User talk:Bernie44/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bernie44. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Replaceable fair use File:Olivia Somerlyn Parachute 2014.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Olivia Somerlyn Parachute 2014.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the file description page and add the text
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing<your reason>with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable. - On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 23:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
January 2015
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SpinningSpark 00:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Bernie44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I acknowledge and understand the reason for the block. My aim is to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, within its guidelines, and I apologize for failing to comply with the updated Terms of Use. If I am unblocked, I will comply with the Terms of Use for paid editing by adding a statement on my user page, and/or on the talk page or in the edit summary of any page I am paid to create or edit.
Accept reason:
Disambiguation link notification for March 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited STX Entertainment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom McGrath. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shmuly Yanklowitz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jewish Journal. 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) 09:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Disclosures
Disclosing a COI isn't a carte blanche. Until someone has had time to verify that the content is suitable and verifiable, the {{coi}} tag should remain. As the person with a COI, you really, really, shouldn't be removing it. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, fair enough. I appreciate the explanation here. I realize you are the editor who nominated him for deletion last August. I really feel that my entry is neutral and proves his notability, and I have to say I think the tags are unfair. Hopefully someone will come along and properly verify the entry's contents.--Bernie44 (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Unless I'm mistaken, this is the only new source to directly address the subject in which case notability is still not certain per WP:42 and I think another AFD is probably necessary. I also think that while the content is reasonably neutral, there is a great deal of superfluous detail that is unrelated to the subject e.g. the current ref 11 which barely even mentions him. Similarly, why include the "In August 2014, Lee flew to Kansas City ..." This is the kind of thing that makes the coi tag necessary. I'd prefer to be certain of notability prior to trying to clean it up though. SmartSE (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- I can't see what was in the versions that were deleted, so I'm not sure what was in there or the tone of those entries, etc. But since it was deleted in August, there has been some significant new press - along with the Variety article you point out, there was also this piece in The New Yorker and this from the Kansas City Star, among others. Those articles may not be profiles on Swade, but it seems to me there has been regular coverage of Swade's activities since 2012. And as for what you say is superfluous detail, I was attempting to describe what the documentaries are about. I know I'm probably not going to change your opinion, but I have to disagree with such tight scrutiny on an entry about a filmmaker who has made a feature and several shorts that have gained decent coverage, and is now heading the video arm of Rolling Stone. --Bernie44 (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Unless I'm mistaken, this is the only new source to directly address the subject in which case notability is still not certain per WP:42 and I think another AFD is probably necessary. I also think that while the content is reasonably neutral, there is a great deal of superfluous detail that is unrelated to the subject e.g. the current ref 11 which barely even mentions him. Similarly, why include the "In August 2014, Lee flew to Kansas City ..." This is the kind of thing that makes the coi tag necessary. I'd prefer to be certain of notability prior to trying to clean it up though. SmartSE (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
@Smartse: I have revised Swade's entry to make it more concise and neutral - can you please take a look and remove the tags if you agree with me that they are no longer necessary? I see too many entries with notability tags undeservedly sitting there for years, so I don't feel comfortable just waiting around for another user to happen upon the entry and remove the tags. As I said above, we are talking about a filmmaker who has co-directed and starred in one feature for ESPN, is working on another, has directed or produced several short docs, and heads the video division for Rolling Stone, all of which have received coverage in well-known press. Thanks.--Bernie44 (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay. I still don't think there are any sources providing in-depth biographical content nor anything spectacular like a reputable award. This is the only good new source since the last AFD and while it's an improvement, I'm not sure it's enough to push over WP:GNG. It's definitely on the edge of notability and others may disagree, so I think in the circumstances another AFD is the best option. SmartSE (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Transparency as a COI editor
Hi! Disclosing your COI isn't the only think you need to do as a COI editor. Among other several things, you need to be transparent to other editors. You could start by answering some simple questions at Talk:Perforce Software#Paid editing disclosure that I pinged at you some time ago.
