User talk:MER-C

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Directory
User space: Home | Talk (archives) | Sandboxes: General 1 · General 2 | Smart questions · Cluebat
Software: Test account | Wiki.java | Servlets
Links: WikiProject Spam · Spam blacklist: local · global · XLinkBot | Copyvios | Contributor copyright

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.



Contents

Image at Cold-weather warfare[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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.[edit]

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 ?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Homesnap Draft[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

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. WikiDan61ChatMe!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![edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Just to be sure, uncontroversial edits mean grammar corrections, formatting etc, right? On a related note, I'm assuming you have gone through some of the articles that I edited/wrote, so do you have any criticism/feedback related to the language, style and grammar? I have been a user of Wikipedia (never a contributor) since a very long time and I'd like to believe that I can more or less understand how a Wikipedia article reads, if you get what I'm saying. I have tried to make my edits resemble that same general feel/tone that is familiar to Wikipedia, as far as possible. So let me know if I need improvement in that regard. Thanks for your time. Nick.agarwal (talk) 09:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep. [10] looks good to me. Be aware that whole topic areas on Wikipedia can be rubbish, sometimes in subtle ways (businesspeople, companies and lesser-known Bollywood actors/actresses, Indian villages are all examples). Your mileage may vary if you emulate the feel of existing text of random articles -- go to WP:FA and WP:GA for some examples that have been QCed by the community. Also equally important is sourcing, but that's something that literally takes pages to explain properly. MER-C 16:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Deleted page, please help retreive[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

I know from experience that attempting to write an article is the worst way to get started editing. 80% of new articles by new editors get deleted. That's why we no longer allow new editors to directly create articles and recommend them get experience in other areas of Wikipedia first. I know from experience that editors who show up only to create don't tend to stick around. We want more constructive editors who are here for the long haul, and we explicitly reject drive-by attempts at promotion.
Your draft was judged on it's merits (or lack thereof) and deleted because you copied promotional content from an external website, contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. End of story. As to why I summarily deny all undeletion requests for promotional content from new editors -- read this, then scroll up to the "Homesnap Draft" discussion on this very page. Policies and the law prohibit me from undeleting copyright violations anyway. You are stepping on a minefield by mentioning the gender gap to gain sympathy for your cause. MER-C 16:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Mine was not a new account, I created a wiki page once before and edited numerous times, albeit in another language. But even in English, I edited the requisite 10 times by the time you deleted the page. Wiki would not have allowed me to create a new page had the account been brand new. that's an automatic feature. So you are applying a policy voluntaristically. Moreover, I did not intent to violate copyright, I put quotation marks and references to sources, which is a usual way to reference in the academy. If this is not how Wiki works, it was an honest mistake, and your stubborn refusal to see it this way is dissappointing, to say the least. Whatever mission you think you are on is not helping Wikipedia to promote its image as a community welcoming diversity. Its too bad.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klaustrofobia (talkcontribs) 17:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I accept that you made a mistake in creating that draft. That doesn't make the draft any more suitable for inclusion. As I said, you have two options: start from scratch (as the draft was too promotional), or find some other topic to edit and return to the topic once you have some experience in what it takes to write a good quality article (recommended). I'm willing to help you with the latter, but you need to realize that creating an article is not a trivial undertaking and should not be attempted by inexperienced editors. MER-C 20:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Very generous, but I will pass.

Klaustrofobia (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Deleting Anjali Ameer's page[edit]

Hi, I recently noticed that you deleted Anjali Ameer's page and locked it for admins only citing 'Undisclosed native advertising target'. I wanted to inform you that this page was created during a Wikipedia editathon which I organised to increase the representation of transgender people in India. You can read more about the editathon here. It was not a paid article. I'd request you to re-consider your decision. Thank you. Japleenpasricha (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The last creation was on the 19th of March by the blocked sock Arsh 18 (talk · contribs), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seokochin/Archive#19 March 2018. If you're referring to Trudy26 (talk · contribs), they subsequently edited that page on the 21st of April but did not create it. I'm afraid Trudy26 stumbled upon some native advertising, unoblivious that it was native advertising and edited it. It is counterproductive to undelete any paid article, so I will decline your request. MER-C 11:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your help, congrats from a starter! Historicautopro (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Notifier script[edit]

