User talk:MER-C/archives/41

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless there's a better place for them. Please read the following helpful hints before posting:

• Wikipedia is a volunteer curated encyclopedia. That means it is not a social networking site, a place for self-promotion, a marketing medium or a free web host. You are expected to be familiar with the goals of this project before you post here.
• Think. Use common sense. Read this before posting; failure to do so may result in your posts being ignored or mocked.
• If you wish to discuss your link additions, I advise you to be read our conflict of interest and spam policies before posting. These pages contain information about the appropriateness of link additions.
• I prefer to be contacted here (as opposed to email) where possible. You're much more likely to get a prompt response.
• I do not consider unblock or undeletion requests sent via email. Please refer to Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks to appeal your block. You may request undeletion here.
• Off-wiki evidence of undisclosed paid editing must not be posted here. These, and complex cases of paid editing will not be acted upon. In both cases, please email paid-en-wp wikipedia dot org.

Start a new talk topic

Image at Cold-weather warfare

You are invited to join a discussion at Talk:Cold-weather warfare#Choice of images. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Empires Apart

Why was the page deleted? The publisher of the game created a page and the community for the game are putting the information together to expand it. This was an initial skeleton to help flesh things out. I can't work out how this broken any guidelines. I see many other games with Wiki pages. How should the community create a page for the game if not like this? SlipUK (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @SlipUK: "I see many other games with Wiki pages." Please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. While I understand your confusion, allowing sub-standard content because other sub-standard content exists would result in a race to the bottom. "How should the community create a page for the game..." It shouldn't; please see WP:NOTWEBHOST. We are an encyclopedia, not a free website for fans to write content. "The publisher of the game created a page..." Please see WP:COI. It hurts the reliability of Wikipedia for editors who have a stake in the content to be writing same. Doing so without announcing their conflict of interest violates our Terms of Use. "This was an initial skeleton to help flesh things out." Please see WP:REALPROBLEM. Wikipedia is a trailing indicator of notability and as such we require independent, reliable sources. Neither the website nor the readers benefit from a skeleton of unsourced crap. "I can't work out how this broken any guidelines." As I've portrayed, your ignorance blinds you to reality. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you had bothered to understand the goals of this website before you signed up, you would know exactly why that page was deleted. You're expected to know what an encyclopedia is and isn't before you edit one. (You are fortunate Chris troutman spelt it out for you. I won't.) MER-C 16:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

This was in no way a sales or promotion page as you can see from the basic facts that were reported including release date, developer, publisher and basic feature set and comparison product. The information was purely factual. If the community who know the game are not allowed to create the encyclopedia entry for it who is? SlipUK (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @SlipUK: As depicted at Metacritic, the game isn't even out, yet. Just because an article is factual does not mean the subject is notable. Wikipedia's entries are based upon other sources' reviews both for verifiability as well as notability. Please see Wikipedia:NVIDEOGAMES. Take, for example, our article on Age of Empires II. It isn't reliant on what the publisher says about it. Editors at WikiProject Video games are who typically build entries like that. We don't need the company or the fans involved, as neither group has any experience editing Wikipedia. Some number of years from now our editors will write an article if and when it's appropriate. If your number one concern is putting info into Wikipedia because it will be highly-favored by search engines, then you are acting as an advertiser. If you just want to see content about the game online, then contribute to Wikia about the game. Either way, Wikipedia is not for you. Editors who write our articles will handle it. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

My only concern about getting it listed is youtube requires it to be listed or it will not correctly link the game to its page. Please read this - https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6150676?hl=en . Most specifically this line sameAs (Wikipedia) A Wikipedia URL for your game. This helps us to uniquely identify your game. Either let someone create the page or tell youtue to stop requiring the page exists for the system to work. It's quite frankly its ridiculous for one company to say it has to be there and the other to refuse to do it. I don't mind who creates the page and don't mind what it says, other than it exists to satisfy this ridiculous requirement from youtube. I've spent many hours on this now and its getting pretty frustrating. SlipUK (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

> It's quite frankly its ridiculous for one company to say it has to be there and the other to refuse to do it.

