there are independent sources missing and we will do our best to find some in the next few days! --Kanelboller05 (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Kanelboller05

Disclosure of employment

Thank you for your explanations on how to proceed with COI and employment disclosures. I appreciate your efforts to ensure the integrity of Wikipedia's content, and there have been several changes since I was a more regular contributor to this site. Please let me know if everything looks OK now; I would like to be more active as a Wikipedia contributor and editor going forward. NicoleMN6 (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)NicoleMN6

@NicoleMN6: Thanks for making the proper disclosures. I see that a couple of your articles have been deleted over concerns that they were too promotional. I advise you to try the Articles for Creation process for any topics where you have a conflict of interest. That allows you to create a draft article, at less risk for deletion, which can then be reviewed by an uninvolved editor. Your draft will either be published to the main article space if it is deemed acceptable, or sent back to you for further revisions. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

CityPlace Burlington

Hello Drm310,

Two things, I am responding to the request for speedy deletion of my new entry for CityPlace Burlington and your reversal of my edits of Burlington Town Center page. These two entries were my first experience with Wikipedia and were a response motivated by reading inaccurate information on the page for Burlington Town Center that says the mall closed in 2017. I am the Marketing Director for CityPlace Burlington and I immediately disclosed conflict of interest using the Wikipedia tools, and I thought my conflict of interest disclosure was complete, sorry. From your letter I now understand I did not complete this declaration by disclosing my paid employee status, a fact I was not trying to hide, but apparently did not properly disclose. I will dive into your regulations to fully understand how to do this right. I had no intent to deceive anyone or secretly try to market the property with the bias of an employee, I only want correct information to be displayed. As far as what I've written, I attempted to be completely factual in what I wrote, in both entries. The Burlington Town Center is NOT closed, whoever wrote that I believe is trying to vandalize our facility, damage our reputation and destroy the businesses that still operate here. I believe this is someone with an opposition to the project, or at the very least uninformed or not familiar with Burlington. With regard to the CityPlace Burlington article, again, I did my best to present the facts, without bias, about this development, taking off my marketing hat and presenting just the facts.

I admit this is a considerable learning curve and I apologize for messing up out of the gate, and again I apologize for my ignorance of disclosing "paid" status, I will correct this as soon as time permits. Can you please let me know the best way to at least correct the misinformation about the mall being closed? Rewriting the CityPlace Burlington page using your guidelines and employing best practices will take a bit of time, but with my knowledge of the history of the development and the project specifics I am qualified to put together an unbiased, accurate draft of this for Wikipedia's approval.

Thanks, WikiBradCPB WikiBradCPB (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@WikiBradCPB: Thank you for your message. I see that you have made the proper disclosure of your employment on your userpage, which is fantastic.

For your original draft article that was deleted, the reviewing administrator (RHaworth) decided that the content was too promotional in nature to be retained. Since that content is now deleted, I can't comment on specifics. You are welcome to try again, and I see that you have already written something. Your message there isn't necessary, so you can remove it. Instead, what you can do is place this on the draft article's talk page:

{{Connected contributor (paid) |User1=WikiBradCPB |U1-employer=BTC Mall Associates |U1-client=CityPlace Burlington |U1-EH=yes |U1-otherlinks=Disclosure made on userpage.}}

It is important that whatever content you write is backed up by citations to multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Wikipedia is only interested in what has been written and published by third-party sources that are unaffiliated with the topic being discussed. Primary sources can be used for basic facts (e.g. number of employees, dates of establishment, etc.) but any interpretation of facts from primary sources must be attributed to a secondary source.

Please note that your personal knowledge or experience (referred to on Wikipedia as original research) cannot be used unless it has been covered in a reliable source. Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the unverifiable personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. "Verifiability, not truth" summarizes how information that is verifiable by citing sources takes precedence.

Please also be aware that if your draft article is accepted, no single editor has any right of ownership or editorial control over its content. Articles are editable by anyone at anytime, and can change substantially over time. Content cannot be "locked down" to a version that one editor or a group of editors prefers. Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies.

As for my revert of your edit [1] to Burlington Town Center, it was done solely because your additions were unsourced. If you can provide the aforementioned third-party sources for your additions, then they can be re-added. As for the other editors who wrote that the complex was closed - I will also add that every Wikipedia editor is expected to assume good faith and believe that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of malicious intent without clear evidence. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Muneesh Sappel

Hi,

I would like to inform you that this article is false and utter rubbish: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muneesh_Sappel and should be deleted immediately. In future, we should make it the point that only admin can create this article.