You might be interested in User:Bellezzasolo/Scripts/arb.js. It will notify and log the crypto notices as a part of twinkle. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Installed. Thanks for letting me know. MER-C 18:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Bellperre[edit]

Dear MER-C, i just saw you reverted Bellperre article back to draft. I respect your contribution for Bellperre. Can you please specify the exact reason why you reverted the page back to the draft? I also request you to help me to fix the issue for Bellperre. I think the company is notable?If the content of the article is promotional, can you please help me to remove promotional content.DukeST (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

What is your understanding of media ethics as to how they apply to Wikipedia? Do you have a conflict of interest regarding this subject? If so, please explain. What is your connection to User:CharityEx? MER-C 18:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank You for your response. Yes, i know conflict of interest and my explanation at this that i do not have any connection with the subject and company. I am just a fan of the company's mobile phones. And i also don't know who is User:CharityEx. However this user try to make article live.DukeST (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. Blocked. MER-C 19:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

How can the Interaction Timeline be useful in reporting to noticeboards?[edit]

Hi MER-C,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team built the Interaction Timeline to make it easier to understand how two people interact and converse across multiple pages on a wiki. The tool shows a chronological list of edits made by two users, only on pages where they have both made edits within the provided time range. Our goals are to assist users to make well informed decisions in incidents of user misconduct and to keep on-wiki discussions civil and focused on evidence.

We're looking to add a feature to the Interaction Timeline that makes it easy to post statistics and information to an on-wiki discussion about user misconduct. We're discussing possible wikitext output on the project talk page, and we invite you to participate! Thank you, For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at User:Kudpung/What do admins do?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


Bcash article[edit]

So, if I understood correctly, I cannot improve the article now adding info about the use of "Bcash" word to refer to Bitcoin Cash, so both visions are shown until 24 hours, can I? --Malkavian (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

You should drop the matter and find a topic that has nothing to do with blockchain or cryptocurrencies to contribute constructively to. MER-C 10:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Probably, and it would be understandable, you don't give a fuck about this topic, but there is a big problem. There are hundreds of bots and trolls censoring, DDOSing and attacking Bitcoin Cash project, because Bitcoin (BTC) deviated of the original plan and they don't want a coin, Bitcoin Cash (BCH) that follows the original plan. If you would be interested in knowing more I can give you links, but it isn't needed, you can search on google about censorship (it's for example: removing respectful comments with an opinion they don't like) in r/bitcoin subreddit and bitcointalk since 2015. They tried to get control of other subreddits and want to control Wikipedia and other sources of information. I would like to show a reliable picture of this topic, without censorship. I think will be ok to talk about the (despective) use of "Bcash" term to refer to Bitcoin Cash, and about sending people to /r/Bcash where they misinform them and censor other opinions. You can search "bcash" in twitter and see thousands of twits trying to disturb others, combining it sometimes with "btrash", "bscam" or "bcrash" but no tecnical arguments, maybe personal attacks to famous supporters of Bitcoin Cash. You could distrust me or not giving a fuck, but even then, please, could you tell me what can I do to allow new people in this ecosystem to know about things without being misinformed and sent to places where they are misinformed?. It remembers me old times with Microsoft FUD versus libre software, but they now got a lot of people FUDding for free because he have money invested and don't want to move it to other projects an have fear of other competing projects as Bitcoin Cash or Ethereum. --Malkavian (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
You've just made a good argument as to why you should be topic banned. MER-C 11:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
And your subsequent edits provide a neat conclusion. You are now topic banned. MER-C 14:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Axoni deletion[edit]

Hi,

I recently saw that you have deleted the page on the company "Axoni" due to conflicts of interest / native advertising. Can you please advise on what changes should be made to this article in order to undelete it?

