User talk:Stesmo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Otter (3323933464).jpg


Contents

Stevie Ray Vaughan edit revert[edit]

Hi there -

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! It's appreciated.

In regards to my commit, I went in to fix a formatting error, but I have the Chrome 'Cloud to Butt' extension installed (normally humorous) and it unintentionally changed the instance of cloud in the text box. I'll have to watch out for that in the future. Thanks for catching that! :)

Sam Cawthorn[edit]

Hey there,

Not sure if this is a wiki issue, but the link on the Sam Cawthorn page for bemotivated.com.au points to someone's online Nike shop. I think everything else is fine, otherwise. Thanks for all your great work. 220.244.174.112 (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Darrell220.244.174.112 (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, 220.244.174.112. Thanks for letting me know about the bemotivated site. It looks like most of the links in the external links section were dead or unnecessary, as well. Thanks again, Stesmo (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Liliane Bettencourt[edit]

Can you please look at what you're reverting to? It's the same site, just an older page. If the site is not a WP:RS the entire sentence should be removed. --NeilN talk to me 21:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, NeilN. I did look at what I was reverting. I reverted a ton of spam this morning from that user and reviewed each before doing so. While the link may be useful as a reference, it is an external link, which shouldn't be placed in the body of an article. This page was different than a lot of the spam, in that it actually replaced existing text and wasn't just slapped in the lead paragraph without consideration of appropriateness. I've reverted my 2nd revert and converted the external link to a reference. Sound good? Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Your last edit summary got cut off and I wasn't looking as carefully as I should have been so I missed the ref suggestion. --NeilN talk to me 21:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Drastic Edit to Edexcel article[edit]

Your recent edit to the Pearson Edexcel article removed lots of valuable information. I'm quite tempted to revert it as the page used to be an in-depth article on the exam board but now consists of a couple of paragraphs. Why did you make these changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnxsmith (talkcontribs) 21:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Johnxsmith. Thanks for stopping by my talk page. The edits you're referring to are these, correct? The short answer is: the overwhelming majority of page didn't meet Wikipedia's Core Content Policies.
The long answer: The first edit removed external links in the body of the article, which runs afoul of WP:EL. The second edit's edit summary is: Removed unsourced promotional content. Removed duplicate info. Tightened language. Requested reliable sources (not from Pearson, Edexcel or press releases) to keep claims in article. I feel that I explained my edits well in that summary. I removed the promotional content (see Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion), the promotional external links (WP:EL), the unsourced claims WP:Verifiability, and various tightening (removing duplicate info, padding, etc.). And, I requested reliable, third-party published source (not from Pearson, Edexcel or press releases) for the remaining claims. If those Citation Needed requests go unanswered, they'll be removed, as well.
There is exactly one reference in that article that doesn't point to Edexcel.com (points to a Maltese domain, which may still be under Edexcel's control/input). That reference isn't a reliable, third-party published source. In fact, due to the lack of reliable sources in the current article, I'm not even sure the subject of this article meets WP:Notability standards, either.
Please feel free to add back Edexcel content as long as it isn't promotional, doesn't contain external links in the body of the article, aren't trivial and are reliable sourced (not from Edexcel, related company or press release). This article could use some help, especially in showing it's Notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Thanks again for stopping by. Stesmo (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, many thanks for your feedback. :)

Johnxsmith (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Beepi article[edit]

Hello. Thanks for reviewing the Beepi article. I am a tech journalist and have become very fascinated by this company's innovations. It's one of those hyper-growth companies that went from nowhere to $200 million valuation in less than a year. So I spent some time giving them a reworked page with much more information.

Anyway, perhaps I went too far in explaining the background of the company. That said, the key innovation being reported by the tech and business press is how the marketplace works and why it is different than online classified listings. So I restored that language, but in a more neutral tone. I left references and a longer explanation on the Talk page for the article.

I also restored the reference to the company accepting BitCoin to pay for cars. That's not a frivilous detail. Many stories about this decision have appeared in the tech press because it is perhaps the largest consumer transaction now possible with the digital currency. I included references and more discussion on the Talk page of the article.

New stories are appearing about this company very frequently. I have just noticed a story in Wired magazine that I have yet to cite. Indications are that it will become an important company.

Thanks BC1278 (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Hi, BC1278. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page.
Thanks for restoring some of the services information to Beepi. I was just typing out in the Talk page about how my edit removed too much and didn't include enough about the products/services when I saw you added back some of that. I've tightened the language up some more and made sure Bitcoin info was included. While I don't believe most folks outside of the bitcoin world would find it that interesting or notable, it is an interesting detail for now. At some point, if Bitcoin continues to be accepted by businesses (up to ~50,000 via Bitpay) it may be as trivial as saying "Beepi accepts credit cards".
Do note that Wikipedia is more about what has already happened than about how awesome a company might be in the future. I look forward to the reliable sources that will talk about how many cars they've sold, how profitable they are/aren't, about when they've gone public, etc.
As to the 'marketplace'. Are you talking about the peer-to-peer marketplace? If so, that info seems more like a separate article and doesn't have a place in Beepi other than in the See Also or a "Beepi is a peer-to-peer marketplace" sentence.
I'd like to mention something to you about editing Wikipedia. If you're going to use the same reference more than once, please use Ref Name= as seen in Help:Citations_quick_reference. You can define the name for the first use (<ref Name="blah">example.com</ref>) and then just use <ref name="blah" /> for the other footnotes. This will keep the references section from filling up with dozens of the same link, as it did in Beepi. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Beepi change[edit]

Thanks for your additional edits. I made one change, which I explained on the Beepi Talk page also. I changed the word "middleman" to "peer-to-peer marketplace" because it is much more technically accurate. Middleman suggests an entity that possibly takes possession of the goods, as some middlemen do. Beep is a marketplace because it provides the venue or platform for the sale, via its software, but is never an actual party to the sale. This is a really important economic, legal and practical difference.

As per your suggestion, I may go back and find info on their current sales, growth etc. I think I read it somewhere but will have to go back and find it.

Thanks for the style note. I was wondering how to do that. BC1278 (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Hey, BC1278... Yes, but the reader may know what a middleman is, but "peer-to-peer marketplace" seems more like marketing talk / buzzword. What does that mean? How does a Wikipedia reader figure out what that means? It's not notable enough to be a Wikipedia article...
Middle man, in the sense of Intermediary, does have a known meaning here. I'm open to another word, like intermediary , but "peer-to-peer marketplace" doesn't seem like an accessible phrase that defines what Beepi does. Beepi definitely is an intermediary, though, as it "is a third party that offers intermediation services between two trading parties. The intermediary acts as a conduit for goods or services offered by a supplier to a consumer. Typically the intermediary offers some added value to the transaction that may not be possible by direct trading." Stesmo (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Peer to Peer Marketplace in Beepi[edit]

Hi. I've changed it to just marketplace for the time being. A marketplace is means there is a large volume of good and services available for sale in one place, often without a range of intermediaries between the buyer and seller. An intermediary or middleman means there are layers between the buyer and the seller, when in fact the specific business model of Beepi and similar companies like Uber Technologies, Airbnb, LendingTree, and many other newcomers is disintermediation. In other words, to quote from the Disintermediation entry "the removal of intermediaries in a supply chain, or "cutting out the middlemen". Instead of going through traditional distribution channels, which had some type of intermediate (such as a distributor, wholesaler, broker, or agent), companies may now deal with every customer directly, for example via the Internet. One important factor is a drop in the cost of servicing customers directly.""

Peer-to-peer is actually a technical term from computer science that is now being widely applied to a whole series of hugely disruptive new business models that furthers disintermediation by cutting out even more layers. Peer-to-peer renting exploded because of Airbnb. As Peer-to-peer renting explains "Peer-to-peer renting services and Platforms are usually online marketplaces connecting individuals and enabling rental transactions between them. Peer-to-peer marketplaces are an evolution from the traditional Business-to-business marketplaces (also referred as B2B), and Business-to-consumer marketplaces (also referred as B2C)."

We also have huge new marketplaces in Peer-to-peer lending, Peer to peer investing, peer-to-peer banking, [[ and Peer-to-peer carsharing in the form of Uber. Tech entrepreneurs have been going market to market (hotels, taxis, car sales, banking) and figuring out how to apply Disintermediation. In aggregate, some refer to all the explosions of peer-to-peer activity as the sharing economy.

So I hope you'll see I've chosen my words carefully to represent a specific and highly notable kind of economic and technology activity. BC1278 (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Thanks, BC1278. I understand both the terms peer-to-peer and marketplace, as well as the general trend of "disruption". My point is that 1) it's a marketing term / buzzword and 2) readers may not know what it is. And, notice what your "marketplaces" list of articles in the third paragraph is lacking... "peer-to-peer marketplace".
Specifically, Beepi is an intermediary and not a marketplace. It's not replacing some distribution channel, as used cars don't really have one. The model it's trying to shove its way into is between the posting of cars on craigslist (requiring no distribution channel and no third party being involved in the transaction other than for posting the ad) and used-car dealerships (where the original car owner has sold the car to a third party (dealership) and the third party is now trying to clear its inventory and sell it, perhaps having to offer guarantees and warranties). Beepi does not just accept an ad, it also guarantees the quality of the goods (inspection), arranges for delivery, accepts payment, offers a guarantee of sale, etc. In fact, if the car doesn't sell, Beepi buys the car that's for sale and is now the used-car dealer trying to clear its inventory. Yay for disruption?
Unlike any of the examples used (car-sharing and lending/investing/banking), the used-car selling already had a peer-to-peer element for decades via classifieds/Craigslist, local physical bulletin boards, online bulletin boards / forums / message boards and even a sign in the window of the car. For that market, Beepi is actually introducing layers between the buyer and the seller. Layers I'm sure folks are willing to pay for, but it's not removing them.
I understand it's very exciting and cool, especially if you're in Silicon Valley and/or have a piece of that pie, but Wikipedia doesn't really do exciting. And, the risk being run here of trying to breathlessly brand this with a marketing buzzword is that it makes it harder for the non-techie/non-Silicon Valley readers to understand what the subject is. If there isn't an article there for a reader who isn't sure what a peer-to-peer marketplace is, then a less cool term or phrase should be used so people interested in learning about Beepi can learn about Beepi. Stesmo (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Stesmo: A Marketplace is simply, to quote Wikipedia, "A place where buying and selling occurs." Beepi is a marketplace, in both standard language and formal economic terms. Except in unusual circumstances, it does not take possession of the cars. It provides a place where buyers and sellers can exchange goods for capital and provides them with services to assure that the transaction is transparent and honest, just like a stockmarket. As the Market maker, it sets the rules for the transaction and attempts to make it as smooth or friction-less as possible. Just like the New York Stock Exchange, in unusual circumstances, where there isn't a match between a buyer and seller, it will step in on one side of a transaction as a Market maker to assure market liquidity.

Here is a partial list of news publications that have described Beepi as a "market" or "marketplace":

-the Wall Street Journal http://www.wsj.com/articles/beepi-raises-60-million-to-sell-used-cars-to-smartphone-generation-1412738102/ -Wired http://www.wired.com/2015/02/beepi/ -MIT Technology Review Spanish Edition http://www.technologyreview.es/tr35argentinayuruguay/profile.aspx?trid=1524 -Techcrunch http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/06/beepi-60m/ -Re/code (created by WSJ senior business reporters Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberger) http://recode.net/2014/04/15/beepi-could-be-the-car-buying-site-weve-been-waiting-for/

That should suffice. Wikipedia favors the evidence provided by independent, verifiable sources WP:Verifiability All these sources refer to Beepi as a marketplace or market. I can find no source that refer to it as an intermediary - and I looked carefully. So in the end, my analysis and yours are less important than what the verifiable sources say.

When I get a chance, I will write an entry for peer-to-peer marketplaces or redirect that entry to Social peer-to-peer processes because as the peer-to-peer renting listing states, all these other new categories are forms of peer-to-peer marketplaces. Rent-a-room and share-a-ride were and are also both popular electronic and physical bulletin board entries, (just like buy a car), and yet Airbnb and Uber are considered among the most significant disintermediaries of the last decade because they removed middlemen from the housing and taxi industries, respectively. As with Beepi, these services provide a platform for buyers and sellers to conduct a transaction - they do not actually buy or sell the good and service, themselves (except rarely, to make the market.) Beepi is disintermediating used car dealers (actually, it's a complex eco-system of wholesalers and retailers, but I don't have the citations at hand, so I won't try to document that here. Suffice to say there are several mark ups, resulting in cars being sold substantially more expensively than peer-to-peer.)

Its model is identical to all these other disintermediation plays in the peer-to-peer economy. FYI, as you raised it, I'm in New York, not Silicon Valley. I've been writing about economics and markets for 25 years, although I am not claiming my expertise matters. I'm just citing the sources. BC1278 (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Congratulations[edit]

STiki Barnstar of Merit Silver.png
The Silver STiki Barnstar of Merit
Congratulations, Stesmo! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 10,000 classification threshold using STiki.

We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool.

We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Widr (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the improper link[edit]

Hi, Stesmo, I had fixed a bad external link for Cape Gazette on another page and thought this was the same situation. It won't happen again. If I can persuade our management into creating a valid Wikipedia page for our newspaper, may I use that internal link in List of Delaware Newspapers? Thanks, Teresa :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresar WV (talkcontribs) 18:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome, Teresar WV! Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. I have good news and bad news. Good news: You absolutely can use the internal link (aka Wikilink) to the article about your newspaper in that list and elsewhere in Wikipedia where ever the paper is referenced. The bad news: You and your paper shouldn't be doing much other than simple edits (like linking to an existing article) if your edit concerns your newspaper. Please take a look at the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. All is not lost, though... You can still request an article be written about your paper... See I think my organization deserves an article on Wikipedia but none exists. What can I do?. Please don't take this as a "don't edit Wikipedia", though. Please continue to edit, just with caution around areas you may have WP:COI. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

John Kunich[edit]

Please advise what sources are considered not reliable. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aew2145 (talkcontribs) 22:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Aew2145, thanks for stopping by my Talk page. You can check out the Biographies of Living People sources WP:BLPSOURCES and at WP:SOURCE. A rule of thumb is: except for really basic information (where someone is born, company headquarters, etc.), sources should be reliable, third-party and published. A press release, blog post, author bio, etc. aren't going to work for most claims. If there's a problem with finding reliable, secondary sources, Kunich may not be a "Notable" enough subject for a Wikipedia article.
"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Notability_(people)
Thanks for stopping by... Stesmo (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Marian Anderson Edits[edit]

Hi. This IP is the Free Library Of Philadelphia. There is little I can do to control edits. I'm sorry if someone was messing with one of your pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.224.98 (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, 38.98.224.98. Thanks for letting me know. It happens... If it gets pretty bad, an administrator might place a temporary editing block for folks on the IP for those who aren't using an account if it gets out of hand. Stesmo (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

I have edit the link because it is broken and it is relevant to the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piyushj2005 (talkcontribs) 21:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit request for Sophie Hunter page[edit]

Hunter has notable family members and should be included in her infobox. Please do help me in adding the family parameter. :) You can just copy-paste the one I made. Just replace the parentheses with brackets for linking. All references are in the family section of her page already. THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!


|family= ((Michael Gow (British Army officer)|Michael James Gow GCB))(maternal grandfather)
((J. E. B. Seely, 1st Baron Mottistone)) (maternal great-great-grandfather)
((Timothy Carlton)) (father-in-law)
((Wanda Ventham)) (mother-in-law)

58.140.17.253 (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, 58.140.17.253. I see someone else took care of this for you. Stesmo (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit to monster.com[edit]

Hi, Stesmo, the reason I deleted those entries from monster.com page was because I noticed that of the 1560+ words in that page, 960+, or approximately 62%, was negative. Some sentences are also repeated. Is "trafficated" even a word? Yet it is mentioned twice. On the whole, that page is sloppy.

The page is also outdated. May the following sentence be added after "in January 2013, ranks Monster.com third behind Indeed.com and a close second to Careerbuilder.com": "As of February 2015, the most popular job websites are Indeed, Monster.com and Glassdoor."

I have a lot of respect for Wikipedia and would not want to think that it is in the pay of some competitors of Monster, out to launch a smear campaign on the poor company. Does Wikipedia have a policy against malicious attack on entities? Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Lizzydarcy2008. Do you work for Monster.com, an affiliated company, a PR/Promotional company or are otherwise affiliated with Monster.com? Your edits and comments here give the impression that you have a conflict of interest and that you should not be making edits in respect to Monster.com on Wikipedia except in the Talk pages. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion.
If you are not affiliated with Monster.com... Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view, but that doesn't mean that positive or negative claims, if backed with reliable sources, can't be included. While I agree that article needs work, removing anything that isn't glowing about the company is not the way to go about it. The issue I had was with the PR whitewashing and not fixing grammatical errors or updating stats. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hi Stesmo, Thanks for the pointer about external links. I did check whether the entry I inserted had an internal link, but it didn't. So I wasn't sure if I should leave it without any links or go ahead and add the external link. Thanks for correcting my mistake. I'll keep this in mind the next time.--Naray81 (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Naray81. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. In general, if there isn't a Wikipedia article about a subject, it shouldn't be added to a list. If you think that something really should be in that list, there isn't an article on it *and* the subject is WP:Notable, then you may want to create an article (or make a request for the article to be written). Then, you can add a link to that article on that list. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Links to non-English Wikipedia entries[edit]

Some of the companies listed in Fabrice Grinda have Wikipedia entries in other languages. French, Portuguese, etc. These include very notable (and large) companies in Brazil, France, etc. that warrant a Wikipedia entry only in their home market. But I think they pass the notability requirement for inclusion on a list of investments. Is there a way [[]] to link to entries on foreign language versions of Wikipedia? Am I correct that if they are notable in a foreign language version of Wikipedia they should be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BC1278 (talkcontribs) 20:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, BC1278. Yes, use [[:lang:Article]] or [[:lang:Article|Other Text]] , an example for pointing to the Spanish Mont Blanc article: es:Mont Blanc or Mont Blanc. Oh, and to sign your talk comments, use four tildes (~~~~), like this: Stesmo (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Why Did You Remove the Links form That article[edit]

Hey i just check the article "Amit Agarwal" now and find out that you have removed many links. I think that those links are necessary .please add those again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagar Basak (talkcontribs) 02:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Sagar Basak. I removed those links because they did not meet WP:EL. Please read through that link for more information. Also, please read Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and WP:SPAMLINKS for more information on why you should not be adding links to your own websites as you did in WhatsApp. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For your edits to Byron Udell and Accuquote that no-one else could be bothered to do. —George8211 / T 18:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Resume Edit[edit]

Hi Stesmo,

I edited the resume page today and don't understand why you removed the citation. Please explain.

Chefnewman (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Chefnewman. It was less of a reliable, third-party published source and more like Spam. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. Stesmo (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Navigation box to nowhere[edit]

As I have stated, red links are good. It you believe that some of those are not notable, then they can be removed with that comment. Or, redirects can be crated to another article that talks about them. However there is not justification for simply deleting a red link because it is a red link! Vegaswikian (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Vegaswikian. Thanks for stopping by. You'll notice that I hadn't removed the redlinks from the Pinnacle article for this reason. From that very guideline you linked to:
"Red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes, nor linked to through templates such as {{Main}} or {{Further}}, since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles. An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referenda, presidents, sports league seasons, and the like."
As a casinos belonging to one company don't meet the "successive" criteria above, I'm sure you can agree now that the navbox redlinks should be removed while retaining the redlinks in the Pinnacle article to help folks understand those articles need to be created (if they meet WP:NOTABLE). Thanks for stopping by my Talk page and continuing the discussion. Stesmo (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Your own quote supports the inclusion of the redlinks. This navbox is an example of a "whole set", comparable to a list of presidents. Red links are obviously problematic in a navbox with an ill-defined set of topics such as {{philosophy topics}}, but they are perfectly sensible for a navbox that circumscribes a finite set of notable topics (and all the Pinnacle properties, with the possible exception of the Horseshu, are indeed notable). Toohool (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Toohool. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. The quote absolutely does not show that 8 redlinks for casinos belonging to Pinnacle should be included. It clearly references successive sets. You'd not want to have a navbox of all pingpong championships in the 1960s and leave out a redlink'd 1961, as an example. Adding redlinks for 8 casinos out of 24 for Pinnacle doesn't fit the criteria. Mayhaps if they were named Pinnacle First, Pinnacle Second, Pinnacle Third, etc. and the 2nd one was a redlink...
Now, if these casinos are notable, I'm sure someone will create pages for them any day now and *then* they can be added to the navbox and the navbox template added to those articles. And at that point we can all be happy with that navbox template. But, until then that navbox should not include 8 redlinks. Stesmo (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
You are reading the word "successive" as applying to the whole list of "elections, referenda, presidents, sports league seasons", where I believe it only applies to "elections". Otherwise, the words "or a whole set" have no meaning in this sentence. I don't think your view is unreasonable, but you have made your change, it has been reverted by 3 different editors, and you should not keep re-applying it without gaining some consensus. You may want to brush up on WP:BRD. And if you have doubts about the notability of these casinos, you can say so, and I can explain in great detail how I know that they are all notable. Toohool (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Toohool. This isn't a matter of "well, I think that the contributions of General Smith should be emphasized more than those of General Jones in the article". This is a matter "this doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines". Removing redlinks from a navbox is more mild, than bold in this case. On the matter of their notability, if the casinos have notability, an article will be written about them. I have zero problem with articles being written about these casinos if they meet WP:NOTABILITY or not written about them. I really don't have a dog in this fight... I am neither against or for Pinnacle or their properties. I have no idea if the casinos are notable or not. However, a template whose sole purpose is to guide readers to articles (in this case about Pinnacle's properties) should link to actual articles and not redlinks. That's where I'm coming from on this. It would work out perfectly if someone wrote up 8 great articles and added those no-longer-redlinks back to the Pinnacle navbox. Everyone wins, including the readers. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. Stesmo (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
You have your interpretation of the guideline and others have a different interpretation. If you want to make your changes, get consensus. Toohool (talk) 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Fullpower Technologies[edit]

Do we need to do anything about the large number of SPAs on this article? —George8211 / T 18:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, George8211. They appear to be sockpuppets of a PR firm / in-house marketing of Fullpower. I've been thinking about submitting them to SPI for their edits on Philippe Kahn, Fullpower Technologies and Manufacture Modules Technologies (MMT). I just need to get up the energy to grab all the diffs and submit. Current SPA is at least improving the article by removing press releases cites and replacing with published articles.Stesmo (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Diffs: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], and Noahjohn's nine (as of now) edits: [21].
Just to overload you, here's a diff of Philippe Kahn, and also Noahjohn's contribs. —George8211 / T 19:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
FYI, in the history of the Fullpower Technologies article, everything from Noahjohn's edit (at 19:11 UTC today, removing 1 byte) upwards hasn't been included in my list. —George8211 / T 19:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, George8211. I've opened a SPI at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NoahJohn.

Folding editor[edit]

I see that you removed the link (on 23 Feb 20015 at 18:02) which I re-added (it had been there for a couple of years already), pointing potential Winf32 users to my download site. There is no other download site for winf32. Your rationale for this was that "Reverting promotional external link masquerading as a cite". If this were so then wouldn't any url to any possible free download site fall into this category, like emacs (if it's that free) or whatever? I have nothing else to promote here than winf32, it's free, there's no hidden expensenses after downloading, and in my blog I take no AD-words or any ads from it. I have zero income from it and so it will be. Finally I have no wish to promote my own blog in the Wikipedia context. On the contrary:

  • If you can suggest a site where winf32 could be placed that you could accept on behalf ow Wikipedia, please tell me and I would copy them over.

If not, Wikipedia users are left with the odd search engines to try to find the download site.

But there was no "masquarding" going on here. If you still say that there is a masquerading in the strictest sense, then I'd say it wasn't meant to.

I apologise if the url has caused any trouble to Wikipedia's users or principles. Please advice! Øyvind Teig (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Aclassifier. The reference wasn't to a reliable, third-party published source in an attempt to allow for verification of claims or statements. Which puts it more in the External Links category and less in the citation/reference category. In addition, it appears to be promoting a product (even if that product is free). Other companies may have met the WP:Notability guidelines and have a Wikipedia article and a link to their website. I'd also remove any of those company's links that point to their download site or blog instead of their regular, official website unless it was used as a valid citation.
I'd like to assure you that I am sure you have placed that link in an attempt to do the right thing, but I don't think Wikipedia is the place for promoting Winf32. I wish you good luck on finding the right place to promote your product. Stesmo (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Stesmo. I remember I was uncertain when I first put the url there and might have commented on my doubts (but I can't find when I did that the first time, it might have been in the Code folding page). As long as my intentention isn't doubted I am fine too! (The "masquerading" word kicked me on my leg! Maybe another reason text would have saved us this thread). I do agree that Wikipedia isn't the place to promote anything, really.Øyvind Teig (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Why did you remove my LAMAR HS LCT post?[edit]

Why did you do that? Your argument is invalid if you read the original post. I will make it neutral, but what you told me is total BS. why didn't you take down the post currently up that DOWNtalks it?

Decaffe6996 (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)decaffe6996 3-4-15

Hello, Decaffe6996. I removed your edit because it was promotional. I wasn't editing that page, I was reviewing edits made recently. While your edit was promotional, you are absolutely right that the paragraph there has unsourced content that should be removed. I recommend you remove the contentious content that doesn't have a reliable, third-party published source and enter an Edit Summary stating why you are removing that content. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Eleanor Clitheroe[edit]

Hi,

Thanks for correcting my mistakes - it was from my ipad, and the editing was not going well.

I was trying to change that Eleanor "is" the Executive Director to "was" the Executive Director. She left that position in 2013.

The organization is trying to contact all sites that have her listed as ED to clean up that information, so that they are current and correct.

Mrscplus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrscplus (talkcontribs) 16:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem, Mrscplus. I reverted your edit not for changing "is" to "was", but because you seemed to have accidentally removed part of other text, breaking a link to a Wikipedia article. Stesmo (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You removed scholarly sources?[edit]

Hey Stesmo,

I am quite confused about why you thought the content you removed was promotional. It was informative.

I did my due diligence to look up scholarly sources and less well-known sources when editing information on subjects with which I'm familiar and I'm assuming that Wikipedia appreciates reliable but informative content. That is all I was attempting to provide. My purpose was to bring reliable and informative content to Wikipedia, though I do appreciate that you mediate rubbish content off Wiki.

Thanks and I'm curious how in the future I can write posts where they won't be considered promotional, since that is not my goal.

All the best, kgadams93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgadams93 (talkcontribs) 20:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Kgadams93. Which edit? I reverted edits that contained promotional links / references for a beekeeping site from a couple articles and the promotional paragraph about content writing that seemed to be to promote the refspam in the center of that paragraph. None of the edits were reverted for your use of "Crane, E. E. (2013). The world history of beekeeping and honey hunting. Routledge, 341." references or the like. For information on using reliable, third-party published references, you can refer to WP:SOURCES. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. Stesmo (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Stesmo,

I read the WP:SOURCES link and it states "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest." None of my sources should have been considered questionable sources, therefore, since the content on the sites is accurate and reliable. In the future, I am not allowed to reference to less well-known sources? I don't think the book "Crane, E. E. (2013). The world history of beekeeping and honey hunting. Routledge, 341" is very popular if that's the case... Thanks for the clarification :)

All the best, kgadams93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgadams93 (talkcontribs) 13:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015[edit]

Please refrain from making constructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Alsatian cuisine. Your recent edit appears to constitute Self-righteousness and has been reverted. Thank you. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 22:13, March 10, 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahrecht (talkcontribs)

Thanks but you jumped the gun[edit]

Thanks for your concern regarding my post on the JOBS Act. Finding a reference for the source is fairly trivial and calling my edits vandalism is somewhat insulting. Obviously, you are just doing what you think is good work. However, I have a username and will add the reference later. If you want to add it, be my guest, but please don't subtract from human knowledge. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.128.11 (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, 184.96.128.11. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. Add your edit back with your source from your IP or your account, either is fine. If you can't be bothered with sourcing it, then it shouldn't be added. No one has called your edits vandalism, just unsourced. Stesmo (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Added. I would greatly appreciate it if you didn't hurt the site with your behavior in the future. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.128.11 (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Invitation[edit]

A gummi bear holding a sign that says "Thank you"
Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

Hello, Stesmo,

The Editing team is asking very experienced editors like you for your help with VisualEditor. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletterTranslate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Five Branches University[edit]

Dear Stesmo,

Thank you for your recent activity on the Five Branches University page.

I am an independent researcher who hoped to update the page. As I updated the page, I ensured to the best of my ability that I maintained a neutral tone. Furthermore, when I updated the page, I tried my best to base all content on facts derived from news articles. Only when I wrote descriptions of the programs did I reference the University's website. Previously, the page lacked description of the University's programs and background. Recently, I noticed that you reverted the changes I made on the page. From your page, I understand that you have a dedication to accuracy and Wikipedia's standards. Therefore, I be so appreciative if you could please let me know the specific reasons why you reversed the changes (perhaps the specific sections/words/implications) and kindly advise on how I can improve the page.

Thank you again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amethyst.sapphire (talkcontribs) 20:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by my talk page, Amethyst.sapphire. Also, thank you for using third-party, published sources for part of the article. When I reverted the changes, the things that stood out and made me revert the edits were 1) the copy-pasted content from the school's website (which was enough to revert the changes) and 2) unsourced promotional claims like "widely recognized as one of the leading..." If the article had not included the copy-pasted content, I would have just removed the promotional line here or there or included a Citation Needed request in the text. I probably would not have reverted the edits.
For the first issue, please use your own words in the future. Also, do remember that this is an encyclopedia and isn't an advertisement or the school's website: we don't need to include trivial information about the classes or school.
For the second item, such promotional claims (like "widely recognized", first in the nation, etc.), these appear to be promotional, especially as they lack reliable, third-party published sources. If the school is "widely recognized", there should be an abundance of third-party coverage for this as fits the concept of widely recognized :) (though you wouldn't need to include all of them, of course).
Removal or sourcing for the promotional claims and the removal or reduction of the Degree Programs to non-trivial content in your own words (not copy-pasted from their site) and that would be a great improvement for the article.
As a technical point, I saw you were including the same reference three times (not a problem), but were listing the reference in full each time. You can define the first use with a name and then use the name for subsequent usage, like this: 1st time: <ref name="Grows100">http://www.example.com</ref> 2nd time: <ref name="Grows100" /> . If you're using the Visual Editor, enter the first reference as usual and then click Cite | Reuse and select the citation from that list. Stesmo (talk) 05:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Southern Dewberry blackberry mishap.[edit]

Thank you for catching my mistake. I meant to create a new page for Rubus trivialis, not to rewrite the page for Rubus argutus. I'm still new to editing things. I want to become better at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sshannon7 (talkcontribs) 16:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Sshannon7. Not a problem. Good luck on your journey to become a better Wikipedia editor... I'm still working on that goal myself. Stesmo (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Scarlet Monahan[edit]

starting to write up artist, scarlet Monahan. she is well known artist, globally exhibited and known for her cutting satire against the British gov and support of the disabled poor and vulnerable through satirical imagery. please advise I have info about her, exhibitions, publications etc. many believe her to be a true surrealist and the artist of modern society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconicartlover (talkcontribs) 14:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Iconicartlover. The good news is that since she is a well known artist, it will be easy to find reliable, third-party sources to use as citations for the article! If she fits Wikipedia's definition of "notable", particularly the Wikipedia:Artist's criteria, you're ready to go. I haven't created an article before, but Wikipedia:Your first article seems to be a good place to start. After you've created the article, then add a link to her page at Satirists / artists articles as appropriate. Good luck! Stesmo (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Stesmo, I will check out that link its a big help and add all back links to the page, and satire page. Iconicartlover (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

question on list of Pharma companies[edit]

Stemo I see you removed the link to the free database biodirecta with more than 2700 Pharma companies. Why do you think that it is not useful for that to be in the list of Pharma companies page? I am aware of hundreds of students and professors who are in need of such database for free to know what companies are in their countries. Shall I distill content from biodirecta into Wikipedia to make it acceptable for you? I hope this message reaches you. I am still learning how to post and comment. But I am willing to learn. Just let me know how we can make people benefit from this free source of Pharma companies list... Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgmartinelli (talkcontribs)

Hi, Fgmartinelli. First, that is a list of Pharma companies that meet Wikipedia's notability standards (which means most of them have a Wikipedia article) and isn't a linkfarm to other websites that have lists of Pharma companies. Secondly, if you wish to promote your site or "make people benefit from this free source of Pharma companies" this is not the place for it. Here are a couple links on Wikipedia's policies: External Links, plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. Stesmo (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Stesmo.sorry for the late reply but I was not notified of your reply. Thanks for your time anyway. I think I understand better what you mean now. Would it be interesting to report on what medicine or disease most of the companies work? We can provide for example X companies research disease a, y companies research disease b and provide link to the related disease page on Wikipedi, having biodirecta only as reference. I still think it would be a big loss of information for people who visit a page called list of Pharma companies not be allowed to know about the existence of other online lists outside Wikipedia. That is what most of the reader expect: or get a list inside wiki or get part of list (notable as you say) and reference to offline source to complement that. It would be a missed service by Wikipedia to make it look like such list do not exist. Because that is what most of students and professors in the sector look for when the actually visit this Wikipedia page... Do you see my point? Can you suggest me a way in which such useful (and free) reference could be provided? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgmartinelli (talkcontribs) 07:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Fgmartinelli. I'd recommend you read through External Links, plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. I don't believe Wikipedia will be the best place for you to promote your website. Stesmo (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

WebmasterMiller[edit]

Hi! Why adding link 'DJ Java Decompiler new download site' - (wich is a link to a commercial project) - is NOT spam, while online tool is spam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WebmasterMiller (talkcontribs) 19:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, WebmasterMiller. That is some serious boldness. I remove a bunch of spammy links (including yours and the one you refer to), which you then put back and then ask me why one of the links you put back is allowed. I removed the "new download site" link as well as yours because they don't meet WP:EL. Stesmo (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Horological Smartwatch[edit]

You removed paragraph about Horological Smartwatch. Instead of removing, if you feel it is not neutral, please rewrite:

2015, Frederique Constant introduces the Horological Smartwatch, characterised by the fact that it is based around a dial rather than a screen. Powered by MotionX of Fullpower Technologies, the watches connect to an app on Android or iOS phone, allowing to track activity, measure sleep cycles, and get reminders to be more active if sitting too long. Activity and sleep quality can be seen on a secondary analog dial on the watch face itself.

Please check relevance Horological Smartwatch, there have been numerous articles written about this new product category.

Please reinstate on relevant pages. Thank you, Pcstas (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Pcstas. The edits you refer to are the edits added by the Swiss IP User 212.43.136.16 with very obvious COI. This will look familiar to other edits like the ones here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manufacture_Modules_Technologies_(MMT)&diff=prev&oldid=652800711 as well as the other or any of the other edits involving MMT / FullPower (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Noahjohn/Archive. I've become far more informed as to Fullpower/MMT/MotionX and the Horological Smartwatch than I had really wanted to be thanks to these PR accounts and edits. Rest assured, they'll be back in a couple days to add another paragraph about MotionX and FullPower to each of these articles (and probably a couple more articles). Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Wow... I just read your page and realized that you are the founder of Frédérique Constant and owners of Alpina. I had no idea. Then, while I've got your attention: Please tell your PR folks to stop it. Thanks! Stesmo (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Stesmo, we do not have PR folks writing to Wikipedia pages. I wrote about the Horological Smartwatch, and frankly don't you think there is enough notoriety on this new product category I have been working on for two years? If 15+ TV stations found it interesting to interview me in Basel, don't you think that a short entry on Wikipedia is appropriate? If you are reasonable, please reinstate on Frederique Constant, Peter Stas and MMT. Re-write if you feel necessary, I am always looking for best solution. Pcstas (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Moreover, you should be aware that original text has been published on reputable sources like Bloomberg, Forbes, etc etc. Please do not question the notoriety nor that we want to inform Wikipedia readers on a new product category and what it means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcstas (talkcontribs) 07:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Pcstas. I'm sure that when you added this to articles about yourself and your comapny, you just forgot to log in with your account. I'd recommend making any further edits from your account and not from an IP so other editors are not thinking you're actively sock puppeting. Again, I'm sure it was an oversight. Also, please review Am I allowed to edit articles about myself or my organization? and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion before editing articles about your companies or yourself. I'd recommend posting your paragraph to the Talk pages of the Frédérique Constant article asking for an uninvolved editor to add it. I don't feel that paragraph needs to be added to MMT (duplicate info) or your personal article (it was created by your companies, not Peter Stas, correct?).
I have made no claims to the notability or lack of notability of the information. My issue was the information was cut-and-pasted between articles, without much regard to existing material, much as previous PR/COI editors have done previously on MMT/Fullpower. An edit to an article doesn't need to meet WP:Notable to be added to existing, appropriate articles (see WP:NNC). On the positive, your paragraph is nicely sourced and not over-the-top in promotional language. If it hadn't been cut-and-pasted into MMT (where most of the information already existed, including the reference), it might have gone unnoticed. Good luck with your new watch. Stesmo (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I did not login initially. After 10 days at Baselworld, tired and I did not make updates on Wikipedia for some time, needed to find back password also. When I write something on Wikipedia, I always try to avoid COI as much as possible and take only prior published texts. You can see from my IP (same for pcstas) that I have nothing to do with this 'Sock Pupating' you refer to, I don't even know what it is. So, where from here now? You already wrote that paragraph was nicely sourced. I would like to ask that you UNDO it on Frédérique Constant and Peter Stas. Yes, I initiated the project, created with R&D team prototypes, and found Fullpower as partner for firmware, apps and cloud. Thank you, Pcstas (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Pcstas. I'd recommend posting your paragraph to the Talk pages of the Frédérique Constant article asking for an uninvolved editor to add it, as per WP:BFAQ#EDIT. After reviewing Am I allowed to edit articles about myself or my organization? and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, of course. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Stesmo, you have removed, why don't you undo your removal? We have discussed and you agreed it was decently written. 212.43.136.16 (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I save you the trouble and have undone my entry on Frederique_Constant. Please do not remove again. Thank you, Pcstas (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Skrill - External Links[edit]

Hi! Care to elaborate why do you believe that WP:EL applies to iTunes and Google Play app links you have removed from EL of Skrill? Those are official apps and, in my opinion, those links offer a lot of value to visitors. The same as such links do for PayPal and IMDB. Enivid (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Enivid. The links do not advance the encyclopedic understanding of Skrill (WP:ELYES #3). Add in WP:ELPOINTS ELPoints #3 and the spirit of #4 (The official website (already linked) directs you to the download sites). Thanks for stopping by my Talk page, Enivid. Stesmo (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and I've also removed the app download links from PayPal and IMDB, Enivid. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, sounds fair. Thanks for explaining! Enivid (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Why did you remove notable article about ShixxNOTE program which is on Wikipedia for more than 5 years[edit]

Yesterday you removed almost everything in article about ShixxNOTE program. Can you please put it back. You are third person who tried to delete article about great ShixxNOTE program which is sticky notes program and LAN messenger in one. Why did you do that ? I proove that article is notable, second article is there for more than 6 years. 2 times I have troubles like this one with other Wikipedia admins and I always proove that article is not PR. Not just me, also other Wikipedia admins agreed that article should be there. I am an author of ShixxNOTE program and I put article on Wikipedia which is now crippled by you. I saw your reasons but did you try program did you see how it works ?! It is not about program it is about messaging with desktop sticky notes program. So be polite and put text back or I will write to several Wiki admins who are I think admins more than you and know what is notable and what is PR.

Kind regards,

Ozren Sirola ShixxNOTE program author Sirola (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Sirola. WP:Notability applies to if the article should be on Wikipedia. As I did not nominate this article for deletion, it has no bearing here. You're referring to [this edit], where I left the edit summary of "Removed trivial and promotional content. Removed unsourced content. Add unsourced, encyclopedic claims back only if written without puffery and with reliable, third-party published sources (not from shixxnote, PR, etc.))". On a second edit, I added the edit summary "Previous edit also removed external links in body of article and pruned EL section to meet WP:EL".
So, let's start with the uncontroversial edits: I removed external links from the body of the article and pruned links from the EL section. Links in the body of the article are not permitted and most of the links in the EL section didn't meet WP:EL. Additionally, I removed the known problems/solution section, as Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. WP:HOWTO also is the reason for the removal of a good chunk of the Features section. "Program takes note-taking to a new level by adding powerful sharing capabilities to the process and allows you to turn...", as an example, was removed because it is WP:Puffery or promotional language. After removing the external links, the promotional/puffery and the HowTo, that left a paragraph in Features that was essentially a duplicate of the Lead paragraph.
Please review Am I allowed to edit articles about myself or my organization? and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Stesmo (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Quick question for Stesmo[edit]

Hey Stesmo, Thanks for the clean-ups and message on the Alex Skolnick page. I have a question - can you tell me what is the best way to link Skolnick's official book website and new album website which are ELs within the main body? Isn't it necessary to show that some information is from there? That's why I thought they should be placed as references. Let me know. Also, I had to update the addition of his latest album, which you reverted back, so I'll have to go ahead once more and at least re-add that. i.e. add his 2014 release of Planetary Coalition after the 2012 Dark Roots under discography.

Thanks. Adam Zimberg (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S...Just thought about it when I read your msg. again after sending you the above msg. True - his official page does have the ELs to his book and new project, so it's not necessary here perhaps - however for authenticity - is it still needed to add them as references? Don't know.

Thanks in advance. - Adam Zimberg (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

P.P.S. But then again, on reviewing Wikipedia's external links guidelines in detail, it states: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject,[4] one should generally avoid providing external links ...." So since those links are to the Geek to Guitar Hero book's Official page and Planetary Coalition's Official page, shouldn't they be included? The links were there for a long time without any issues earlier. He seems to have separate official pages for the projects - his site, his bands, his book and his world music project.Adam Zimberg (talk) 02:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Stesmo, I'm very sorry my "quick question" is becoming a long winded one now! I think since his main official website already has a link to the book and world music project, there is no need for other ELs as you'd said in your msg, even though I noticed that many musicians pages have their separate websites under the External Links heading placed at the very bottom. Anyway, don't think it's necessary, and I can't afford to spend more time on this. Had just wanted to be thorough and not leave out any refs etc. So thanks for cleaning up - I'm keeping it the way you have in your last edit since you know best - except for the addition to the updated discography. I'm off to sleep now and just wanted it resolved. I'm happy with the way it is. Thanks again. Cheers, Adam.Adam Zimberg (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

your "cleanup" on NSF: an elephant in the porcelain shop?[edit]

what you surely thought was great clean up was about the laziest edit I ve ever seen: You didnt add a SINGLE ref. Instead, you threw away all inline NSF links which are illegit fair enough, but you COULD have transformed them into refs. I suggest you re-add them as refs, to undo the damage. Please, never do that again.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Wuerzele. Thanks for including a link to the edit! Most weren't added as cites because they weren't references for anything (you know, backing up a claim made in the sentence). If I converted most of those to refs, that would be hiding an external link inside of a footnote, and there's no reason for that. And, sadly for your argument here, I actually *did* convert a single external link into a cite, where it was appropriate. [[WP:LINKFARM|Wikipedia is not a link farm}} and WP:EL are great places to learn about External links in articles. Additionally, please review Wikipedia:Civility. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Stesmo, it was a very lazy edit. this is not uncivil. clearly you are not interested in discussion. --Wuerzele (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Notable (?) hospitality networks[edit]

I had added to the list of HospEx a total of 16 networks. After that i saw that the title had been changed to "Notable hospitality networks", some notable networks had been deleted (because they had external links) and the rest was kept. I re-added the deleted networks, without the external link. Again some networks got deleted because they are not "notable". The weirdest part, is that the network of cyclists (60.000 members) got deleted and the network of esperanto speakers (1450 members) was kept in the list. 1) How is "notable" defined? 2) Why only "notable" networks can be added? it's easy to have a list of all available networks, they're only 16... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.132.232.209 (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, 91.132.232.209. Notability, in this case, is actually Wikipedia:Notability. Which sometimes makes absolutely no sense, such as in the case you mention above. Most of the time, if you're adding an entry to a list on Wikipedia, it should have a link to an existing Wikipedia article about that list entry. If it is truly Wikipedia notable and and an article has not been written about the subject yet, it must have footnotes/citations of reliable, third-party published sources showing the subject meets Wikipedia Notability standards (in this case for (organizations and companies)). Though, an existing Wikipedia article makes the Notability argument a bit more loudly. Once these networks have articles, please add them back. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Symbid content[edit]

Hi Stesmo,

It came to my attention that you removed all my changes from the Symbid article. I made these changes in an attempt to update the content and lessen the promotional bias of the article as it currently stands.

I appreciate your reasons for doing so, however I believe it was an improvement from the current articles which is not factual and is written in the style of an advertisement.

Did you have a problem with the number of links, or the content in general?

Thanks. Louisjpe (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Louisjpe. Before I answer, I have a question as well: Are you affiliated in any way with Symbid or a PR company performing work on the article? If so, you should review Am I allowed to edit articles about myself or my organization? and Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest before editing entries where you might have a Conflict of Interest (COI).
The primary red flags for your edits were the overwhelming number of external links in the body of the article and Trademark symbols. A link in the infobox for the stock symbol and an official link are usually more than enough for an article about a company (see WP:EL for more info). Additionally, MOS:TMRULES will have more info on Trademark symbols. This is all before reading the text, where there are some blatantly promotional content like: "As one of the first platforms of its kind, during 2012 Symbid quickly established itself as one of the leading platforms in the rapidly expanding European equity crowdfunding industry" with a source that only mentions Symbid in passing with: "And in the Netherlands, crowdfunding is ramping up with Symbid." These, along with the removal of the Advert tag while making it more blatantly promotional, are the reasons I [reverted your edit]. I see you've made very similar edits and will be reverting your latest edit. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Stesmo. Thanks for your links regarding COI. I am an infrequent user of Symbid but that is the extent of my current affiliation - does this qualify as COI? I couldn't find an answer in the articles. Thanks for your input. To be honest I had copied most information from online sources to save time, which is probably why my edits were blatantly promotional. I have since removed many of the adjectives and have reworded sentences in a neutral manner. Also, thanks for your input regarding Trademark symbols, I have edited the article accordingly. Likewise the Advert tag. As for the links, as a new(ish) user of Wikipedia I am definitely too eager to link. I have edited the article so that there is only one link to the company website in the infobox. Thanks for you help so far and let me know if I can improve my edits further. Louisjpe (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Louisjpe. Thanks for responding. That would explain why it sounds like you're working for them if you copied their promotional content. Being a customer of Symbid would not run afoul of COI issues. As a new editor, you should also use your own words (to avoid WP:COPYVIO, with reliable, third-party sources as citations to allow for other editors and readers to verify the info. Good luck! Stesmo (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Texas A&M University School of Law[edit]

Please refrain from making constructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Texas A&M University School of Law. Your edits appear to constitute Self-righteousness and have been reverted. 70.128.117.172 (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

How was that edit trivial promotional content?[edit]

The edit I added about PrestaShop wasn't really trivial or promotional content. It marks a company changing their focus, which the page being about a company is pretty important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aritali (talkcontribs) 05:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Aritali. Do you have a reliable, third-party published sources (not from the company or a press release) for this changing of their focus? Your paragraph seemed more like a product announcement. Oh, and if you don't mind my asking, are you involved with PrestaShop as an employee or paid to promote them? Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

PayPoint page[edit]

Hi Stesmo,

Thanks for helping me out with the PayPoint Wiki page - perhaps could you advise me as to which elements of the page edit were unacceptable and which were okay. I didnt believe that the article was coming from a promotional tact but then I am new on here.

If you could offer me advise ahead of my having another attempt, I would be most appreciative.

Thanks, James — Preceding unsigned comment added by James dawson (talkcontribs) 17:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, James dawson. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. The edit that you're refering to is here. The left side are areas changed/removed and the right side are your edits. When I reverted your edits, I said "Reverting promotional edits without sources that replaced sourced content and categories."
The very first sentence in the lead paragraph is promotional. Additionally, nothing you added included any footnotes/citations/sources, much less reliable, third-party published sources for verification of what you're writing. And, it replaced existing, sourced content and categories. Additionally, making claims like "companyX is an international leader" is an extraordinary claim and needs extraordinary, unassailable sources to back it up (press releases, blog posts, etc. just won't cut it).
You may want to review Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion (and the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide in case you're employed by PayPoint or paid to promote them). I'd also recommend Wikipedia:Your first article, as it seems to have some really good advice. Good luck, Stesmo (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Talking Tom & Friends[edit]

Hi, I don't understand why you've reverted most of the changes as all of them were correctons of factual inaccuracies. I provided relevant links to external websites (mostly media outlets) for the changes.


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Miharejc (talkcontribs) 17:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Miharejc. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. If you don't mind my asking, are you involved with Outfit7 or their affiliates as an employee or are you paid to promote them or the Talking Tom & Friends properties? I reverted your edits as they seemed promotional in nature. You're right that not all of the information you added was promotional and you did provide third-party sources. I would recommend you take a look at those and add just those back. Additionally, you may note that your edit also duplicated Angela's "stylish kitty" line in your edit. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have reviewed the Wikipedia policies you've suggested. I have a relation to Outfit7, but would not like to disclose any more detail than this. I see there might be a potential conflict of interest in play here. What would you suggest would be the best way to handle this?

Thanks. Miharejc (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Miharejc/ScubaBled. Thanks for replying. I would recommend you review Am I allowed to edit articles about myself or my organization? and Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest before editing entries where you might have a Conflict of Interest (COI). Thanks for being honest and good luck. Stesmo (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Oord Updates[edit]

The links to the Facebook pages were not being used as evidence to support the fact that he has been dismissed from Northwest Nazarene University. Rather, those sentences with links were simply a statement of fact. The pages in Facebook are as real as the author's own website or other sites that are linked.

Also, in your last revision some days, you wanted a source: I provided one (the Idaho Press Tribune story). But now you've dismissed it because Oord is only mentioned "in passing." He IS mentioned, however, and it's in a legitimate source! How do suggest that the link that story appear on the Wikipedia page?

So, rather than allowing Wikipedia to be a current source of information with two links to real pages, and by eliminating the reference to the IPT story, the page is stagnant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apodeski (talkcontribs) 21:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Apodeski. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. Most of my issues were with edits made by other editors. The newspaper ref is good and appreciated. Things that appear in the cited newspaper article should be able to appear in the Wikipedia article. I don't believe all of the edits were yours, though, and neither the "Due to conflicting, secular views and teachings in 2015, he was let go" nor the "these declines were largely brought about by..." claims were in the article you referenced. While your commentary paragraph exhorting scholarship is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article, it was obviously done with the best intentions. Most of my issues with lacking/poor citations were with other editors.
My issues with your edits were links to the facebook pages (which aren't necessary and aren't reliable, third-party published sources) and the commentary. I reverted back to a last-known-good edit to allow for a fresh start. Please feel free to add back your paragraph with the newspaper cite (but, without the facebook/google docs cites) and that he is no longer faculty at NNU. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:EL and Fraternity chapter lists...[edit]

Since you evidently have a tool allowing for EL stripping relatively quickly, you may want to work your way through the remainder of Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by society. Thank You. Naraht (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I actually don't have a tool for stripping ELs quickly, Naraht. :D Stesmo (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, you at least have experience. :) Naraht (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #2—2015[edit]

19:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Username Change Confusion[edit]

In November I received a request that I change my username from CityofVanWA. I already created a new account with the username JilayneJ some time ago. Does that cover it? Thank you. JilayneJ (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, JilayneJ. As long as it doesn't represent the name of a company, group, organization, etc. Since your username implied you may be with the City of Vancouver, WA, please take a look at Am I allowed to edit articles about myself or my organization? and Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest before editing entries where you might have a Conflict of Interest (COI). Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Confused[edit]

Hello!

I thought it was not needed but thanks for helping me revert back if that is the case.

Actually can I also ask how does the Orphan problem come about in articles, I read up on Orphans and to my knowledge, doesn't this article have some links from other articles already? Scissors Paper Stone (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Scissors Paper Stone. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. You removed three tags... Conflict of Interest ( COI), refImprove for not enough references and Orphan (no links back to that page). You didn't comment on how these were fixed when you removed them and added trademark symbols (which aren't to be included in Wikipedia articles (see MOS:TMRULES)). While the issues may have been fixed (for example, there is one article linking back to the Red Dot Payments article now), without discussing it on the article's Talk page or in the Edit summary it appears suspect. Orphan and RefImprove may be easier to show resolution on than the COI tag. Please feel free to make your same edits (without the trademark symbols). Except this time with an explanation on how these maintenance tags no longer apply in Talk or the Edit Summary. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stesmo. Thank you for explaining it to me in detail! I understand better now! While it seems I have a lot more to learn on Wikipedia's guidelines, at least I now know a bit more. Thanks for your help! :) Scissors Paper Stone (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The Welding Institute[edit]

Hi Stesmo

Many thanks for your message. I am associated with The Welding Institute, however, I am in the process of neutralising promotional text which I myself added in 2012. I am a professional editor and would be most grateful if you would once again compare the two versions to see the work I have attempted to carry out to bring this page back in line with Wiki rules. Is this possible please?

Best regards Catherine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catherinecondie (talkcontribs) 08:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Catherinecondie. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. Please take a look at Am I allowed to edit articles about myself or my organization? and Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest before editing entries where you might have a Conflict of Interest (COI).
To address [the changes made]: Your edits now and then made claims that were not verifiable via third-party, reliable published sources. So, Citations Needed tags were added to request these. Your current edit removed some of the claims and all of those CNs while keeping in claims like "Friction stir welding was invented by TWI in 1991" remain. In fact, there are zero sources for any of the information in your recent edit; reliable or unreliable. No newspaper articles about TWI, nothing. Add to that, you've added a external link in the body of the article. In summation, your edits had improvements (removed some of the unsourced claims), but added other issues (external link, unsourced claims, COI). Stesmo (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi there

OK thank you, I am clearer now about the need for citations. I have newspaper/magazine articles, third party sources, which I can reference. I wasn't sure once I had edited and the text had changed whether I should remove or keep the citations needed tags - but I am clear now. I will in the next few days do my best to meet your points above, resolve any issues and resubmit.

Best regards Catherine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catherinecondie (talkcontribs) 08:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

About Zello "see also"[edit]

Hello, Stesmo

Zello community mannager asked to remove that part because it has nothing with Them and it even is not equal type of aplication. So, i deleted it. As You made it back again, as it was, please explain what can i say to Zello C.M. Thank You! Kviki~hrwiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kviki~hrwiki (talkcontribs) 01:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Kviki~hrwiki. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. You can let the Zello CM know they don't get to decide what is in the Zello Wikipedia article. :) If you don't mind my asking, are you employed by Zello or otherwise compensated by them to promote them and/or edit Wikipedia? If so, please take a look at Am I allowed to edit articles about myself or my organization? and Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest before editing entries where you might have a Conflict of Interest (COI).
To the statement that the See Also entries aren't an equal type of app or anything to do with Zello... As it says in WP:ALSO "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." I'd note that the Freecast article links to Zello in its See Also section... Stesmo (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


Hi again, Stesmo. You asked about my status with Zello, well, i am just an ordinary user, but i use it since the "Loudtalks Lite" times almost 8 years ago. As no one in my family dont speak English, i gave myself an effort to translate those app to Croatian language. Only way to get it in my phone was to do it again "on line" sentence by sentence. So why not? if they gave me (or all of us, users) the app like these free of charge, i will return it to them by translating it on line and let all other user to have it too (not only my family). I asked them about my way of thinking, and they agreed. As people there were talking, they asked about other OSes. So, i made translation for all 10 projects. As time passed by , i made Serbian translations too. If i help You, and You help to some one else, sometime, someone, will help me or someone mine. I think it is worthwhile. A lot of other people agreed with it, so people are helping each other...In the flood, last year, it worked perfectly when nothing else was not. So, if we want to say other about it, what is bad in that? There are a lot of people around the world who think so, and i am sure that no one got any money for translations or editing wiki page about Zello. There are small group of people who live of these company, but they were not jealously guarded their intellectual property on its own, they shared it with everyone who need. i think it is the only way to survive in these days. Dont You agree? Did You got any money for Your Wiki works :) . As an old HAM use to say, 73, --Kviki~hrwiki (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Kviki~hrwiki. Thanks for stopping by again. I don't actually get paid in any way for my wikipedia work, either. I do avoid editing articles about my employer, regardless. Though if you look around Wikipedia you'll find quite a few people who do get paid to promote their company or other companies. Sounds like your translating is a lot like editing wikipedia... No financial reward, but rewarding nonetheless. Good luck, Stesmo (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree. It was nice to talk with You, i wish You Have a nice day... You are always welcome to our channel "9A" or so.. 73, Kviki~hrwiki (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

List Of Virtual Schools[edit]

Hello Stesmo, It was really a big mistake. I wanted to give link to the wiki page but unknowingly I gave it to a external page. I genuinely apologize from my side and assure you than in future it won't happen again. I will work under the guidelines of wiki. Thanks for informing me. I really appreciate the effort form your side on article List of virtual schools.

Sculpture parks[edit]

Hi Setsmo,

I recognise that I didn't take the necessary notice here we were placing the links. We are working on a wikipedia site for the sculpture park and another for the artist. Until then I believe the internal links will remain red! Or do you have any sugestions? jjdeavJjdeav (talk) 07:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Jjdeav. The edit you're referring to is here. Redlinks are sometimes allowed, but you should take a look at the stand-alone lists page to see the requirements are for that page. Regardless if redlinks are appropriate, an external link is not. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Explanation Regarding My Article[edit]

Hello Stesmo. I appreciate your concern. But there is no such thing thing I have a personal connection with Forest Trail Academy. I am new to Wikipedia and I have shown many concerns about other articles also. The fact is that I like educational site. So I thought of writing an article for an Educational site. Might be I have committed some mistakes or not followed the guidelines but I assure you that in future it will not repeated again. I am really disappointed with my efforts. Give me some time and I will make that article perfect in terms of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleyfta (talkcontribs) 05:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ashleyfta. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. I'm sure you can understand how someone whose name includes the initials FTA (Forest Trail Academy) and created a page about FTA might be assumed to be associated with FTA. As to the mistakes; I make a ton of them everyday. It's pretty easy to do so on Wikipedia, with all the policies, guidelines and the Manuals of Style. I'm also still striving to improve as well. Good luck, Stesmo (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

BuzzFeed Edits[edit]

Hi Stesmo,

For a class I am taking an assignment was to edit a wikipedia page you are interested and write about the changes you see over time. I made edits to BuzzFeed including further descriptions on the tabs and where jobs are. I was wondering why you deleted my edits. This is for a class and I would really appreciate you telling me what information was trivial/promotional. Do you think there is a way that I could edit my inputs and put them back on the page? Honest feedback would be greatly appreciated!

Best, Laneydeck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laneydeck (talkcontribs) 19:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Laneydeck. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. This is the edit you're referring to. The edits about the jobs seemed as if they were trying to promote hiring at Buzzfeed. The Content section edits included essentially what are definitions for News, Animals, etc. I felt they weren't really essential to the article. These seemed to me as if they were written by a Buzzfeed / public relations employee trying to promote Buzzfeed. Glad to hear it wasn't.
You absolutely can continue editing this article and any other here. In fact, you don't even have to agree with my edits and can take it to the Talk page for Buzzfeed to see what others think and possibly end up (eventually) gaining WP:CONSENSUS that they should be added back exactly as you originally typed them. You can tweak what you've already added to make it seem less promotional, with reliable, third-party published sources (not Buzzfeed, press releases, blogs, etc.). Or, you can find another way to add to the Buzzfeed article that adds to the encyclopedic knowledge of the company, complete with reliable, third-party published sources. Good luck! Stesmo (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks (TED speakers)[edit]

Just saying thanks for your work to clean up List of TED speakers! — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Rhododendrites. I appreciate that! Stesmo (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

ELN discussion of use of external links for Webby award lists[edit]

In case you haven't noticed yet, I started a discussion about the links at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Links_in_Webby_award_lists. --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Ronz. Stesmo (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Coliving edit[edit]

Hello!

Thanks for your note earlier on Coliving. I was really just trying to rephrase the first paragraph which was already there, but was vaguely written. I will pay more attention next time. ;) UnluckyClover77 (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 4 May[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Tanda (association)[edit]

Hi Stesmo, this is Danny. I am new to editing on wikipedia, but I am wondering why was my changes to the tanda (association) page reverted? All various culture names of the system are well documents and claiming Hui as the Asian name for Tanda is inaccurate. Please refer to here (http://articles.latimes.com/1988-10-30/local/me-891_1_loan-club) and let me know if I can get my edits to the page back. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannybin (talkcontribs) 21:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Dannybin. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. As per the edit summary for that edit, it was because you added an external link (a non-Wikipedia link) in the body of the article. This runs afoul of WP:EL. Feel free to add back the language info, but without the spam link to monkapp that you added there and on two other articles. Stesmo (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Got it! Thank you very much clarifying! I will do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannybin (talkcontribs) 21:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the citations in the article.[edit]

Hello Stesmo, I have done the citations in text in the Forest Trail Academy before but it is being edited and removed. That was the reason of putting the text without the citations but with the wiki page links. Can you please suggest me how to proceed further or can i include the text with citations again. Thank You.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleyfta (talkcontribs) 04:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ashleyfta. Thanks for stopping by again. I've added a Welcome message to your Talk page that has some links that can give some great info on editing Wikipedia.
One of the issues I'm currently having with the FTA article is the Original Research / lack of Verifiability. Wikipedia has three core content policies and No Original Research and Verifiability are two (the third being Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV). The information you add, unless they are really minor (what city the headquarters is in, date of incorporation, etc.), should be backed up with reliable, third-party published sources (not from the company/person/organization, blogs, press releases, etc.) to allow for verification by readers and editors. In the case of the FTA article, there aren't *any* which makes it appear like FTA might not be Wikipedia Notable enough for an article on Wikipedia and may need to be deleted. Granted, there were references that I removed in previous edits, like the accreditation refs which were just links to the homepages of the accrediting companies/orgs.
The FTA article really, really, really needs some cite/footnote love right now with citations from reliable, third-party published sources that are about FTA (and not just passing mentions). If I were you (and I'm not) I'd concentrate on finding those third-party published, reliable articles/books/coverage for the details already included before adding more text. Stesmo (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

RE: Grooveshark Clone[edit]

Hello, thank you for contacting me after you removed the image from the page. I added the image so it could be displayed next to the section it's talking about. If anything it's helping the article. Please expand on how you think having it would be a bad idea. Thanks, Anarchyte (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

With regards to spam links by Argo-e[edit]

Dear Stesmo,

Posting spam messages was never within our intentions. Geoengineer.org is an information center for geotechnical engineers and its website content is freely accessible by everyone. In case you have any suggestions on how to add unique content to wikipedia pages and contribute to the free online dissemination of related information, please let us know. That way we can avoid similar misconceptions in the future.

Kind regards, Argo-e (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Argo-e. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. You've added links to GeoEngineer.org to over a dozen articles, which seems like an intentional thing to do. In fact, it appears to be an editor doing promotion for that website, aka WP:SPAM. If you'd like to add content to Wikipedia, find reliable, third-party published sources that you're not affiliated with as sources for your content. Perhaps finding sources that aren't from geoengineer.org... If you're affiliated with GeoEngineer, please read up on Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and WP:COI. Stesmo (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ediekeel[edit]

sorry hope you removed, guess i am not understanding, so i have read guidelines, ty so much I am still noit understanding apparently I am just tired, anyway, if you see anything else I wasn't suppose to do can you remove it too and let me know what I am doing wrong if there is more smh Ediekeel (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)edie

Hi, Ediekeel. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. Essentially there are very few places or reasons to add a link to a website unless you're using it as a reference. I've removed the external links already. I've added a Welcome message to your Talk page that includes links to more info on editing Wikipedia, including the Wikipedia Adventure. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

list of copyright collection societies[edit]

Hi Stesmo. I rolled-back your edit, and was posting on the talk page to the list article when I got your note. Let's keep discussion there. --Lquilter (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding a Wikipedia article[edit]

Hello Stesmo,

I have found that you have recently made changes on Forest Trail Academy and didn't mention any reason. May I know what was the issue in the article. Whatever the changes I had done recently is under the guidelines of Wikipedia. What's wrong with my article? At least, you could mention the reason. If you still think that Forest Trail Academy is not perfect then I request you to create a article for me. I think you are senior editor in Wikipedia team so why don't you help me creating a perfect article?

-- User:Ashleyfta 2015-05-19T00:24:37‎

Hi, Ashleyfta. The edit you're referring to is this one. I've included an edit summary with the edit that states: "(Removed WP:PUFFERY. Removed basic explanations about what things are (accreditation, online school, etc.); link to wikipedia article suffices there. Consolidated Courses.)". There is no reason to go on at length about what accreditation is, as there is a Wikipedia article on the topic. Provide a wikilink for the readers that aren't aware of what it is. If this was a stand-alone article written for another website, this may be a good article. However, since this is on Wikipedia, we don't have to write paragraphs explaining what common terms mean when we have Wikipedia articles that will do a more detailed job just a wikilink away. This article is about FTA and needs to focus on FTA. It felt as if the content being added was done to puff up the size of the article without adding much substance specifically about FTA. I think the problem here is that there isn't much to be said about FTA that would be backed up by reliable, third-party published sources. Which means perhaps FTA doesn't meet the Wikipedia notaiblity standards. I'm not sure there is an perfect article and I don't know if FTA has enough material to work with to add much more than has already been added. Stesmo (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

external links on copyright articles[edit]

Hi Stesmo -- So I went through some of the external links sections that you've been pruning from the copyright society articles. Many of the links appear to actually be press coverage of the entity. A lot of editors don't really understand the difference between "external links" and "references" sections, and just plop references and related reading into "external links" when it would be more properly incorporated into the text and/or referenced. It seems to me that it would be more helpful to go article by article and actually do the substantive work involved in incorporating the "external links" rather than simply removing them wholesale.

Wholesale removal of EL is completely proper when they are spam. But I'm not convinced that's what we're dealing with here. --Lquilter (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Lquilter. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. You're right. A lot of editors don't understand WP:EL vs. References. And, none of those links were useful references to reliable, third-party published sources. They are solely links to the official websites of those orgs. And, bulk removal of ALL external links is totally proper and necessary when they are spotted in the body of the website, with the exceptions granted in WP:EL. Wikipedia is not a link farm or a directory of external links. And, there is no need to incorporate dozens of external links going to the official websites of various copyright societies. That would be fixed by a) creating articles for them and adding their official website links there or b) creating an off-site collection of links at DMOZ or another similar site and linking to that in the EL section of the stand-alone list. There is nothing in WP:EL, the EL noticeboards or elsewhere. that would see the copyright society page as staying with all of those external links.
Because of your statements here, I felt perhaps I had made a mistake in removing an external link that was actually a reference to a newspaper, magazine, book, etc. (which also would help shows notability to be included as a list entry) and not just links to the official website. I've double-checked each entry and removed them again as not a single one was to a reliable, third-party published source. Thanks for stopping by... Stesmo (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Stesmo, if you read my note carefully, you would see that I was talking not about the List of copyright collective organizations but about the individual pages for the copyright societies from which you also removed many links in the "external links" section. This was a separate issue, and because we are still in the middle of discussion on List of copyright collection societies, you are now edit-warring on that page, which is not helpful. I'm going to revert those edits again, because you are not just deleting the links, you are deleting the actual organizations themselves. The criteria you need to familiarize yourself with is available at WP:LISTS for that page, but I am not going to discuss that page with you here, because it is a single page and the discussion should be maintained in one place at that page.
Instead, the issue I am raising with you here is your removal of links from the links section of numerous individual entries about copyright collection societies. For instance, this edit on Phonographic Performance Limited; it appears to be a reference that could / should have been incorporated into the text and into the references section. This is the sort of edit that you're making rather quickly that I'm concerned about. --Lquilter (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Lquilter Thanks for clarifying what you're referring to. Regarding the external link could have been used as a reference... For what? The editor who added it couldn't be bothered to use it as a reference nor apply it as a footnote to show what claims it is being used as a reference for. Which could mean that it actually wasn't used as a reference for the article, rather just placed there because it is about the same subject. Oh, and for edits to hang your hat on... That's a press release. It's not even a good reference.Stesmo (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
So I'm going through all the EL edits you've recently on a wide variety of articles, and finding many problematic edits. Here's one example: diff for Ad Council. You removed:
  • an internal link -- fine if redundant;
  • three official organs of the entity (twitter & facebook & youtube). These are grey areas. They are official links, but redundant and linked from the main website, so permissible but not mandatory to remove under WP:EL.
    • Twitter seems completely unnecessary; I would take the link out.
    • Facebook -- I would probably remove here, but for many smaller organizations their facebook page is their de facto primary website these days. Depressing but true.
    • The YouTube channel is also linked from the main front page, but may be worth highlighting in external links because it provides a readily accessible connection to the most notable campaigns from the Ad Council. Judgment call. But I don't see you exercising judgment so much as mass removal.
  • 2 archives links, which are exactly the kind of external links to archives & libraries that Wikipedia is presently encouraging. These should not have been removed. One of them is to the University of Illinois which is where the Ad Council's archives are kept. What could possibly be more appropriate for research?
  • A link to AEF.com exhibit Advertising Council Retrospective on aef.com which is a bit more "research-y" but since it's sponsored by a related organization is not unbiased, neutral, etc.; fine to delete as spam.
  • a link to a different advertising-related organization. No apparent connection to AdCouncil so spam & should be deleted. -- Outdoor Advertising Association of America homepage
So when I look at what you've done, I don't see you exercising careful judgment; just going through and taking out wide swaths of links. External links, I agree, are quite subject to abuse, but you still have to exercise some judgment. I am worried that you aren't exercising sufficient judgment. This makes me question much of your work, and I'm currently assembling a list of pages you've edited to scrutinize more closely. Which is tedious and time-consuming, and would ultimately lead to me filing some kind of request for fellow admins to intervene / scrutinize. It would be easier if you would check your behavior and modify as appropriate. --Lquilter (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Please read WP:EL. I know it's long, but a lot of the issues you seem to have are with it and not me or my editing here. Since the Ad Council has an official website, Twitter/Facebook/etc. run afoul of WP:ELNO. Only one of the two archive links actually go somewhere, as the other is a dead link WP:ELDEAD. When I visited the Illinois link before removing it, it seemed mostly to be a resource for people visiting the archive and not actually making archival information available online. It was the link I was most unsure of removing, but have no problem with it being put back in. Your accusations of not exercising any judgement are rude and unfounded. As you have obviously agreed with all but two of my removals for Ad Council *and one of them is a deadlink*. Either we're both not exercising 'some' judgement or I have since we're 68% in agreement on what links needed to be removed. Absolutely feel free to follow behind me and find external links that fit WP:EL and should be put back. I make mistakes all the time and could use the help. In fact, you could also find articles that don't follow WP:EL and help the Wikipedia:WikiProject External links.
As to your threats to get your fellow admins to ban me for removing external links that run afoul of WP:EL on your article. I'd hope you'd at least use the processes in place before outright banning me. This is my first interaction with an admin who has threatened me, so this is new for me. I don't intend to stop removing spam or ELs that run afoul of WP:EL, however. Stesmo (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not threatening anything. I'm pointing out that your current approach to removing WP:ELs raises some concerns, and it would be easier if you would take the advice of another editor to re-examine some of your approaches, rather than have us go through one of those tedious Wikipedia bureaucratic procedures that waste all of our time and energy and generate bad feelings. I am happy you're removing unnecessary ELs; that's an important project, and I'm sorry that I didn't make that point more clearly at the outset. You are doing valuable work, and I appreciate it, and I have no doubt that there are many millions of spam links that absolutely need to be removed. What I'm doing is pointing out, however, is that your approach can use some tweaking, and that you may have to slow down to allow yourself to consider the links more carefully.
On archive links: For the most part, research archives put finding aids online, but do not have full-text of the materials online. That's completely normal for research. In fact, since it is unlikely that all information will ever be digitized, it is especially important that links to the offline content be included to assist people in further research. --Lquilter (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Lquilter. Thanks for stopping by again. Having worked with other editors on EL issues, including on the EL Noticeboard, as well as thousands of edits adding, fixing, removing and pruning external links, I feel my approach is working somewhat OK. Obviously, any process can be improved. Sometimes my edits result in discussions that require consensus to move forward (results: sometimes my edits are untouched, sometimes a discussion occurs and consensus is reached on which links stay and which are removed). Sometimes my EL edits result in another editor clicking the Thanks link. If you discount spammers and vandals, I expect my EL edits are accepted or appreciated more than they are disputed or hated. You can see from my Talk page & archives the unappreciative folks are a bit more vocal, though. :D I appreciate your feedback, though. Stesmo (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes we older editors can be a bit curmudgeonly or gruff in our tone, so I appreciate your continued efforts to stay positive and work on solutions. It's all too rare. --Lquilter (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Law School Transparency is not a reliable source[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources E-commerce sources While the content guidelines for External links prohibits linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services," inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times. Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available. Biased or opinionated sources See also: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Bias in sources and Wikipedia:Neutrality of Sources Shortcut: WP:BIASED Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". Questionable and self-published sources Main page: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources Questionable sources Shortcuts: WP:QUESTIONABLE WP:QUESTIONED

Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. Beware of sources which sound reliable but don't have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. The Journal of 100% Reliable Factual Information might have a reputation for "predatory" behavior, which includes questionable business practices and/or peer-review processes that raise concerns about the reliability of their journal articles.[10][11] Self-published sources (online and paper) Shortcuts: WP:USERGENERATED WP:USERG WP:UGC Main page: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published sources Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, content farms, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users. "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources; see WP:NEWSBLOG. Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published information should never be used as a third-party source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unemployed Northeastern (talkcontribs) 19:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Unemployed Northeastern. I assume this copy-paste is in reply to my request at your Talk page for a link to a discussion or Wikipedia determination that the lstscorereports.com site is unreliable. 1) That isn't a determination that this link is not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. 2) The text you quoted includes this very line: "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.. You should cease your removal of this source and take it to the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard to get consensus on if this is or is not a reliable source for law school articles. Stesmo (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not just the lack of neutrality. They are a commercial website attempting to monetize information that the American Bar Association makes available for free, and they've introduced errors into the data. They are unreliable because their version of the data is so full of errors and they are clearly biased based on their founder's statements. They also lack any relevant qualifications or expertise. The underlying data should be cited instead of LST. For law school data, there are much better sources available. I've posted on the noticeboard, but I don't see any process for resolution, so pending resolution will continue to remove LST sourced material. It can be replaced with ABA or NALP sourced material by others. Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for stopping by again, Unemployed Northeastern. I'm glad you've started the process at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, but it doesn't seem like you've followed any of the instructions there... You've not even linked to the website address lstscorereports.com. You may want to go back and read the "Before posting, please be sure to include the following information, if available:" The process may take a little time as other editors weigh in. Until its fate has been decided, please stop your unilateral declaration of reliable-ness and war on this source. Additionally, even after the Noticeboard says "Goodness, this source is horribly unreliable!", please be more careful and cut with a scalpel and not with the sledgehammer you're currently using. I'm going to be reverting some of your edits where you've been less than precise. When the Noticeboard gains consensus, please revisit the law school articles and make your edits then (if they don't already have a process in place for unreliable sources). I'm also going to place a notice about Edit Warring on your Talk page for you to look over so you don't get your account blocked unknowingly after reverting reverts. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I suggest not reverting any of my edits pending resolution of the discussion. The LST information was only recently inserted (apparently by someone at LST) over the last month or two, without any prior discussion about whether they are appropriate or not. They are presumptively not a reliable source since LST is a commercial website, is biased, lacks any relevant expertise, and more reliable sources of information such as the American Bar Association and National Association for Law Placement are available. The edits I am making are restoring these websites to the condition they were in 2 months ago before massive broad based editing by LST staffers (DC IP addresses). If LST is found to be a reliable source, we can discuss reverting edits then, or replacing them with citations to underlying ABA data and more comprehensive data on overall employment numbers. Pending resolution, the presumption should be in favor of restoring the websites to the condition they were in before the controversial edits by LST.Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello again Unemployed Northeastern. I'm going to continue reverting edits where you've tried to remove unflattering, yet sourced by other-than-LST, content. You've now been advised to stop your LST removal by two editors, myself and WikiDan61. Your cause maybe just (I make no judgement on it), but it may take more than a day to accomplish your apparent goal of ridding Wikipedia of LST. Let the process occur and see what happens and make your edits then. Stesmo (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Revert surgically, please. I.e., restore information sourced to someone other than LST who is reliable (not a blog like "The Law School Tuition Bubble"), but leave out the LST sourced material pending resolution. It can always be restored if LST is found to be a reliable source, or can more easily be replaced with ABA data or NALP data, which is uncontroversial and non-commercial in nature. I will endeavor to be more surgical in my edits and only remove LST sourced material or LSTB sourced material.Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
@Unemployed Northeastern: No, you should not be more surgical in your edits. You should stop the process altogether until the discussion has run its course. The material is not libelous or otherwise dangerous in any way, so there is no deadline to remove it. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Law School Transparency criticism[edit]

The criticisms were deleted without explanation by yourself and another user. I provided information on the talk page. You did not engage and simply deleted the criticism. This is not appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unemployed Northeastern (talkcontribs) 23:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Law school transparency non-reliable source discussion[edit]

We should include the full ABA data from this website http://employmentsummary.abaquestionnaire.org/, without any editing or commentary, which will always be the most up-to-date data available, and will always be available to everyone free of charge. The deleted text presented the ABA data in a misleading light by excluding certain categories of employment and only reporting the categories that LST says count as real jobs. That's not the position of the ABA or of the U.S. Department of Labor. Check out the definition of "Employment." U.S. News is behind a paywall, and if we can provide the information for free from an equally reliable or more reliable source, like the ABA, we should do that so that everyone can see the data for themselves without having to pay U.S. News for a subscription. I thought Wikipedia was all about open access for all? I'm trying to find a sensible solution. Let's discuss what makes the most sense going forward and focus on the substance. My proposal is that we replace all references to employment citing to LST with the following text: "The latest employment data for recent graduates 9 months after graduation is available for all ABA approved law schools from the American Bar Association.[3] The data includes both overall employment--which includes jobs other than practicing law--and a breakdown by specific categories that may be of interest. Information on tuition, fees, living expenses and scholarships is also available from the American Bar Association, free of charge.[4] Information about debt levels at graduation is available from U.S. News, but is behind a paywal." Unless trusted Wikipedia editors can confirm that the reported U.S. News data is what U.S. News actually says, we should not rely on it, since someone from LST may have inserted data that is different from what U.S. News actually says. They've made many mistakes in the past with ABA data. And with the paywall, we and other Wikipedia editors won't be able to spot the mistakes. As between LST and US News, US News is clearly the more reliable source, but it is a paid source that is basically just repackaging ABA data, so ABA is preferable. Can we get consensus behind something close to this proposal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unemployed Northeastern (talkcontribs) 00:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


You deleted all, not online what you thought it was promotion[edit]

hi stesmo, Actually, I just updated the information of our company with current numbers, current formats and new sponsors. You deleted all what I updated and not only one part as you said. I would like to know what do you consider promotion, so I can review. I follow the rules of Wikipedia so far. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by RKMP (talkcontribs) 06:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, RKMP. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. Thanks for asking about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on promotion and advertising. You may want to read Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion as well as the plain and simple guide to conflict of interest (COI). Stesmo (talk) 07:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


Sure, I read that before and I was careful not to sound as promotion. It is just actual information about the company. I think you refer to the external link I added to Icecat live. I will reedit it again. Tx — Preceding unsigned comment added by RKMP (talkcontribs) 08:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Your retaliation edits are a violation of wikipedia policy[edit]

Epeefleche and Stesmo have apparently expressed their frustration over Law School Transparency being deemed a non-reliable source by attacking Brian Leiter's wikipedia page and the wikipedia pages of the University of Chicago, Philosophical Gourmet, The American Bar Association and Kirkland & Ellis: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophical_Gourmet_Report&type=revision&diff=663725919&oldid=642947761 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Leiter&type=revision&diff=663826565&oldid=663635214 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophical_Gourmet_Report&type=revision&diff=663712714&oldid=642947761 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ABA_Journal&type=revision&diff=663728099&oldid=643625305 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirkland_%26_Ellis&type=revision&diff=663728236&oldid=652907416 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Leiter&type=revision&diff=663725721&oldid=663714656 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Chicago&type=revision&diff=663727449&oldid=662822725 This is a violation of Wikipedia's policies against retaliation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_repeated_arguments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sour_grapes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unemployed Northeastern (talkcontribs)

Hi, Unemployed Northeastern. As amusing as you may think you are, my edits are purely in line with Wikipedia policies. My primary editing is with External Links, spam and vandalism. I can assure you that I do not have the depth of feeling you've displayed over this issue. Rather, like with most of my thousands of edits, these edits have nothing to do with my feelings towards your cause. It is because when I followed wikilinks, I saw the articles did not meet the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. Please stop trying to disrupt Wikipedia. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and my having removed external links from some of the articles you're following does not constitute edit warring, as pointed out on the edit war noticeboard. Please take a step back and let the process slowly grind on at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Oh, and do note that notifying the editor you are reporting to a noticeboard is usually required or suggested (depending on the noticeboard - Edit Warring requires it). Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with what Stesmo says above. Furthermore, I have concerns about Unemployed's ethics and/or gross negligence, which I have indicated on a couple of the indicated talkpages, in response to Unemployed's multiple false statements -- both as to the conclusion of the noticeboard discussion, and as to his assertions that I had edited certain articles in retaliation ... when in fact I had not even edited those articles any time recently (if ever) at all. Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Epeefleche, you've edited Brian Leiter's Wikipedia page 22 times in the last 3 days. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Epeefleche&offset=&limit=500&target=EpeeflecheUnemployed Northeastern (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
You've falsely, unethically, in trolling fashion accused me of editing other pages. More than one. That I had not edited -- as recent "retaliation" Have you not read what you wrote? How can you be so devoid of ethics that you would make patently false accusations? And how would you be so brazen as to do it where everyone can see that that is the case? Epeefleche (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Same editor?[edit]

Do you think the two editors who revert our edits at the same article, most recently of me here, are the same editor? They both claim "retaliatory edits" -- with perfectly appropriate edits, and think it cause to revert. And one appeared just for the first time during his Memorial Weekend vacation, while the other has now appeared upon his disappearing.

Similarly, both refuse to answer if they are editing under different names. More than that -- both answer the question by asking the same in reverse (though not answering). More -- both claim COI in the editors they are reverting, with zero basis. Thoughts? --Epeefleche (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

At most, it would seem there's a campaign from UN to rally editors to his cause. But, based on Philosophy Junkie's brevity in Talk (compared to UN), I believe he is not a sock of UN. Just a friend / fellow fan of Leiter that got pulled in to help. Using the duck test, I'm not seeing a Quack here. Stesmo (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)