I am sending you because you are in this article’s View History and you took initiative earlier to delete this article and ignored it later. Muneesh Sappel took advantage of this and written more rubbish than his previous articles.

He is using wikipedia page for his publicity and propaganda. I am quiet shocked there is no article about him on Indian newspapers and on google, what you find one …. Is only one liner. Even images on google also posted by him….. not a single newspaper photos.

In his article most of the awards has won by other cast/ crew but he is showing in his article like he won!!!

Please do see his sixth article which he has written again in 2015: He says he is “Indian and International production designer, art director, costume designer, hair and make-up artist” but there is not a single hint about AWARDS. In his recent updated version he won so many awards, he has become now Indian production designer, art director and costume designer from previous claiming being INTERNATIONAL production designer…

Now he has become an actor, writer, director, poster design, publicity set construction, theatrographer, production assistant, art director… blah blah….

His article deleted many times since past (10 – 12) years and I see he writes article about himself again…. than some same user:Sapna Shrivastav: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SAPNA_SHRIVASTAV who use to write earlier on fake name user:Shruti Narayanan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shruti95Narayanan takes-over…..

“CONFLICT OF INTEREST”

He is a paid IMDB member, which you can understand… if you are not IMDB paid member. You can’t write anything. Rediff References are bullshit because Sapna Shrivastav works at Rediff. Just see how cleverly he created and designed false newspaper article for reference on his Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=551791188210278&set=a.345572122165520.79274.100001382062100&type=1&theater

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=542341122488618&set=a.345572122165520.79274.100001382062100&type=1&theater

How someone could use his website as reference, he used it: http://www.indianproductiondesigner.com/PL/profile.php?ref_=nm_awd

For your reference (since 2010 his articles are getting deleted.): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Muneeshsappel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Muneeshsappel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.59.250.141 (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@27.59.250.141: If you had studied the page history closer, you will have noticed that the page was nominated for deletion [2] on 6 May 2015, and the result of the deletion discussion was to keep it [3] on 13 May 2015. The consensus was that he is notable enough to be included. Based on that decision, it is unlikely that it would be deleted outright.

I agree that the article has been hijacked by single-purpose accounts, one of which has been identified as a possible sockpuppet. It needs a drastic trim back, but I don't think it's to the point of "blow it up and start over". I will add that there's nothing stopping you from being bold and fixing it yourself.

I'll file a report on the conflict of interest noticeboard.

(update after I had written the first part) Well, forget everything I just said - it looks like you got your wish. It's been deleted by Athaenara. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Drm310, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
• We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

• We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

• ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
• Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Disclosure of employment ElenaMilova - Life Extension Advocacy Foundation

Hello Drm310! Thanks for your message.

I need your advice. At the moment when I created the page for Life Extension Advocacy Foundation, I was a volunteer of the organization. This is why I only indicated that I am related to the organization (by disclosing COI), but didn't indicate any financial stake in promoting a topic, because at that moment it would have been inaccurate.

However, 2 months ago I was hired in the organization and I am currently receiving a salary indeed. But during the time that I am receiving a salary, no new edits were done on the page of Life Extension Advocacy Foundation (except for my present reaction to your message and another one in response to the "Speedy deletion" suggestion).

So here is the question. If the page was made when I was a volunteer with no financial stake in promoting a topic, and during my period of employment no new edits on the page were made by me, should I still make a paid editing disclosure?

I would be grateful for your advice as I am somewhat new to Wikipedia and this situation is a tricky one.

Elena ElenaMilova (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElenaMilova (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@ElenaMilova: Hi Elena. The paid-contribution disclosure rules still apply in this case. They state that "A paid contribution is one that involves contributing to Wikipedia in exchange for money or other inducements. It includes adding or removing content from any page, including articles and talk pages." While your edits to the article were made during your time as an unpaid volunteer, your advocacy against the page's deletion on the article talk page were done as a salaried employee.

After you make this declaration on your user page, you are welcome to continue contributing to the article. However, we advise people with a conflict of interest to avoid editing the article directly, and instead propose changes on the article talk page. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Drm310! I added the information about my editing as part of my job responsibilities to my user page here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ElenaMilova Please let me know if you find it sufficient!