I have posted on my user page that I do have conflicts of interest with this company, though have ensured that all facts are appropriately backed up with links to external site. Happy to change any of the language / wording or remove any passages that you believe may have explicitly violated the Wikipedia guidelines

Thank you Johnnyb2963 (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that you wrote it. Any page written by you about a subject where you have a conflict of interest is native advertising regardless of content. Wikipedia's readers expect independent coverage of our subject matter. See [11]. That you did so in article space makes it worse. You should find some other way of contributing to the encyclopedia. If you continue to insist on Wikipedia having an article on Axoni, you will be topic banned and/or blocked. MER-C 12:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Watsonboy12[edit]

Hey. I'm away and on mobile so it's difficult to take care of it, so could you take a look at Watsonboy12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)? Their most recent creation is of an article deleted at AfD by you and from a glance at their contribs it looks unlikely that they are a new user. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seokochin. I think I've filed this under the right sockmaster, but you never know. MER-C 17:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Concern Over UPE Allegation[edit]

Hello MER-C,

I want first off appreciate you for the work you're doing here in our community and honestly hope someday i can be an Admin too. I have read all the comments at the SPI and i want to personally thank you for clearing my name as a sock of any of the listed accounts, though i wasn't aware until i woke up to a notification this morning. It wasn't my intention to create those articles to look as a Native advertiser as mentioned, if you go through the rest of my articles you will see that. I try my best to make sure everything i post doesn't in anyway violate our guidelines and atleast meets WP:GNG. If required of me i will personally G7 those articles and serve a punishment for a period of time as stipulated. Edidiong (talk) 08:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Your story doesn't add up. Blocked. MER-C 14:25, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Homesnap[edit]

Hello MER-C, can you please take a look at Homesnap recreated by a brand new user in one go (please see User:Whalewatch247/sandbox as well). I notice you deleted the draft under G11 which was created by Rthomas701 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) you blocked. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Identical excerpt of User:Rthomas701/sandbox. SPI filed: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rthomas701. MER-C 19:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Vijay Lakshman Question About Deletion[edit]

Hello! I recently wrote an article about author Vijay Lakshmann that was tagged for speedy deletion due to its commercial tone and lack of third party sources. However, I had contested the deletion but it happened anyway. I have more sources and I am prepared to edit the piece so that it fits appropriate guidelines, I was just wondering if there was a way for me to get the work back? I am new to Wikipedia so I am still getting used to all of the rules/guidelines. Any advice you can offer will be much appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleyray121 (talkcontribs) 17:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

No, because Draft:Vijay Lakshman was copied from an external website. I also do not undelete promotional content in any circumstance. MER-C 19:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

6 River Systems[edit]

6 River Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) / Draft:6 River Systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was related to Mar11 and is back again, created by Greenhe (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)). — JJMC89(T·C) 05:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Not identical, but Greenhe is unquestionably not this user's first account. SPI filed: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mar11. MER-C 11:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Fiona Scott Lazareff and Boulevard (lifestyle magazine)[edit]

Thanks for pinging me on the latest Ernest Carrot SPI. I note on lazareff there have also been 3 new IP addresses who have added content or removed the delete template (2 from Panama and the other from Taiwan) and on Boulevard (which was the only other creation by Cambois1 back in 2013) IP editors from Spain and Ukraine adding content and removing PROD. Suspicious but could this be someone using an anonymous router or is it likely to be a network of public relations companies cooperating to keep each others clients happy? Not your specialty I know but on Boulevard a claim has been made that the magazine tracked down a fugitive financier referenced to the Daily Mail and Independent, even if true I don't think that makes the magazine notable but I have no way of checking and I am dubious that the Daily Mail would give any other magazine credit Lyndaship (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Panamanian IPs (200.63.40.0/21) blocked as a webhosting company for two years. The most likely explanation is outsourced covert advertising -- front office in, say, London with the ones writing the articles in some third world country to take advantage of cheap labor.
Notability for the magazine is going to be a nightmare to determine because there are several other magazines with the same name. I guess it will likely be deleted at AFD, but you can always kick the can down the road with {{UPE}} and/or {{notability}}. The financier stuff won't make the magazine notable, the sources have to be about the magazine itself. Corporate notability guidelines are stricter nowadays. MER-C 18:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I've put Boulevard up at AfD. It was quite interesting once I realised it was an article copied from French wiki, I guess it was Lazareffs French PR man who put it across to English Wiki. Also I note on French wiki you have to have 50 edits to mainspace to vote at their AfD - we should have something similar for article creation and boards. Thanks again for your advice and info Lyndaship (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
We do for article creation, but it's less stringent. Still, it's enough to make the socks stand out. MER-C 19:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Selectively deleting the Crypto/Blockchain related articles for the reason of WP:GS/Blockchain[edit]

I wonder if WP:GS/Blockchain really grants any right for admin to delete a whole page if they single-handedly decide that some article is a “covert advertising”, even after a community discussion about the notability provided enough proofs of notability.

