User talk:Bernie44

Your submission at Articles for creation: Amanda Bradford (January 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SeraphWiki was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Amanda Bradford and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Amanda Bradford, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SeraphWiki (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Bernie44! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! SeraphWiki (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Texas Dow Employees Credit Union for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Texas Dow Employees Credit Union is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Dow Employees Credit Union until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. John from Idegon (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tom McGrath (media executive), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BMG (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Justin Yoshimura for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Justin Yoshimura is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Yoshimura until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Eric Helms) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Eric Helms, Bernie44!

Wikipedia editor Semmendinger just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice job with this page! Well sourced and well written. :)

To reply, leave a comment on Semmendinger's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

SEMMENDINGER (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Cardiogram (company)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Cardiogram (company), Bernie44!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I note your paid editor disclosure and commend you on a well-written, encyclopedic article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hello, Bernie44. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Seeking clarification: Pascal de Sarthe

Were you paid to write Pascal de Sarthe? Mduvekot (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that was a while back, I see that I forgot to leave a tag on the talk page, added it just now.--Bernie44 (talk) 12:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kraken Rum logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kraken Rum logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Elisfkc (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia

	Wikipedia
	Hi Bernie44, I work for a company in Switzerland and I am looking for someone who could write an article for me on Wipedia. Do you still write article for people? Thanks a lot Luna L.ricchi (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ryan Cohen

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Article moved to draft

Hello, I recently move an article you created to Draft:Ryan Cohen. I have conducted this action as articles created for disclosed payment tend to go through the WP:AFC process.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

AvaTrade moved to draftspace

I've moved AvaTrade to draft space. WP:COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing in mainspace. Please stop doing so, and use AfC to create pages and edit requests on the relative talk-page to ask for changes to existing articles. Apart from anything else, by dumping paid content into Wikipedia you are creating deceptive native advertising, which is illegal under the law of the United States (the law that governs Wikipedia). Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:DTV Shredder.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:DTV Shredder.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  TonyBallioni (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Bernie44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand that I was blocked for creating an article that is considered by some to be advertising, and for reverting the user who made a redirect out of the page I created. I did create the article in good faith and properly disclosed that I was paid to create it. However, because another user took exception to it, rather than revert the other user I should have discussed the issue with that user, especially in light of my COI. In the future, if unblocked, I will do a better job of heeding WP:COI.--Bernie44 (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I understand that I was blocked for creating an article that is considered by some to be advertising, and for reverting the user who made a redirect out of the page I created. I did create the article in good faith and properly disclosed that I was paid to create it. However, because another user took exception to it, rather than revert the other user I should have discussed the issue with that user, especially in light of my COI. In the future, if unblocked, I will do a better job of heeding WP:COI.--[[User:Bernie44|Bernie44]] ([[User talk:Bernie44#top|talk]]) 18:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I understand that I was blocked for creating an article that is considered by some to be advertising, and for reverting the user who made a redirect out of the page I created. I did create the article in good faith and properly disclosed that I was paid to create it. However, because another user took exception to it, rather than revert the other user I should have discussed the issue with that user, especially in light of my COI. In the future, if unblocked, I will do a better job of heeding WP:COI.--[[User:Bernie44|Bernie44]] ([[User talk:Bernie44#top|talk]]) 18:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I understand that I was blocked for creating an article that is considered by some to be advertising, and for reverting the user who made a redirect out of the page I created. I did create the article in good faith and properly disclosed that I was paid to create it. However, because another user took exception to it, rather than revert the other user I should have discussed the issue with that user, especially in light of my COI. In the future, if unblocked, I will do a better job of heeding WP:COI.--[[User:Bernie44|Bernie44]] ([[User talk:Bernie44#top|talk]]) 18:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Your disclosure has no impact on this block. Following the terms of use is not an exemption from following local policy: it is the minimum condition to hit the save button. English Wikipedia policy forbids advertising, and the two articles brought to COIN are clear examples of native advertising written in marketing speak. That you decided to revert one of our most dedicated editors who deals with spam after they explained the COI guideline to you just makes it worse. You don’t get to hold local policy hostage to the terms of use: that provision exists so we can determine if you are following local policies and guidelines. You weren’t so now you can’t edit. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It has never been my intention to create articles that would be considered native advertising, but I should have listened to an experienced user saying that I had done so. I have been editing on here a long time and I believe I have done and have the capability to do a lot of good. In hindsight of course I should not have reverted Justlettersandnumbers, that was an impulsive and wrong decision. I understand what you are saying about local policies and if unblocked I will certainly heed them and be extra careful not to make any edits that would be considered spam. Whenever I have a COI I will propose edits rather than edit directly, and will put any new article through AFC.--Bernie44 (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - Commenting on the basis of recent interactions, I believe that clemency should not be extended. While paid editing is allowed, paid editors should not be given undue leeway by volunteer editors. For example, I have twice had to move the article at Ryan Cohen back to the draftspace after Bernie44 moved it to the main article space in the face of the WP:PAID requirement that editors with a conflict of interest submit their articles through AfC. I left a note ([1]) on Bernie's talkpage requesting he send his article through AfC, and yet they chose to themselves move the article back to the mainspace anyway. Looking through their archive, Bernie44 has been a fairly productive and cooperative paid editor since 2012, but they have been made aware of paid editing policy multiple times, and were explicitly directed to WP:PAID at User_talk:Bernie44/Archive_4#Paid_editing_in_Wikipedia; with this being put forward, I support Bernie's block as they have been shown to lack the competency to follow paid editing policy.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • SamHolt6, I was wrong to revert your move of the Ryan Cohen page. I was interpreting your note as optional advice and I was wrong to do that. As you say, I have been fairly productive and cooperative on here for seven years, and if given another chance I pledge to be extra careful to comply with any and all rules and guidelines. I understand the repercussions of not complying and I'm sorry that I have not been as cooperative as I could have been up to this point.--Bernie44 (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - I guess I'm just a bit new here, but I think after 7 years of fairly helpful contributions to Wikipedia, a permanent block might be a bit too harsh? As far as I can see, this user has been up-front about being a paid writer, and while there are COI issues to flesh out, I don't think they should be fleshed out in this user's talk page or unblock discussions. The past issues aren't big enough to warrant a permanent block over a single revert. Godrestsinreason (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Unblock