You need to understand that while you reap the profits for writing the articles, you also induce a cost to the volunteer community of Wikipedia, to review, maintain and potentially fix up your work. Thus volunteers will expect you to be forthcoming and go the extra mile. -- intgr [talk] 09:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi intgr [talk]. First off, I'm sorry, I somehow missed responding to your previous questions. I'm responding to them here so there's not a back and forth in multiple places. A few years ago I received some press for writing Wikipedia articles, so people generally find me that way. I have an interest in technology and tech companies, which is why I enjoy working on those types of entries. As for my writing background, I'd sum it up as a serious hobby I guess. I mostly work on films. Overall I feel like I am being transparent to other editors, by disclosing when I'm paid to work on an entry. In general I try to create and revise entries, paid or not, that don't need "fixing up". I understand that other users will at times feel otherwise. I feel like the tag you put atop the Perforce Software page is unnecessary, since I disclosed my COI and you already revised the entry as you see fit. But I hear what you're saying about going the extra mile, and I'll make a stronger effort to do that from here on out. --Bernie44 (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of Josh Swade for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Josh Swade 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/Josh Swade (3rd 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. SmartSE (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
A page you started (Morgan McCormick) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Morgan McCormick, Bernie44!
Wikipedia editor Sulfurboy just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
,
To reply, leave a comment on Sulfurboy's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Removing coi templates
I see that at Ben's Garden, you've once again removed {{coi}}. Your disclosure on the talk page does not mean that there are no neutrality issues that need reviewing. Please do not do this again and if you would like a tag to be reviewed, post at WP:COIN and ask for uninvolved editors to take a look. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll look into taking it to WP:COIN - I didn't know I could do that. Thanks for letting me know. Hopefully that will help get the page a proper review to determine if other users consider it neutral.--Bernie44 (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Looking back I was a little blunt before. Sorry about that. Unfortunately it can be difficult to distinguish between ignorance and deception with paid editors and I appreciate you are trying to do the right thing by disclosing your COI which I'm grateful of. You'll notice that I've edited Ben's Garden further to remove the promotional tone, which I hope will guide you in writing neutrally. The product part of Perforce Software needs further editing to make it suitable. Try to briefly summarise what the software is used for, rather than listing all the features and advantages. Language like "integrate their entire" and "expanding Perforce's range by offering new" doesn't belong here. The "In (date)" use in Helix Versioning Engine is rather clumsy. I'd also greatly reduce the last two products in the list as the sources don't look great to me. Note that Forbes contributors are not generally considered reliable sources for content like this. A more compliant section would be a lot shorter than it is currently and would also be chronological starting with their earliest products rather than one released this year. "Customers" sections are also best avoided if at all possible as they are blatantly promotional. I hope this helps. SmartSE (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for this encouraging note and for your thoughtful edits. I hear you on the Perforce Software products section, when I have some time I'll go in there and make it more concise and remove unnecessary detail. And I will take note of the lack of reliability of Forbes bloggers.--Bernie44 (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Looking back I was a little blunt before. Sorry about that. Unfortunately it can be difficult to distinguish between ignorance and deception with paid editors and I appreciate you are trying to do the right thing by disclosing your COI which I'm grateful of. You'll notice that I've edited Ben's Garden further to remove the promotional tone, which I hope will guide you in writing neutrally. The product part of Perforce Software needs further editing to make it suitable. Try to briefly summarise what the software is used for, rather than listing all the features and advantages. Language like "integrate their entire" and "expanding Perforce's range by offering new" doesn't belong here. The "In (date)" use in Helix Versioning Engine is rather clumsy. I'd also greatly reduce the last two products in the list as the sources don't look great to me. Note that Forbes contributors are not generally considered reliable sources for content like this. A more compliant section would be a lot shorter than it is currently and would also be chronological starting with their earliest products rather than one released this year. "Customers" sections are also best avoided if at all possible as they are blatantly promotional. I hope this helps. SmartSE (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:DVBBS logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:DVBBS logo.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) 17:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Eric Boyko
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 Eric Boyko, 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 "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. KDS4444Talk 00:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
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) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Constantino Mendieta
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 Constantino Mendieta, 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 "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Voices.com