Well, there are really two questions here:

1. Can you please clarify what point of WP:GS/Blockchain enables the page-level sanction of deleting a whole page? I could have missed and that may be my fault only. 2. If such sanction indeed is community-confirmed – can it really be used contrary to the consensual discussion of topic notability?

Honeyman (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

See here. Sanctions allow me to take "any [...] measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project". Universa Blockchain Protocol was created in violation of the purpose of Wikipedia and our Terms of Use. There is strictly zero tolerance for undisclosed financial conflicts of interest, native advertising and sponsored content in this topic area.
I believe you're implying that Universa Blockchain Protocol should be undeleted. Consider that request explicitly rejected. MER-C 18:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
We may get to the “sponsored content” and “native advertising” part later, that’s a separate topic. But I have to remind you that the part you are quoting from WP:GS/Crypto, “…or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project”, is related to “impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict”. I highly doubt that deleting a page can be by any means treated as a sanction on an editor, or will hold any appeal.
Moreover, selective/immediate deleting of the page explicitly violates the following part of the same sanction section: “Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor shall be given a warning with a link to this decision and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
And, to give you a view why this discussion is even happening – I don’t know for other contributors to that page, but I, being one of its humble contributors, can assure you that I am not a paid editor of any kind. I may be considered, how it is called in Wikipedia:COI, a Subject-Matter Expert on this area (the type of COI editing of most concern on Wikipedia is paid editing for public relations (PR) purposes – come on, I am a Java/Python/SQL backend programmer rather than a PR manager!); but I don’t even think that my activity could even trigger any COI, as my changes were rather technical-oriented, neutral and provable.
For any other editors, that could be dealt separately with those editors only, maybe sanctioning them; but I still cannot see any proofs that these WP:GS could be used as an argument of deleting the articles. The only page-level extra abilities granted by these sanctions, seem to be: 1. tagging them with {{Blockchain GS talk}} or {{Editnotice blockchain 1RR}}, 2. enforcing WP:1RR on them.
So actually no, I am not requesting the undeleting of Universa Blockchain Protocol. I am questioning the overall correctness of deleting any pages under the motives and argumentations mentioned above. To me, this looks even much violating the purpose of Wikipedia: if something is notable, its page belongs to Wikipedia; if something is not notable, its notability is tried using the established Wikipedia methods. The General Sanctions enforced on Blockchain-related pages do not contradict it. Deleting any pages under the name of these General Sanctions contradicts both the General Sanctions and the whole purpose of Wikipedia. Honeyman (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) False on so many levels. Notability is only a guideline, WP:NOTSPAM is a policy, and in fact it is impossible to pass the entirety of WP:N while failing WP:NOT. That is to say, something that passes the GNG is not notable if the article is also spam.
Re, the sanctions, these are standard discretionary sanctions. Administrators may take any action that they in their discretion deem necessary for the smooth maintenance of the project and enforcing the principles of Wikipedia, the first of which is that we are an encyclopedia; not a sponsored block chain directory. MER-C in his discretion has deemed summary deletion neccesary for the smooth maintence of the project. He is within his rights as an administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I’m afraid that I have to remind you that administrators may take any action as long as this stays within the policies, either. Quoting WP:DEL-CONTENT, “If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page”. A part of WP:NOT you are mentioning, is actually WP:WHATISTOBEDONE – which lists “Nominating the page for deletion” but doesn’t list the speedy deletion option. If a page is speedily deleted (what actually happened) – it would be expected to provide one of WP:CSD reasons. For example, WP:G11 is within the criteria list (but the page has to match the WP:G11!). “Global Sanctions” is not, and I still haven’t found any confirmation it can be used for speedy deletion. Any reasoning based on WP:NOT is not either; and moreover, speedily deleting something upon the WP:NOT reasoning is the very first WP:NOTCSD option!