Do I seriously need to tell you that Wikipedia is a volunteer curated encyclopedia whose servers are run by a non-profit organization? Why should we care about what youtube does with their platform? MER-C 15:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The last report rejected the game because it was not yet released but why is this relevant. Many games have pages that are available before release as there is vast amounts of information available on games before they are on sale. Forgetting the ridiculous youtube requirement, there is no reason for you to stop this page going live. SlipUK (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

As already pointed out to you above, Wikipedia has an inclusion threshold agreed to by the community of volunteer editors. Being released or not is irrelevant, you need to demonstrate that your game has merited in-depth, intellectually independent coverage by reputable media outlets (as far as gaming "journalism" is concerned at least) on multiple occasions. You have not produced any evidence of this. No means no. MER-C 17:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty of places that have covered the game. There are 4000 videos posted by youtubers here - https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22empires+apart%22. It is covered by hundreds of news sites and magazines in dozens of languages. Here is a sample of major sites covering the game: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/07/05/empires-apart-rts/ https://bigbossbattle.com/empires-apart-rts-revival/ http://www.strategygamer.com/articles/empires-apart-release-date-announced/ https://www.gry-online.pl/S016.asp?ID=32689 https://www.gamewatcher.com/previews/empires-apart-preview/12983 https://www.pcgamesn.com/empires-apart https://www.alphabetagamer.com/empires-apart-beta-sign-up-steam/ https://www.gamespot.com/empires-apart/ https://www.keengamer.com/Game/empires-apart/detail

This is a small sample but you can get 63,000 hits on Google with "Empires apart game" - https://www.google.co.uk/search?biw=1228&bih=1263&ei=lA-6WqqOAoWYgAbh_LigBA&q=%22empires+apart%22+game&oq=%22empires+apart%22+game&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l2j0i22i30k1.57202.63400.0.64183.7.7.0.0.0.0.56.381.7.7.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.7.381...0i7i30k1.0.w8ZumW1Td8c

If this is not enough please explain what is. SlipUK (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

From what I see above, that would be borderline not notable. I recommend you wait until the game is released, gather up the reviews, write a draft then submit it to AFC by placing {{subst:submit}} at the top. MER-C 19:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Those sites are the most prominent PC gaming sites in the world. https://www.gamespot.com/ - Alexa rank 360 worldwide! https://www.rockpapershotgun.com - Alexa rank 3900 worldwide! https://www.pcgamesn.com - Alexa rank 3600 worldwide!

I could go on and on but which sites do you think should cover the game for it to have a page? Which PC gaming site has not covered it that you feel it should, as I know you wont be able to list one of any significance. SlipUK (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

As the guideline says, it's the quality of coverage that matters. Given the low quality of journalism in the games industry, the bar is higher than you think. As I said, write a draft and submit it to AfC and argue your case over there. MER-C 16:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I've written and submitted the page and you deleted it and I don't know how to restore it? It took hours to put it together and I have no backup of the source that went in to it so the Wiki version is the only copy so please let me know how to access it. SlipUK (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

You should start from scratch after release -- the stuff you wrote contained was almost entirely game guide material, had zero sources and did not argue why it should be included. MER-C 20:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

That's simply untrue which you know if you had actually read the content. It was in no way a game guide. I used a template from existing game descriptions. You're clutching at a different straw each time and the excuses for deleting it are getting more and more bizarre. Why not just reinstate it and save us all a pile of time. SlipUK (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

SlipUK, you should listen to MER-C. I have looked over your deleted contribution and it would require a complete rewrite to be acceptable on Wikipedia. Please use the Article wizard. If it helps, the first sentence (which is about all that is usable) was Empires Apart is a computer game developed by Destiny Bit will be published by Slitherine on 29th March 2018. Continuing to tell us that you're right and we're wrong will not produce anything beneficial for you; we've been doing this a long time and know what we're talking about. Primefac (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Juice Beauty Draft

Hi MER-C. I would like to resubmit the page Draft: Juice Beauty with a new source. I saw that you deleted Draft: Juice Beauty. Would I have success getting the page approved if I requested the article to be written? Thank you for your help. Downtheroad35 (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Most likely no. Given the way it was deleted, you will need more than one new source and a complete rewrite to remove promotionalism. Also, do you have a financial conflict of interest regarding this company? MER-C 19:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Index Industry Association

Just looking for some clarity. You deleted the page for the Index Industry Association. It's a trade group representing the 14 major global index providers and I thought it warranted a wikipedia page to explain its purpose. It was stated that it was deleted for being too promotional, but simply explained what the organization does. I'm happy to edit to fit the guidelines. However, I'm not sure how this submission is different from those of other trade groups such as the Futures Industry Association: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futures_Industry_Association