I see where someone posted a request for you to make them an article. Must be quite a business you have, exploiting Wikipedia? Need to know all your clients. Frankly, IMHO, I cannot see a safe path to unblocking. I could TBAN you from subject X and you get money from subject Y, and we are back where we started. That might not be insurmountable, but I also don't see where you are capable of writing objective prose, especially as you seem to make a living writing ad copy, and do not evince an understanding of how to contribute to an encyclopedia. Beyond that, you would need to be able show us you are to recognize reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking. Not formally declining so that others can unblock if they disagree with my reasoning, but looks to me like leaving you blocked is the best course of action.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, there's a list of clients on the user page. Is there an indication that this list is incomplete? That said, I'm leaning towards "no unblock" since the articles in question was blatantly inappropriate, something that Bernie44 apparently fails to recognize even in retrospect ("considered by some to be advertising"). I don't doubt that Bernie44 in good faith believes the pages were appropriate, but that makes it only more difficult to prevent such issues from recurring. Huon (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, Huon, I'm pretty sure that list is at least partially incomplete – please see my comments yesterday at WP:COIN for examples of undisclosed editing clearly related to paid articles. What's bothering me is that it may be very incomplete. Perhaps Bernie could clarify here what other pages have been created for pay? (Oh, and Dlohcierekim, you might consider watchlisting this). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Huon Justlettersandnumbers Indeed. I felt deeper clarification/fuller disclosure was warranted. And clearly, if they are going to disown the promotionality, that is that the editing was promotional, then I think there is little hope of a return to constructive editing and they might as well stay blocked. Bernie, this is not a "legal" proceeding, where one hides behind words and turns of phrase to evade the truth. This is a behavioral/educational issue, and you must clearly indicate how and where you went amiss, and how you will edit non promotionally.---- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, Huon, Justlettersandnumbers, I have given this all a lot of thought over the past couple of days, taken to heart all of your comments here on this topic, and examined my actions. In editing for pay I incorrectly focused too much on whether a subject has (what I considered to be) decent press, and didn't take into account enough common sense, like is this subject inherently notable? I didn't pay enough attention to the actions of other, non-COI users who were trying to guide me to see what is and isn't notable, and what sources are and aren't credible. It was my responsibility to stay current with the rules of COI, and I didn't do that. I took the phrase "very strongly discouraged" when it comes to direct editing as advice rather than a rule I should follow. I should not have been editing or creating directly when I had a COI, especially since I was warned against it. I feel terrible because I do want to constructively contribute to Wikipedia. Regarding the list on my user page, I hadn't updated it for a while (another mistake on my part), and I will go through and do so now. If I am given another chance and unblocked, I will focus on non-COI editing, which I do take great pride in, will cease editing for pay, and if I want to propose an edit to an article on which I already have a COI, will properly and clearly disclose my COI. I agree with you all that I have edited inappropriately, and for that I am sorry. This experience has taught me that, if unblocked, I need to be a lot better at being a part of this great community, so I can truly contribute positively here.--Bernie44 (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realize I can't edit my talk page - I was going to update the chart on there, will instead add other articles here. Starting to go through it now.--Bernie44 (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)