So, at the moment I don’t see any other exit from the situation but unconditionally reverting the deletion of every page speedily deleted with the “WP:GS/Crypto” motivation rather one of WP:CSD reasons. If you find any argumentation why this should not happen, please suggest. Honeyman (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Nah. Keeping spam deleted under clear authority sounds good to me. Also, please don’t wikilawyer with me. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
I still wait for reply from MER-C whether they persist in their delusion (that the WP:GS/Blockchain enables any new page-level sanction of single-admin-decided voluntarily speedy deletion of the pages without any valid WP:CSD reason), or not, even after being provided with the arguments of why it doesn’t work this way. To me, it seems rather strange and weird when a non-admin has to explain the basics of Wikipedia concepts and policies to full-badge admins. Honeyman (talk) 13:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
If you want a response, here it is: if you continue to tendentiously wikilawyer for the undeletion of obvious spam, in defiance of the purpose of Wikipedia, you will be sanctioned. MER-C 13:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I think you may be confusing tendentiousness in content editing (which may be wrong if leads to biased and non-neutral articles) with the tendentiousness in upholding “the letter and the word” of Wikipedia policies (not that bad hopefully); and what is an “obvious spam” for you may be different for others. But I see your point as well, thank you. As Wikipedia is consensus-driven rather than single-opinion-driven, it is the best if we discuss it at deletion review of Universa Blockchain Protocol. Honeyman (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
As a separate question – can you please elaborate on the “There is strictly zero tolerance for undisclosed financial conflicts of interest, native advertising and sponsored content in this topic area” part? I may be missing something obvious, but I don’t see anything covering this “zero tolerance”. Especially as COI hasn’t usually been a problem to Wikipedia by itself (WP:COINOTBIAS); but only as a reason of controversial edits.
In particular, I really wonder whether my own edits in this area should be considered COI, if they usually involved adding the proper references/correcting the technical details (like, the cryptographic algorithms used/dates/links), rather than adding any marketing bulls* about something fastest/smallest/world first (or the opposite, for competitors); and if Wikipedia editing has never been among my paid responsibilities, just something I already has experience with. Quoting WP:COIN, “The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits.Honeyman (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
You can start reading here. MER-C 09:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
This is a well-known government-backed FUD, indeed (5 words “may”!), and still, even this document mostly covers the celebrity involvement. There are multiple factors to consider though when dealing with the SEC risks for ICOs/token sales. In particular, not every blockchain/distributed ledger related technology is a cryptocoin/currency at all (for example, Universa, as the topic of discussion, is not a “coin” or “currency” or even “a payment system”, it is a distributed-ledger smart contract processing platform; in this aspect, it is more close to an SQL RDBMS, or even to a document-based DB, than to Paypal). Also it is important to consider whether something is promoted as a security/asset (“this is a cryptocurrency/coin”, “great investment to get you rich”, and like that); Universa, thankfully, stayed away from this HYIP hype, and even the utilization of the tokens sold on the token sale mimic the utilization of Ethereum (and goes even stricter, as you cannot “mine” Universa tokens from thin air, as the Ethereum miners can; it is purely the “gas-paying token”) – which, as you may already know, has been recently confirmed by SEC as being a non-security.
But let’s cut it with “Universa is not another useless coin or HYIP scheme” (though the fact that Universa shares some programming technologies with potentially unlawful ICOs can worry you, I fully agree with that); my question is different. What about the “zero tolerance”, and where is it policied? Or is that just the attitude of some administrators to this topic, rather than something community-decided? Honeyman (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Universa Blockchain Protocol. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Honeyman (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day[edit]