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinGDN425 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Chopping up bits of text from the organization's website is no way to create an encyclopedia article. Would you be surprised if the article you linked also contained blatantly copied text from that organization's about us page? And that it was put there by said organization in violation of this project's goals? Well, it did. MER-C 16:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Automating EL detections

The users listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Reene_23 have been refspamming e.g. as well as creating UPE articles, but there are so many and they mix them up with others, so I'd like to automate grabbing a list of all the potential links. Do you know a way of generating a list of all the links that a specific user has added? There don't seem to be any WP:TOOLS that do it, nor can I see a way to make the API spit it out. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Already way ahead of you on this one. Results here (includes Neill luke, which you didn't mention at the SPI). MER-C 13:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Ahh nice! Neill luke was listed there originally but MAC removed some at Bbb23's request. Did you run that whole list? Is there anyway of making that a gadget/tool? It would be good to check whether the link is still there too. SmartSE (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Not all of them: I only ran the newly reported ones and the confirmed socks. That version I linked to also contains a bug causing it to return incomplete results. The full results are available here.

As for making it an online tool: I don't think it's feasible. 1 diff = 1 API request, and I like to limit myself to 80-100 of these per run for online versions. I could limit it to one user at a time...? MER-C 15:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok. There's not as much spam there as I was expecting anyway and most of it's reverted quickly from the one's I've looked at. I noticed a few bugs though: [1] [2]. Limiting it to one user wouldn't be much use as then it wouldn't be any help for sifting through the SPIs. I still can't get my head around your code, but if you are checking each and avery diff, you could reduce the number by restricting it to edits > +20 bytes. SmartSE (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

That would be dangerous due to dead link replacement. I should parse the removed side of the diff and remove any links found there from the results. You can blame the WMF for not providing machine readable diffs, bogged down by technical debt. MER-C 16:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Yep there's always a workaround, but I hadn't spotted them using it. I'm baffled how impossible it is to get machine readable diffs, considering how easy it is to see what's happening with our own eyes. Let's not get started on WMF though... Do you know about beautiful soup? Simple additions diffs are contained in <td class="diff-addedline"> whereas those bugs contain <ins class="diffchange diffchange-inline"> and <del class="diffchange diffchange-inline">. In the first diff_(fixed) there's no <ins> so there can't be a link added. In the second there are no links in the <ins>, so again I think it's impossible for a link to be added. It's not very elegant as you have to load the whole page, but is that better than what you get from the API? SmartSE (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (@Smartse and MER-C: I just added a new feature to COIBot: 'poke' now also listens to {{UserSummary}} and {{IPSummary}}. That lists all the domains and all the diffs performed by the user. You can poke them through User:COIBot/Poke and the usual spam-reporting-pages (and for the IRC-savvy editors - directing 'report user <username or IP>' at COIBot pokes the same way). Reports get listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/UserReports (I always like it when spam-SPIs get the {{LinkSummary}}-templates listed as well, so everything tracks back to them in case we blacklist and/or revisit domains - a sure way for me to hit the 'decline' button on de-listing requests). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, cool. I forgot about that. (I'll keep maintaining my tool, to cover downtime and the portion of link additions not covered by the database. The use case is to handle >50 users at the same time without too much copy and paste.) MER-C 17:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I would love to have some aggregation tool - feed it a handful of domains and a handful of editors, and let it run a handful of iterations. I once started that in COIBot, but it is hell to write limiting factors in it (if one editor does one link that gets genuinly used it gets completely out of hand). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Looks good and I presume there's a way to chat on IRC via python. SmartSE (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Regex salting

I saw you mention this somewhere recently, but can't remember where. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A23101990. If we could block all titles with 'Knovos' that'd be helpful. SmartSE (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. MER-C 19:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Official Global Aviation Deletion

You deleted a page for my Aviation News & Media Reporting Company: Official Global Aviation which should be on Wikipedia as it was encyclopedically written, informative and about a relevant, media company well known in the aviation sector and used by over 2 million people worldwide.

Thanks in advance,Luke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukew0088 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with inclusion criteria and whose readers expect independent coverage of our subject matter. Undisclosed sponsored content is not tolerated. MER-C 12:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Warning template oddity.

