User talk:Bernie44/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Redlinks

Please do not delete appropriate redlinks. Per WP:REDLINK. Thank you. --2604:2000:E016:A700:B58B:CD4E:9A7D:729E (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, IP address. I don't think you are properly creating redlinks. You should read WP:REDLINK more closely. It clearly states, "It is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable" and goes on to say, "Do not create red links to articles that are not likely to be created and retained in Wikipedia." If you don't think the article in question is notable, why would you think there should be an article on a book he wrote, or related apps or online services he founded? Doesn't make sense to me.--Bernie44 (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I do believe I read it correctly. "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing candidate article, or article section, under any name." If those redlinks are not likely to be created, they probably should not even be in the article. And of course, it is possible for a person to be non-notable, but for a book they wrote to be notable, or an app or online service they founded to be notable - one does not follow necessarily from the other. In any event, as the article creator, and as an editor who creates articles for pay, perhaps you are not in the best place to remove such links. 2604:2000:E016:A700:F59A:6E3:7FB6:DAF (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Harold Garde Coke And Pitcher 2005.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Harold Garde Coke And Pitcher 2005.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Harold Garde Green Tie 1985.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Harold Garde Green Tie 1985.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Blue Bottle Coffee Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Blue Bottle Coffee Logo.png. 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. --B-bot (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kevin Larmee Cigarette 1985.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kevin Larmee Cigarette 1985.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. --B-bot (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kevin Larmee Two Ladies 2002.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kevin Larmee Two Ladies 2002.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. --B-bot (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve The League (app)

Hi, I'm Reb1981. Bernie44, thanks for creating The League (app)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Page is looking good. Just needs little Copy-editing.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Reb1981 (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ben Moore (curator), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from White Girl Rosé, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Mduvekot (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:White Girl Rose Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:White Girl Rose Logo.png. 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. --B-bot (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Matt Bauder

Hi, just wanted to say thanks for writing an article I had listed at User:Chubbles/Missing American music. Cheers! Chubbles (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Squatty Potty

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 Squatty Potty, 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 removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Squatty Potty for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Squatty Potty 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/Squatty Potty 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 ) 02:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

COI

Per WP:COI you surely are aware you should not be editing articles with which you have a COI? Kindly Stop it. Alexbrn (talk) 03:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Todd Bracher for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Todd Bracher 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/Todd Bracher 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. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Squatty-Potty-logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Squatty-Potty-logo.png. 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. --B-bot (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of New Hope Club for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article New Hope Club 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/New Hope Club 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. Shritwod (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Steven Hacker for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steven Hacker 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/Steven Hacker 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 ) 07:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Disclosures

Hi. Considering the note on your user page, I find it concerning that you have made no disclosures in regards to your recent article creations. You were almost certainly paid to create Melissa Peirce and the same seems to apply for at least Stuart Crichton and Jeff Provenzano. I should not need to remind you that making disclosures is not optional. SmartSE (talk) 12:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AvaTrade logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AvaTrade logo.png. 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. --B-bot (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of New Hope Club for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article New Hope Club 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/New Hope Club (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Shritwod (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Itshak Holtz Yerusalem Wedding 2010.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Itshak Holtz Yerusalem Wedding 2010.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. --B-bot (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Seph Lawless for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Seph Lawless 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/Seph Lawless (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Hattie B's Hot Chicken for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hattie B's Hot Chicken 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/Hattie B's Hot Chicken 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 ) 11:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Paid editing in Wikipedia

Thanks for disclosing today, in this diff, that you were paid to make the edits you made yesterday.

I work on conflict of interest and paid editing issues in Wikipedia, and I very much appreciate your being honest about paid editing, albeit after the fact.

Paid editing creates a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. The WP:PAID policy obligates people ediing for pay to disclose their employer, the client, and any other relevant affiliation. You have disclosed the client; would you please name your employer? (You might work for a PR or digital marketing agency, or you might be a freelancer or contractor. If you are a freelancer/contractor, per the "affiliation" obligation, please name any broker (like Fiverr or any paid editing service that works through contractors) through which Viking became your client.