I also checked if my previous disclosure of COI was working, I believe now it is as the Life Extension Advocacy Foundation page in the disclosure note is now clickable - it seems it was not before because of excessive "". ElenaMilova (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@ElenaMilova: Looks good to me! Thank you, and we look forward to your contributions. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

greg marchand

ok so can you answer is there some kind of block on my name? I started the article because several colleagues said they tried to and were blocked. Is there some kind of spam list / block list on my name? -greg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Marchand MD (talk • contribs) 20:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Greg Marchand MD: The article Greg Marchand has been deleted twice because it was found to have copyrighted text from the website http://gregmarchandmd.com/, and also because the article's subject (you, I presume) did not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.

Wikipedia articles are about notable subjects — those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. In the case of a living person, material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.

You should not write an article about yourself, and your colleagues should also avoid creating an article about you due to their personal/professional relationship with you, which constitutes a conflict of interest. Both instances are discouraged due to the inherent difficulty in adhering to the required neutral point of view, avoidance of unpublished original research, and the temptation to use Wikipedia for self-promotion.

Please also realize that if an article about you is ever accepted, you will have no right of ownership or editorial control over its content. Wikipedia is a collaborative project; anyone can edit any page at any time, and consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision making. That is why we often tell people that an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.

Please review the pages I have linked to before making any further attempts to create an article about yourself. If after all that you still truly believe that you are notable enough for mention in Wikipedia, try using the Requested Articles or Articles for Creation avenues. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yea, I've read your notability criteria before, I easily meet all that because of how often I've been in the news and the like, but my question is apparently someone tried to make a wikipedia page by copying my website text and kept getting blocked. This isn't blocking someone new from making a new article now, is it? I totally agree they shouldn't have copied text from my website. They said something about a 30 day block. Is this a thing?? Greg Marchand MD (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Marchand MD (talk • contribs) 22:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Greg Marchand MD: I don't believe that there is any creation protection enabled right now for the title "Greg Marchand". However, it is possible that an administator (I am not one, by the way) may have (temporarily) protected the creation of the page at some point in the past, due to the past copyright violations. This practice is called "salting"; it is a rather strong measure employed only when a page has been deleted but repeatedly recreated.

Since I am not an administrator, I cannot see past versions of the page, nor who was responsible for creating them. You could ask the two admins who deleted the pages (Bearcat and DGG) for more details if you need them. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, but obviously there is no such salting in place now if I was able to make the page. So, can I just delete the page and let me colleagues know that if they want to make a page about me they are free to? Greg Marchand MD (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record, the first version was created by an editor whose username was Rcerrone1, and the second attempt was by an editor named Drewmonda. That said, a person does not get over our notability criterion by appearing on the news as a speaker in coverage about something else; a person gets over our notability criteria by being the subject of news coverage about them. So appearing on the news as a speaker does not demonstrate your notability — being the subject of coverage in which other people are speaking or writing about you is what would be required. That said, even if your notability can be properly demonstrated by the correct kind of sourcing, your colleagues still shouldn't be creating the article — because they have a direct personal relationship with you, they still have a direct conflict of interest and still really shouldn't be involved in creating an article about you at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The user created his article under Greg marchand. This was speedied as promotional, and then salted as an incorrect capitalization. The original article was under Greg Marchand Meters (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking further, I see no evidence that Marchand is notable--GS shows only one peer-revirewed publication, with only 17citations. Everything else listedas a publication on his web site is a talk at a conference or the like, not an article in a peer-reviewed journal. This is way below the relevant standard, WP:PROF. Everything else is just local or trivial news accounts about a very unimportant Guinness record--they amount to PR (there is one other local account of criticism on the basis that the surgical technique he used in setting the record was inappropriate [4]. This ref does not appear in any version of the article submitted. This will not meet WP:GNG -- press release-based articles are not reliable sources for notability, nor do we write an article on a person because of one negative item of press. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Question about "Boundless (technology company)" article

Hello User:Drm310! I hope it's okay to post this on your talk page. I appreciate your guidance on COI editing with regard to the Boundless (technology company) article. I previously declared my COI editing status on my user page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Messier6 Would you recommend that I also declare it on the article talk page? And if so, what is the best way to do that? Additionally, I would appreciate any of your input on the way the article is written. I've studied the neutral tone guidelines and feel that I have followed them, but I'm certainly ready and willing to take any suggestions that would improve the article. Messier6 (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)