Nuvola apps cookie.svg Happy First Edit Day, MER-C, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Kpgjhpjm 02:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Happy WikiBirthday[edit]

Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg Hey, MER-C. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Wiki-Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
Kpgjhpjm 02:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Nuvola apps cookie.svg

Suggested edits to biography page[edit]

Hello. I would like to make the following edits to the Wikipedia page of Charles R. Conn as the information contained on his current page is out of date and misleading.

Extended content
== Biography ==

=== Education. ===
Conn studied at [[Boston University]]'s University Professors Program before reading Philosophy, Politics and Economics at [[Balliol College]], [[Oxford University|Oxford]] as a [[Rhodes Scholarship|Rhodes Scholar]] from Massachusetts.<ref>{{Cite news|url=|title=Rhode Scholarship winners include first from city U|last=Gruson|first=Linsey|date=Winter 1982|work=New York Times|access-date=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://archive.org/stream/2012BILDERBERGMEETINGSSPECIALREPORT171/List%20of%20American%20Rhodes%20Scholars%20(1904-2014)-155_djvu.txt|title=Full text of "Collection of Membership Rosters on the CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, and Rhodes Scholars"|website=archive.org|language=en|access-date=2018-06-05}}</ref>Conn worked at the [[Boston Consulting Group]] and gained an MBA at [[Harvard Business School]].<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.co.id/books?id=YVhdhNEi-pwC&pg=RA1-PA327&lpg=RA1-PA327&dq=Charles+Conn+McKinsey&source=bl&ots=TEYo6To-B7&sig=eX230bam8hTlcHC7G1iuVXmOcpA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YVDVUpLqJtLxhQeg4YCoDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Charles%20Conn%20McKinsey&f=false|title=The Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts, Cases|last=Mintzberg|first=Henry|last2=Ghoshal|first2=Sumantra|last3=Lampel|first3=Joseph|last4=Quinn|first4=James Brian|date=2003|publisher=Pearson Education|isbn=9780273651208|language=en}}</ref> 

=== Career. ===
Conn was a Partner at [[McKinsey & Company]], where he focused on growth strategies and energy.<sup>[[Charles R. Conn#cite note-3|[3]]]</sup>He was a co-author of 'Staircases to growth' in McKinsey Quarterly <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/employment-and-growth/staircases-to-growth|title=Staircases to growth|website=McKinsey & Company|language=en|access-date=2018-06-05}}</ref> and 'Revolution in Upstream Oil & Gas' in the same publication.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Conn, White|first=Charles, David|date=1994|title=The revolution in upstream oil and gas.|url=|journal=McKinsey Quarterly|volume=3|pages=71-86|via=}}</ref> He co-founded [[Citysearch]] in 1995,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=229873&privcapId=238022487|title=Charles Conn III: Executive Profile & Biography - Bloomberg|website=www.bloomberg.com|access-date=2018-06-05}}</ref> and in 1997 the California Software Industry Council named him Entrepreneur of the Year.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=229873&privcapId=238022487|title=Charles Conn III: Executive Profile & Biography - Bloomberg|website=www.bloomberg.com|access-date=2018-06-05}}</ref> Conn oversaw the merger with Ticketmaster, acquisition of Match.com and the company’s public share offering. He became Chairman of Ticketmaster Online-Citysearch in 2001.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://articles.latimes.com/2000/may/11/business/fi-28820|title=Ticketmaster Names Conn as Chairman|last=News|first=From Bloomberg|date=2000-05-11|work=Los Angeles Times|access-date=2018-06-05|language=en-US|issn=0458-3035}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.misosoup.com/caltech83/|title=Caltech 1983|last=Weston|first=Mike|website=www.misosoup.com|access-date=2018-06-05}}</ref>

=== Conservation Work. ===
Conn subsequently worked for more than a decade as Senior Advisor to the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation<sup>[[Charles R. Conn#cite note-:0-2|[2]]]</sup><ref name=":0">{{Cite news|url=https://ssir.org/articles/entry/robbing_the_grandchildren|title=Robbing the Grandchildren (SSIR)|access-date=2018-06-05|language=en-us}}</ref> where his conservation projects included the preservation of wild salmon ecosystems<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.moore.org/article-detail?newsUrlName=conservation-biology-through-the-lens-of-a-career-in-salmon-conservation|title=Conservation biology through the lens of a career in salmon conservation|website=www.moore.org|language=en|access-date=2018-06-05}}</ref> and the Palmyra Atoll research station. He has published articles on conservation and conservation biology,<ref>{{Cite journal|last=CONN|first=CHARLES|date=2011-11-09|title=Conservation Biology through the Lens of a Career in Salmon Conservation|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01762.x|journal=Conservation Biology|language=en|volume=25|issue=6|pages=1075–1079|doi=10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01762.x|issn=0888-8892}}</ref> including in the 25th anniversary edition (December 2011) of the journal Conservation Biology, and on the advantages of Foundations adopting a long-term perspective.<ref name=":0" />