Once your disclosure is complete, I'd like to explain how we look for paid editors to fully disclose, and about the prior review step. Thanks again for disclosing, at least in part, and I hope that you are open to this discussion. Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog. I understand about disclosure, and I do put the template on the talk page if I'm paid to work on it (I also do plenty of non-paid editing). I wasn't previously aware of an "affiliation" field. I edit on a freelance basis and am paid by the client, to whom I make it clear that my intent is to make neutral edits. While I of course understand concerns about paid editing, it seems to me rather harsh to completely revert the edits I made to the Viking Cruises page yesterday right after I disclosed that I was paid. It definitely doesn't make me super comfortable about having this conversation (which I realize is not your concern). That page was (now is) a mess, and I came in not to promote anything but to improve the page, by bringing in stronger references, reducing repetitiveness and promotional language, cleaning up formatting... I don't see how you can state, as you did in your edit summary, "Not an improvement", and revert all my edits, unless it's to make some sort of point. I understand declaring a COI doesn't mean I can do whatever I want but at the same time, does it mean my work is so tainted as to simply be dismissed without considering the actual edits? You really don't feel my revisions are an improvement, to at the very least be used as a strong jumping off point for future edits? In looking again I could see removing the awards section and perhaps tweaking a line or two. With Viking Cruises, this is a notable company, and I hope you can provide some insight as to how you feel its Wikipedia page can be cleaned up.--Bernie44 (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I will be happy to discuss the Viking article content when we are through this. I hope you will accept that (yes, it would have been better had I waited to change the content until after we finished the conversation. Usually I do that but if you look at the history of the page, you will see that getting those pesky tags removed has been the subject of a bunch of IPs and SPA accounts. My apologies for the awkwardness).

In any case thanks for clarifying that you are a freelancer and were hired by Viking.

With regard to disclosure, what we look for paid editors to do, is disclose locally at the article so that editors working there are aware (as you already do), and disclose at their userpage. What we look for there, is the Template:Paid and the list of articles and clients. See for example MaryGaulke and FacultiesIntact, who are both rigorous about this. The template adds you to this category: , which is useful in a bunch of ways. (from the perspective of paid editors, it is a way to let people know that you are available for "white hat" paid editing work).

As I noted above, there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is a form of peer review - prior review, really. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are often driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest (and I very much appreciate you not starting an edit war to restore your edits). If conflicted and paid editors edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI or who are paid, and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:

a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, and then submit the draft article for review so it can be reviewed with the COI in mind before it publishes; and

b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to

(i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag; and

(ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section, put the proposed content there, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) place the {{request edit}} tag to flag it for other editors to review. In general it should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once. Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example. This is OK to do but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.

By following those "prior review" processes, editors with a COI (including paid editors) can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (There are good faith paid editors here, who have signed and follow the Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms, and there are "black hat" paid editors here who lie about what they do and really harm Wikipedia).

I hope that makes sense to you.

Will you please add that stuff to your userpage, and follow the "prior review" process going forward instead of editing directly? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all this, I appreciate the clear instructions. For page creation I'll go through AFC from now on.

With Viking Cruises, in looking further into the history of the page as well as the talk page, I see the history of all these attempts at removing the tags (as you pointed out) and realize that this is an obvious case where I should have posted on the talk page before doing anything on the main page. For a rewrite such as I did, do you think that would be a case where I would need to put up the revised page on my sandbox and link to it?

My understanding is that, per the COI guideline, editors are discouraged from directly editing articles for which they have been paid to work on, not that it is forbidden. I bring this up not to be argumentative but to say it seems to me that common sense is key. If it's a simple, unbiased edit like a date correction with a credible source, I would think it would be fine to make that edit directly. Of course, I understand one could say that what I consider a simple, objective edit is not so. What are your thoughts on that?