It seems like you have some interesting new sources, but on Wikipedia you cannot simply erase prior content in favour of more promotional items just because the company believes things are "irrelevant". I would suggest adding to the page, being careful to source your items properly, rather than trying to whitewash items, etc. Maybe follow WP:BRIGHTLINE for this one if you're having trouble, but I'm sure you can figure it out. Jeremy112233 (Lettuce-jibber-jabber?) 15:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I really don't understand why you are reverting every single one of my edits. I am not adding "promotional items" or "whitewashing" the page, I am updating the page with relevant and current information. The edits I made are properly sourced. Your blanket reversion of every single one of my edits on the page does not make sense. For instance, I added the current number of employees, with a valid source (CBC News). Why would you revert this? Why would you revert the current rank on Alexa, which is lower than it was? How could this possibly be considered promotional? Why would you revert my correct capitalization of the Android operating system? If you are going to remove or revise certain changes of mine, that's perfectly fine. But reverting every single change? I would suggest that you look carefully at the changes I'm making and change whatever you think should not be there, rather than revert everything I'm doing. And I in turn will be super careful about any additions/revisions I make. Thanks.--Bernie44 (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Your most recent edit is fine. Just try not to erase the current sourced content with something else, even if you think it is more pertinent. Then, what you add can be sorted through for what's appropriate or not. Right now you're removing sources, sourced content, and adding up some stuff that shouldn't be there. If you can add your content in a different manner, then full reversion, of course, wouldn't be appropriate--at least in my eyes. Other editors may just revert it if the content's too promotional. Basically, you can't just create a new page that you're client likes better and plaster it over the old one, especially when you are whitewashing out all negative material. It should be fine so long as you keep that in mind.Jeremy112233 (Lettuce-jibber-jabber?) 22:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- I hear you if you feel that some of what I added is overly promotional. But, for the record, I'm not trying to whitewash the page, I'm trying to make it more concise and up to date. After all, it is you not me who deleted pretty much the entire controversies section. Anyways, I'll make some more careful revisions later, bit by bit, hopefully you'll be cool with them.--Bernie44 (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, all but that one part that was sourced properly. The rest was vandalism. Hopefully the above helps! Page could stand a bit of growth at the end of the day. Jeremy112233 (Lettuce-jibber-jabber?) 23:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- I hear you if you feel that some of what I added is overly promotional. But, for the record, I'm not trying to whitewash the page, I'm trying to make it more concise and up to date. After all, it is you not me who deleted pretty much the entire controversies section. Anyways, I'll make some more careful revisions later, bit by bit, hopefully you'll be cool with them.--Bernie44 (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Your most recent edit is fine. Just try not to erase the current sourced content with something else, even if you think it is more pertinent. Then, what you add can be sorted through for what's appropriate or not. Right now you're removing sources, sourced content, and adding up some stuff that shouldn't be there. If you can add your content in a different manner, then full reversion, of course, wouldn't be appropriate--at least in my eyes. Other editors may just revert it if the content's too promotional. Basically, you can't just create a new page that you're client likes better and plaster it over the old one, especially when you are whitewashing out all negative material. It should be fine so long as you keep that in mind.Jeremy112233 (Lettuce-jibber-jabber?) 22:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
For reference regarding client, employer, affiliation
This is from a conversation I had a while ago on the article talk page of Eric Boyko. Since I realize other editors might want to know and it's probably a bad idea to keep important information like this on the article talk page, I thought it'd be good to put it here. If you don't want it here, feel free to remove it (it's your user page, you're allowed to remove almost everything). Just trying to help out by keeping relevant information easily accessible so others don't bother you about it.
- Thanks - and I also have a notice about this on my user page.--Bernie44 (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hi! Thanks for the disclosure, it's good to hear about that so other editors can check in to see if the article is neutral. Looking through it, I think it's remarkably neutral for any Wikipedia article. Thanks for your contribution. Since I can tell you're editing in good faith from your contributions and talk page, I'll ask here: in line with the policy regarding paid editing, could you disclose your "employer, client, and affiliation." Anyway, hope you can see this and respond. Thanks! Appable (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Appable. I do my best to keep my activities on here neutral and sourced, so I appreciate your assistance. In regards to my "employer", for anything I'm paid to do, it's by the client. In this instance, I was paid by Boyko's company, Stingray. Thanks!--Bernie44 (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Hi! Thanks for the disclosure, it's good to hear about that so other editors can check in to see if the article is neutral. Looking through it, I think it's remarkably neutral for any Wikipedia article. Thanks for your contribution. Since I can tell you're editing in good faith from your contributions and talk page, I'll ask here: in line with the policy regarding paid editing, could you disclose your "employer, client, and affiliation." Anyway, hope you can see this and respond. Thanks! Appable (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Nomination of Constantino Mendieta for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Constantino Mendieta 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/Constantino Mendieta until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bernie44. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |