User talk:SFK2

Leave a message at the bottom of the page. Thanks.

Bankcreditnews

Your undo on contactless payments page 19

09, 10 February 2014‎

Your undo is unwarranted. I was citing information from a Google News approved, reputable online newspaper. The information I cited was relevant exactly to the nominal subject of the article and the section (History) of said article. Adding updated information to Wikipedia articles and citing legitimate news sources is not spamming. It is the essence of what editing Wikipedia is. Thank you. Carpalclip3 (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

your "spamming" campaign against Bank Credit News legitimate citations

I responded:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Response_to_the_premise_of_the_allegations

I'm open to engaging in dialogue. But I've concluded that the premise of your campaign is unfounded. If you can show me that it's not, I'll be happen to listen. But I intend to undo your undos to my edits. Our rights to edit Wikipedia are equal. You do not have more rights than me, and I do not have more rights than you.

Respectfully, Carpalclip3 (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Heartland Payment Systems - crossing the line

On February 5, I added header re: litigation; paragraph about a lawsuit filed by the nominal subject recently.

The same day, you deleted my source (an article from BankCreditNews about Heartland Payment Systems suing Mercury Payment Systems) and replaced it with a different source (a Yahoo News article about Heartland Payment Systems suing Mercury Payment Systems). The articles both discuss the lawsuit. In your edit summary, you say "replaced it with a neutral source."

Go look again at the Yahoo News link you inserted. Look at the top. The article is a copy of a BusinessWire press release from Heartland Payment Systems! (at the very top of the "article" it says "BUSINESS WIRE", a press release distribution service, and it has Heartland Payment Systems listed as the provider of the story!!). I cannot see any conceivable argument that a press release ISSUED BY the company in question is more "neutral" than an original news article written ABOUT that company.

It appears that you are attempting to provide cover for your anti-spam campaign against BankCreditNews.

I want to be friendly and cooperative. Maybe you can help me add ADDITIONAL NEWS SOURCES to the information I've cited, rather than just trying to take every reference to Bank Credit News off of Wikipedia. That seems very odd to me.

Respectfully, Carpalclip3 (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Replied on the spam project page. -SFK2 (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanking for the corrections and changes you made; will ensure in future of the recommended reflect while making any changes and edits on Wikipedia. Thank You again! Say2max (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanking You!!Would take care in future — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koolstar (talk • contribs) 05:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This has reference to the article named 'Eduwave JEE' which was deleted by you today on March 13, 2014. Please explain to me the exact reasons of doing so, when there are many other article by the names of the institutes which are lying in the wikipedia database. Why is it so that only this article was deleted and not the other ones. I am utterly angst and frustrated by this malicious act of yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EduIITprep (talk • contribs) 14:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the notifications left on your talk page? -SFK2 (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hedge Fund

Hi, SFK2. You removed the list of notable hedge fund firms from Hedge fund recently. I am thinking of restoring it, because among other things, it means there is now no mention of Long-Term Capital Management in Hedge fund. That was a hedge fund that collapsed in 1997 and caused a significant financial crisis. Do you have you any objections? Wildfowl (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

These sections are unnecessary and prone to spamming. If Long Term Capital Management is notable enough to warrant a mention then it should be integrated into the prose. -SFK2 (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

What does "spamming" mean in this context? Presumably adding non-notable items to the list. I have Hedge fund in my watch list, and I'm sure other people do, and that provides some protection against non-notables appearing. It seems weird to have an article on hedge funds that does not give some examples, especially when some of them have articles on Wikipedia. I would vote for re-instating the list unless there is some relevant Wikipedia policy to the contrary. Wildfowl (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Mainly WP:SPAMBAIT, such as subtle name dropping. As I said earlier, if the company is that important in the scope of the topic then it should be integrated into the prose. -SFK2 (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Copied userpage

Thanks for letting me know; it seems that the other user has removed my userpage content from their page. That's very odd, though. I've speedily deleted a few of that user's new articles before, but I'm not sure why that inspired him to copy my page, especially since our editing interests don't seem to overlap. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

My only concern was the claim of being and admin. Otherwise it's not really a big deal. -SFK2 (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Memelord

Hello SFK2, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Memelord, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It doesn't look to me as though the term was coined by the article's creator or someone they know personally, so A11 doesn't apply. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Diamonds as an investment

Could you take a look at Diamonds as an investment? I recently became aware of your work with an edit you made to Wedding ring which I initially reverted, then you undid my reversion, at which point I looked more closely and saw that the link was not to harvard.edu but to a company with a url: harvard.[name of company].edu.

The entire article Diamonds as an investment is hugely problematic. On the one hand, diamonds are indeed a legitimate investment vehicle, but only when bought and sold in wholesale quantities (generally in the neighborhood of a million dollars worth). In those quantities, they can be bought and sold at 100% of wholesale, minus 2-4% brokerage fees and commission at time of sale. A traditional rule of thumb is that they shouldn't be more than 1-3% of your portfolio. That pretty much limits participation to institutional investors and extremely wealthy individuals.

When sold in less than wholesale quantities, they are not a liquid asset unless sold to pawnbrokers for 30% of wholesale, resulting in catastrophic loss. For unqualified individuals who have "invested" in diamonds, the goal in liquidating is not profit but loss mitigation.

Unfortunately, there is a dearth of reliable secondary material on this subject. Instead, there are only large numbers of companies trying to sell "diamonds as an investment" to unqualified buyers. Their sales pitches talk about everything but how to sell your diamond. They go on about how diamonds are formed deep in the earth, how they are sorted and graded, how prices have gone up over the years, but not how people actually make money investing in them.

This entire article is in the style of such sales pitches.

Thank you. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look. It shouldn't be too difficult to weed out the refspam. -SFK2 (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

I have been editing Wikipedia for three and a half years and have created over 1000 new articles (including some I have expanded from minimal stubs). In that time I have never had an article tagged for speedy deletion until today. I am currently working with some other editors on improving Tiger to GA, and decided to write an article to turn a red link in the Tiger article blue. So I started Care for the Wild International and went to have breakfast, only to come back and find you had tagged it for speedy deletion within an hour of its creation.

You on the other hand do not appear to create content but seem to specialise in tagging and proposing speedy deletions. Looking at your recent contributions I see that you do little else. At 8.21 this morning, you tagged Andrew Spear and went on to tag both my new article and my talk page, and the time was still only 8.21. WOW! What a lot of consideration you must have given to my new article and whether it met the speedy deletion criteria! Maybe you would like to reconsider the article now that I have enlarged it, and perhaps you should slow down a teeny-weeny bit? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Being a regular does not make you immune from CSD critera. Whether you believe me or not, I actually did wait for you to improve the page. I believe assertions of notability is a very basic requirement for new articles and as a regular you should be aware of that. Also, I fail to see how tagging Andrew Spear article with {{notability}} is relevant to this discussion. Maybe you could elaborate? -SFK2 (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Tagging the Andrew Spear article was only relevant because it set a time span of less than a minute in which you came to a decision about my article. Criterion A7 states "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance" and the article stated at that time "Care for the Wild International is an animal charity, a non-governmental organization established in 1984 and based in the United Kingdom. Its stated aim is to "rescue, protect and defend animals in need around the globe".[1] It was therefore incorrect to tag it for speedy deletion on the basis of criterion A7 as, "if the claim is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied".

If I had been a newby, I might have been completely turned off by your negative approach. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but stating that XYZ is a charity established in [year], is simply not good enough. A7 definitely applies, the only thing that is perhaps debatable is the time frame. But I do believe an hour is sufficient time to elaborate on the topic. -SFK2 (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, but I am a bit shocked by the speedy, speedy deletion process. Perhaps I should have stated that XYZ is an international charity established in [year], but that was implicit in the organisation's title. In the category [Category:Animal_charities] there are a lot of much less important organisations such as Homeless Animals Rescue Team, Our Pack and Silva Project and I was surprised that my article was promptly deleted after I had objected, expanded it and provided some outside sources. It is a salutary lesson to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -SFK2 (talk) 10:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The article has been reinstated after I added some extra outside sources. An international charity is intrinsically a notable subject and IMO, the article should not have been tagged for speedy deletion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice work with the dead links and primary sources. -SFK2 (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude on your conversation, but my home town, San Francisco, has a population of less than one million, making it only a medium-sized city. However, we have huge numbers of artists, art galleries, and art museums (most of them not notable) and huge numbers of nonprofit organizations. Many of them are international charities. Most are no more notable than wineries or microbreweries. Anyone with a few thousand dollars can start their own microbrewery. They just rent professional kitchen space by the hour, hire a graphic designer to design a label, a print shop to print it up, a bottling plant to bottle it. Then they give it away for free to friends and relative. Many wineries are the same thing, except more expensive, typically five or ten million for a vanity winery. Lots of retired business people have that kind of money. Only a tiny percentage of those wineries ever achieve notability. Same for international charities. You fill out a bunch of forms to get your nonprofit status, find some people in other countries who support what you're doing, and there you are. These things are not inherently notable. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Credit card

Why would you rather have a resource be directed to a 404 than having the genuine original document hosted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExpatMiler7 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the WP:REFSPAM concerns, if look at the source you'll realise that it doesn't actually support the sentence. -SFK2 (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you reverted the change instead of removing the citation. As for the Aeroplan and Air Canada additions. I don't see what warrants you to take down the citations without verifying or taking down the added content, the citation was added with an update to the article, if you don't think the information is correct, why don't you remove the entire paragraph added instead of simply removing the citation from which the information was provided from? Referring to WP:REFSPAM, this author is authoritative on the subject, please go over the authors work, if you can find one more reliable, please inform me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExpatMiler7 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi SFK2

Did you know Sheikhpura is a Magahi speaking district of Bihar not Maithili speaking district? Why it is included in the Maithili state as a Maithili speaking district? Sheikhpura should be included in Bihar not Maithili because it is a Magahi speaking district not Maithili. I hope this error is corrected before Bihar is split from Maithili. Hajipur is also not a Maithili speaking area. Bhojpuri is spoken in this district. The no. of district in Maithili is 31 while only 6 in Bihar. This is because even those districts that is not Maithili speaking district is being wrongfully included in Maithili as a Maithili speaking area and being carved out of Bihar. Let us not rush into splitting Bihar. . Let us first correct this error. Let us first include these districts that are not Maithili speaking areas to Bihar. This will help Bihar increase little bit in size which is very important. In its current state, Bihar will become very small in size, which is not helpful for Bihar. Bihar will be better off if we add more districts to it especially those that are not Maithili speaking area but incorrectly included in Maithili state as a Maithili speaking area. Let us not become greedy and become unjust to Bihar. Let the voice of those who care for Bihar reach to the government so that we can stop this injustice happen to Bihar. contribs) 02:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure. But you should place your comments on the corresponding talk page. Or, be bold and make the changes yourself. -SFK2 (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello I'm cpugeek82, the article about the pcb worm was intended as an 1 of april joke. (only to exist for today, it wasnt a secret, i fact it was on the talk page, but if there is no place for a joke here, you can delete it. I don thave any wikipedia experience, so i cant upload pictures and make links and fancy up the joke a bit, so it was just an idea, and i hoped that some wiki editors would maybe like it and take over the idea. But i understand if its against the policy. (CPUgeek82) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpugeek82 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Unjustified undo

Hello

I am really frustrated that Wikipedia have acted in a way of undoing hours of work, just because my username reflects my business. I am trying to update our Academy's informtion on this useful website as a member of the staff at the Academy and you have undone all my work because of potential "conflict of interest". If you had read the page, you will have noticed that was not the case.

I spent hours of my working time to create the content that you have just deleted.

The page is incorrect and out of date and if that is the kind of content Wikipedia want then that is fair enough, but as a legitimate organisation we are trying to keep our brand current and relevant across all social media and information websites.

Can you advise? Redcaracademy (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)