I guess my fear with proposing edits rather than making them directly is that they will go ignored. What is the accepted protocol here? In addition to adding that request edit tag, do I ping users such as yourself who may be interested in assisting or providing feedback, or is that considered annoying?

I do think it's important to do paid editing in a "white hat" way, and I try to be sensible and thoughtful in my edits. I realize there are many users out there who are against paid editing no matter how thoughtful a paid editor may be, but I feel like there have been many instances where I've successfully cleaned up deserving pages. Anyways, on my userpage I have had a paid editing disclosure since early 2015. I'll add a list of paid clients later today.--Bernie44 (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your gracious reply, and I very much appreciate your engaging with me.

Where to start? The Viking article has pretty obviously been directly manipulated by people working for the company, so you are unfortunately following in some unethical footsteps. I think the article can (and should) be fixed so to make it a decent WP article, and I am glad they found you, as I believe you can do it. Sure, feel free to propose a rewrite in a sandbox. When you do, please be sure it is truly NPOV and that nothing negative is omitted or downplayed. I understand very well that this presents a challenge when negotiating with clients, who want marketing and PR. This is where the conflict of interest really kicks in, and I hope that you can be successful in keeping Wikipedia's mission, policies, and guidelines first. In my view we need more paid editors who have WP:CLUE who can educate clients about what WP is, and what it is NOT. The two people I linked ahove - MaryGaulke and FacultiesIntact -- are two of the rare ones who do.

I also understand that waiting for independent editors to review is ... difficult at best from a business perspective. What do you tell clients and how do you think about your own cash flow? I very much understand that. But that is just the nature of this game. WP is a volunteer community; we don't have paid staff that we can direct to review things, through which we could make promises. So that is also something you have to educate clients about, and for your own business purposes, you have to string enough work together (in WP or out) that you can manage the uncertain deadlines. I can say that if you establish a reputation for proposing high quality, well-sourced, NPOV, and well-formatted content (so that volunteers don't have to do a lot of additional work), your proposals will get tend to implemented more efficiently.

And sure pinging people is fine. Just always be aware (and I think you are) that you will be asking people to volunteer time so that you can make money. If your content really improves WP and you are gracious, most people will not mind. Some people will be mean, of course.

I think that is everything...please let me know if I missed anything. Jytdog (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for adding that list! It would useful if you added a note that you are a freelancer, so that it is clear you are not employed by any PR or digital marketing agency. Also I see that you have not used the template:paid, which has options of a single line or a userbox. If you choose not to, that is fine. The table there is plenty. Thanks again!

I will probably (not soon) follow behind and make sure all the talk pages are tagged, and then I will probably list the articles at COIN to ensure that they get independent review - reviewing paid contributions is one thing we do there. I hope that is not too upsetting. When I post at COIN I will make it clear that you are committed to being a good citizen and have been doing this peacefully for a while now. This is only about managing conflict of interest and ensuring the integrity of content, and is not personal and not at all about punishing anybody. OK? Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, so yes I'd prefer not to add that paid template since I don't only do paid work on here, and I didn't see it on the examples you sent of good paid editor user pages, plus now I've got this chart... Regarding the COIN stuff, with respect, it seems extreme to now post my chart on a noticeboard, since almost all of these articles have been in good standing for quite a while, but I guess it's out there so you can do what you feel is right.--Bernie44 (talk) 02:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you yet again for being gracious. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bernie44. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Hattie Bs Hot Chicken Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hattie Bs Hot Chicken Logo.png. 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. --B-bot (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Diane Tuft) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Diane Tuft, Bernie44!

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

Excellent article on Diane Tuft. Thank you for your contribution.

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

Learn more about page curation.

Triptropic (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Hattie B's Hot Chicken for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hattie B's Hot Chicken 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/Hattie B's Hot Chicken (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused... I thought there was already a discussion, and the result was delete. Was it somehow undeleted and now it's being re-nominated?--Bernie44 (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see what happened.--Bernie44 (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4