On the talk page of the blocked User:Yseo 1, I warned him before he was blocked. Oddly, instead of using my name, it used yours. Help? Sincerely, TintedFate 18:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything untoward happening: [3][4]. (By the way, that article was about a SEO company, by a SEO company, which does exactly that, therefore it's block on sight.) MER-C 18:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It's still like that for me. Maybe it's because I warned him right when you blocked him? Just speculating. Sincerely, TintedFate 19:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's an image. [5] Sincerely, TintedFate 19:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It's because you didn't substitute the warning template. MER-C 19:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh. Sincerely, TintedFate 19:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

wikidata.org to wikipediatools.appspot.com ?

Gday. When you are next tool tweaking, would you please be able to explore whether we can get wikipediatools.appspot.com to monitor wikidata? Seems that the traditional means for monitoring are not available. :-( Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata is already in the "Major Wikimedia Projects" set. MER-C 10:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Cart.fm returns

The article you recently deleted via G11 (Cart.fm) has returned. I also flagged it for G11, but the creator seems keen on keeping my tags off of the article. Care to revisit the issue?--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I would also note that User:JamesSullivan23 (the article creator) is a new editor with no deleted edits. Could you direct me to the editor who previously created Cart.fm?--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Identical recreation to the versions by User:MySimpleLife5 and User:CommerceExperts. Sock blocked and page salted. Let me know if this pops up again -- I might have to use more drastic measures. MER-C 20:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Annual plan

I think this is (again) a political speech just as empty as the yearly promises of any political party or government. None of it will be fulfilled, but a lot of money will be spent on spurious reasearch. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm just as cynical about the WMF as you are, but there is actually some substance to the annual plans. The key is to look at the targets that they propose in the appendix and ignore the rest. It's the overall strategic direction (which I opposed last year) that's full of bullshit. On the rare occasion you get something you ask for -- I too have had a major success with the WMF despite various forms of idiocy (some from the community, some imposed by the WMF): m:Harassment consultation 2015/Ideas/Technical measures to reduce harassment and [6], [7] (C-grade implementation), [8] (partially done, but to spec) became a key part of Wikipedia:Community health initiative with a mention in this year's annual plan. The implementation is usually C-grade, though. MER-C 11:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

There is something seriously wrong withing the WMF. See Horn;'s latest at m:Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2018-2019/Draft#Tools. It's bordering on the farcical. Is there anything you can do? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Already tried that. This is exactly the type of WMF idiocy I was talking about. The problem with the Community Wishlist is that popular implies success on the wishlist, but necessary and urgent does not. Not a difficult concept to understand, but the kool-aid addicts at the WMF don't want to listen.

That said, the WMF is currently expending massive resources on something that is necessary and urgent (while taking the time to give the backend the overhaul it deserves), but not user facing. Dealing with the WMF is a two-headed beast... there are parts worth engaging with, and there are others which aren't. MER-C 11:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

More general musing about the wishlist than anything, but I agree with your assessment of it. As I mentioned at the annual plan talk page above, the single most useful thing on the entire wishlist in my mind was your proposal to make deleted page histories functional. That of course, isn't sexy, so it placed 41st and instead we got an automatic infobox generator (no way that could possibly go wrong). I've personally had the most success with the WMF by bringing them concrete proposals that are doable and saying "Please do this. It would be really helpful to this other thing you are trying to do here." Unfortunately, for some things you can't neatly tie it to something that is one of their priority issues at the time. Well, at the very least, I'm confident they will implement ACPERM when the RfC closes, so at least we don't have that to worry about. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The only reason thy're doing ACTRIAL and ACPERM is because we threatened to do it ourselves using a filter. That gave them a knee jerk and now they want to reap the glory for having condescended to do it for us, but they didn't have much choice.. What they don't realise is that I pushed for ACTRIAL because they refuse to upgrad Page Curation. We don't have a lever like that for NPP. Maybe we'll find something. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The other thing I don't understand is why the Foundation is so hell bent on becoming a world wide socio-political movement and investing vast funds in that goal, and research for the sake of research. There is a huge surplus of money and over 300 employees now (there were 7 when I joined the project) - why can't they fund a team to address these software needs? Is the Board toothless? Is all it does is to rubber-stamp the WMF's so called annual, and 15-year plans? Who are these people at the WMF - the CEO and Horn? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