=== Other notable work. ===
He is a Henry Crown Fellow of the [[Aspen Institute]].<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.aspeninstitute.org/programs/henry-crown-fellowship/|title=Henry Crown Fellowship - The Aspen Institute|work=The Aspen Institute|access-date=2018-06-05|language=en-US}}</ref> Conn also sits or has sat on several company and non-profit boards or advisory committees, including Patagonia,<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.co.id/books?id=tgLnBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PT82&ots=l27gbCtoyx&dq=Charles%20R%20Conn%20+%20Patagonia&pg=PT82#v=onepage&q=Charles%20R%20Conn%20+%20Patagonia&f=false|title=The Responsible Company: What We've Learned from Patagonia's First 40 Years|last=Chouinard|first=Yvon|last2=Stanley|first2=Vincent|date=2013-10-06|publisher=Patagonia|isbn=9781938340109|language=en}}</ref> the Arcadia Foundation,<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.arcadiafund.org.uk/charles-conn/|title=Charles Conn - Arcadia|date=2018-02-09|work=Arcadia|access-date=2018-06-05|language=en-GB}}</ref> and the Atlantic Salmon Foundation.<sup>[[Charles R. Conn#cite note-:0-2|[2]]]</sup> <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://0104.nccdn.net/1_5/16e/1db/182/ASF-Annual-Rept-2015.pdf|title=Atlantic Salmon Foundation, Annual Report, 2015|last=|first=|date=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref>He acts as an adviser and investor in start-up technology companies that focus on clean energy solutions and related areas.

Many thanks BlueCt@lk 20:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Why are you intent on restoring covert advertising added by a sockpuppet? MER-C 18:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

A couple of things[edit]

Hi MER-C! I saw what you wrote here. I don't want to interfere or anything, and you probably already know anyway, but that article has at least two problems: the copyvio, and the history – nothing before the diff you gave has anything to do with Yamaha, and presumably belongs to the history of his sandbox or something.

More important: I've a sort of half-memory that you made a working version of the Contribution Surveyor last time it was out of action – is that right? If so, could you give me a link or something? We're well stuck without it, and the foundation has closed the bug report as "not a bug but a feature". Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The page was the user's sandbox, and that was the first revision that created the article. If I remember correctly, the sandbox got merged or moved to the article.
Contribution surveyor: See here. There is no removal of reverts. MER-C 18:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Fantastic, thank you! All I meant about the other thing is that if it's to be kept it needs a history split or history delete or something so that all that messing about with a template is no longer part of the history. Best, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Article deletion details: VerusCoin[edit]

You recently deleted my article as advertising. I am not really a crypto currency person but this project seem interesting based on the people behind it and the technology used. I guess there is also an aversion to anything crypto on Wikipedia right now. I get if you want to say it is too small or not relevant, but advertising? I am genuinely curious which parts of this are seen as advertising and hoping you can clarify this so I do not have this issue if I ever decide to contribute again in the future. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigtom x (talkcontribs) 12:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

You're right in reading the mood. We're sick and tired of Wikipedia being used to promote cryptocurrencies, and tolerance in this topic is extremely low. It is a disservice to our readers to have pages on every highly risky (as in, 99% failure rate including the scams) crowdfunded project. Wikipedia takes a wait and see approach to determine whether something is interesting -- our notability criteria is essentially "can you demonstrate that many outlets with a reputation for reliable reporting have, by themselves, decided whether SUBJECT is worthy of in-depth attention?". (Crypto enthusiast sites are not reliable.) A page about a new project that claims to do X, Y and Z is inherently promotional -- we're only interested when reliable sources evaluate the project on its merits. Furthermore, a page or article can be promotional by just existing, as Wikipedia tends to lend legitimacy to a topic. Hope this helps. MER-C 18:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Commercial cleaning[edit]

Hello MER-C, I know the spam is not currently "ongoing", but would you consider indef semi-protecting the article please? Since 2014 there has not been a single constructive IP-edit on this page, but more than 40 spam additions. At this rate an appearance of the mighty Yeti is more likely than a good-faith IP edit in this article (sorry for the sarcasm). We really should have a clearer more-restrictive protection handling for such exceptional spam targets. GermanJoe (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I've put PC1 on the page. The activity is a little low for indef semi in my opinion. MER-C 18:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

XxDalekcaanxx[edit]

Hi MER-C. Just letting you know that I've lifted the block you placed on this user, since their unblock appeal seemed sufficient to me. Any concerns, please let me know. Cheers, Yunshui  08:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)