It's the typical San Francisco startup mindset. If you want more WMF stupidity from the Community Tech team itself, see the history of phab:T177150. This one is pathetic. MER-C 10:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

wiki-java javadocs unreachable

Hi MER-C, the javadoc for your Java library wiki-java doesn't seem to be up at the moment. Would you mind troubleshooting? Alternatively, if you don't have the time to troubleshoot, would you mind shooting me an email with a copy of the html files for the javadoc? My email is [my username]@[my username].net. Thanks so much, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

It's back. (IDE consumed JavaDoc directory, forgot to regenerate). MER-C 11:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!! :) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 12:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Filter 867

We were talking about this on IRC about a month ago after ACTRIAL ended, but now that it looks like it's going to be made permanent, do you have thoughts on Filter 867 (mainly useful at catching commissioned works.) We were discussing upping the bytes and lowering the edit count on this one at least. Might also be worth adding some more parameters to catch things other than just size as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Tony, what do you suggest resetting the params too? Have you made a sample sweep to see what the average length of a PE article is? Perhaps 3000 is actually a bit high. BTW, although ACTRIAL has been switched off, a lot of new articles are coming in on the user's 11th, 12th, or 13th edit. Just thoughts, but you've been giving this a closer look than I have. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

UPE articles tend to be reasonably long, but this would be better catching any edit by a new user turning a redirect into an article. There seems to be an obvious way around this one at the moment given the bytes limit. I've been using database queries like this (a very broad sweep) to look for potentially affected articles and filtering on edit count seems to work better than being autoconfirmed or not. SmartSE (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Replied via email. Please don't carry on this conversation here. This is a public forum with a (mostly) immutable record. Spammers post here regularly. MER-C 14:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

another possible sock?

Since you banned User:Qifahs17 , User:Siamfootball has been created creating the same type of article, my gut is telling me it's the same user, but I can't be sure, thought I let you know, cheers, Govvy (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you think you can make a case at SPI that they are the same user, and ask for CU? Data for Shafiqabu will be stale, but Qifahs17 is not. MER-C 18:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shafiqabu, is that okay? I put down as much as I know and what I believe. Govvy (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I think I would have waited for a few more edits, but we'll see how it goes. The backlog at SPI is disgusting, but you'll get an answer in a week or two. MER-C 09:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/425

Hello friend! I noticed Special:AbuseFilter/425 is log-only. Are you still using it? Also pinging The Anome and King of Hearts. We are still regularly hitting the condition limit so I'm trying to disable old filters that are either stale or no longer being monitored. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. Astrology/magic spam is a continuous problem, and several admins are actively dealing with it. -- The Anome (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

ACREQ

ACTRIAL → ACREQ: Please see T192455 • Tthe ticket. This risks becoming the same fiasco as Bugzilla 2011. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Homesnap Draft

Hi MER-C,

I noticed the Homesnap page that I tried to publish was sent to draft with no redirect. I submitted the page about a week ago and it was taken down for suspected undisclosed native advertising. I would like to resubmit the page Draft:Homesnap with new edits. I cut out any perceived promotional content to make the article purely factual. Please let me know if it can now be published live. Thank you in advance for your help. Rthomas701 (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my concerns at all. Hint: see WP:PAID. That article shouldn't exist, and if you are being paid, I will not help you in any circumstance. MER-C 17:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Fan of Virginia tech scene. Meets GNG; Realtors adoption in highly contentious and possibly anti-competitive field can use background. Rthomas701 (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Any chance you can take a look at this sometime this week? Rthomas701 (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I had another admin double check my suspicions and they were found to be correct. CU data from DoRD shows editing via an open proxy. Blocked. MER-C 20:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

List of Murder, She Wrote episodes

I saw what you did about a copyvio at Union Savings Bank. Could you please do the same for List of Murder, She Wrote episodes]]? Thanks....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. I also added a warning notice. MER-C 11:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Interaction Timeline V1.1

Hello MER-C, I’m following up with you because you previously showed an interest in the Interaction Timeline. The Anti-Harassment Tools team has completed V1.1 and the tool is ready for use. The Interaction Timeline shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits.

The purpose of the tool is to better understand the sequence of edits between two users in order to make a decision about the best way to resolve a user conduct dispute. Here are some test cases that show the results and also some known limitations of the tool. We would like to hear your experience using the tool in real cases. You can leave public feedback on talk page or contact us by email if the case needs discretion or you would prefer to comment privately. SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Spam blocks

Aren't you being a bit harsh with the perma-spam-blocks for users creating a single spammy draft? I refer specifically to

• Dragne Gabriel
• Osspl

but looking through your block log, a great majority of your recent blocks (last few days are all I've checked so far) are to users after their first edit. Cut a newbie some slack, man. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Those were (1) first or second person spam pages, (2) self-declared SEOs or (3) spambots. Zero tolerance is the only appropriate response. These are spammers (and if they weren't, they clearly demonstrate complete ignorance of the goals of this project and so shouldn't be editing). Anything other than blocking on sight is a waste of the community's time. You should be spending your time on someone who is actually here to improve Wikipedia instead of squeezing blood from a stone. MER-C 19:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

My poem is bad but my apology for the bad links is sincere!

Roses are red,
Good message links are blue,
My proofreading stinks,
So here's a good link for you.
SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

VFL wastewater treatment technology

Thx. to delete VFL wastewater treatment technology draft page. As a coowner of the patent for that technology, I would like to publish the way how it was written. This is a technical description which is equal to the patent, so it is public and it can not be done differently, so pls. explain me how to do it so wikipedia is also happy with that! --Tomas81j (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

You cannot promote your invention on Wikipedia. Consequently, there is strictly no way in which you can write an acceptable article on the subject. MER-C 14:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

COSS

Given [9] I thought it appropriate to mark the page with the warning but will defer to your experience here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree when hijacked the page certainly falls within the scope of sanctions but in reverting you have eliminated the need for sanctions. As a redirect, it's just an acronym whose primary meaning is not blockchain related. MER-C 14:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Clemson-burke1

I declined his unblock, but decided to let you know in case you want to review and comment.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. MER-C 09:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the blockchain and cryptocurrencies

Hi, I saw your post on my talk page regarding sanctions being authorized for pages related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies. I also saw my username on the list of editors who have been notified regarding the sanctions. I am currently familiarizing myself with all the terms and processes and to be honest it is a lot to take in. If I have any queries will this be the right place to ask?Nick.agarwal (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep. We're sick of hearing about someone's newest, greatest and completely unremarkable ICO/cryptocurrency/blockchain related company and this is how we're going to stop it. Wikipedia takes a wait and see approach by design, cannot be edited for marketing, public relations or advertising purposes and, as we aspire to be a reputable encyclopedia, blockchain hype is unwelcome here. The bottom line is: if you promote any cryptocurrency or blockchain related topic or fail to disclose a financial conflict of interest (including paid contributions, material shareholdings or holdings of cryptocurrencies), you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned without further warning. I suggest you stay far away from this topic area for the time being. MER-C 11:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I occasionally browse the 'Wikipedia articles needing copy edit' list and try to help out wherever I can. Is it okay for me to continue doing it as long as they are not pages falling under the categories for which I'm placed under sanctions? Nick.agarwal (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure. There are a number of other sanctioned topics you should look out for that mostly reflect real life controversies (the list is on Wikipedia:General sanctions), but if you make uncontroversial edits you will be OK. MER-C 10:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Deleted page, please help retreive

Greetings, can you please help me retreive the draft of the SASE page you deleted a couple of days ago? I would like to revise it

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klaustrofobia (talk • contribs) 13:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not consider undeletion requests for promotional content, especially from editors with no substantial contribution history outside the relevant topic. You need to start from scratch. MER-C 19:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, are you suggesting I should not try to start a new page until I develop a portfolio of edits across a broad range of topics? So that the problem is not so much the content of the page but my “lack of substantial contributions outside the relevant topic”?

Klaustrofobia (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Both, equally. I only consider undeletion requests from editors who have demonstrated that their only reason for editing this website is to improve the encyclopedia. Promotional edits which are limited to one topic indicate the opposite. MER-C 10:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so at the time when Wiki is trying to increase participation of women-editors to ameliorate an abysmal ratio, you spitefully shut down the efforts to start a page by a woman-editor because, you think, she is not experienced enough to start a page?.. And it looks like you believe that encyclopedia necessarily has to be written by amateurs who dab in dozens of different topics rather than professionals. I am sure many people would disagree.

Klaustrofobia (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)