Scam Watch Warning: There is an on-going scam marketing the creation, improvement, or protection of Wikipedia articles. See this scam warning for detailed information. If you've been scammed please send details to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org to help others who could be future victims of this scam.

In regard to Music Business Worldwide, Bcc - paid-en-wp, GeneralNotability and Praxidicae. GSS ^💬 04:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See this which ironically has been recreated by a blocked user @Tomori Uriel. The blocked editor also created this today. I have flagged the article as per G5. Furthermore the article reeks of UPE. Celestina007 (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears he has been unblocked since 2019 but the indef blocked notice is still present in his Userpage and is the first thing you’d notice, in any case I feel strongly that UPE is at play here as the editor has continued to create articles on non notable organizations. I am unable to view the original article on Sidmach Technologies but if it’s the aforementioned editor that has created both the deleted one and the recreated one I assume it’s safe to call this UPE. Celestina007 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

As per Wikipedia's expected due process I have updated Talk:Women related laws in Pakistan/Temp building it from scratch with proper close paraphrasing. I suppose it would be acceptable at least as a stub.

Since updating of Talk:Women related laws in Pakistan/Temp we will not be depending on previous text of the article, I requesting to shift the text from Talk:Women related laws in Pakistan/Temp to Women related laws in Pakistan.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 09:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Would you re-consider reverting this move. This is a subject of ongoing merge proposal at here and may change to redirect at the end of discussion. You may also try the merge and close the discussion if you think it would be okay. Regards, ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 17:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The merge proposal is not relevant to the question as to whether what used to be at Afiya Zia should remain in mainspace. After all, you can merge stuff from drafts. If Afiya Zia is in mainspace, then the spammers get what they want. MER-C 17:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:2017, cuba, jardines aggressor, playa bonita, spineyhead blennie (23700572188).jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Himalayan salt (coarse).jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MER-C, what makes his Wikipedia entry seem like a work for hire to you? It mostly looks unprofessional to me. Or is that it? Like it was created by his assistant, or someone else not at all familiar with Wiki? Anyway, I'm doing research on Precisetarget and tried to update/improve it a little.BjornintheUSA (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator is involved in abusive sockpuppetry: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VentureKit/Archive. MER-C 19:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding MER-C. I see now that the creator's account is banned. The content of the entry scans as OK to me. I'll try to add a few more sources substantiating the content.BjornintheUSA (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:THQ § Requesting Deleted Article To Be Created. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Hi MER-C. Since you were the last administrator to delete Kaptain Kush, perhaps you could take a look at the above-mentioned Teahouse question to (1) assess whether it's the same banned editor making the request and (2) explain whether the article can be restored if it's not the same editor. Thanks. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anniebisilolo. MER-C 11:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should say in the beginning that I admire your valued edits as a veteran Wiki editor and I am fascinated the way you contribute and fight paid editing and spam. Recently I have faced an incident which I would like to bring to your attention. I found the page Mujeeb Ijaz was created by some fresh SPA account to which image and some other information was added by User:Mansoor Ijaz. As his is real life identity verification is available on his user page, I could identify him as the brother of the subject Mujeeb Ijaz. I added a COI tag to the article. He then asked me to remove the tag from the article claiming himself as an experienced editor. I have looked upon their edit and found they have consistently carried out COI edit, in fact on the page where the article is about the subject himself, I mean even in Mansoor Ijaz. Though I did not find any disclosure about COI in his userspace, he did not disclose the same even after citing him the COI rules. I have also discovered something, the User:Mansoor Ijaz was inactive since February 2018, until 3rd December 2020, when user:Cadileru moved the page to mainspace on 2nd December. I don't have any wish to express any bad faith towards any editor but the action sequences do not make things look natural. I would prefer to leave the matter on you to determine what exactly have happened thinking you should be the best person to judge it. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything actionable. Mansoor Ijaz has made only non-material changes to the article since 2015. Cadileru may be actionable, but I'll wait for further edits. MER-C 11:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your insight. It is a real learning experience ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 17:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MER-C, in case you're interested there is an account (with a keen interest in strategic consulting firms and personal injury lawyers) that happened to find this draft created by two editors you've previously blocked. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. MER-C 10:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wish again to draw your attention to this article Draft:Nataliya Resh (entrepreneur) which I just moved from main space. From the log I found it was created previously by Francoforten whom you blocked somedays back. Hope I am doing the right thing. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 18:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sock blocked and spam deleted. Quarantining was the right thing to do when you see that it is spam but can't tell whether it is sockpuppetry. MER-C 18:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your guidance. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 18:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MER-C and Diannaa, we may have a long-term problem here with the edits of Ssolbergj going back to 2007. This cut-and-paste on a very widely viewed COVID-related article caught my eye. Just glancing at most recent edits, I found this CWW problem. Then I ran Earwig on several of the articles most edited by Ssolbergj, and all of them revealed issues (which I haven't tracked further, although it appears that an old book by Ceoil Wade is the source of a lot of cut-and-paste content, sorry, lost track of that URL). I also find this editor inserting unsourced content a number of times.

Of greater concern, I see multiple warnings about all of these issues going back many years,[1][2][3][4] so am surprised to find this editor making a cut-and-paste copyvio on a VERY widely viewed COVID article. What next? A CCI, or an ANI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main criterion for CCI is 5 or more (preferably recent) examples of copyvio text. Unattributed copying is not technically a copyright violation, but rather a ciolation of the terms of our license, so those should not be included. I gotta go do my mom's shopping now - TTYL — Diannaa (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting the removal of a copyvio is an instant indef block. I will open a CCI. Copyvio is a habit - this example, the poor state of the talk page and the extensive discussion and denial in December 2016 establish it - and I think this is more a case of a refusal to abide versus cluelessness. I only wish that the general sanctions warning was handed out earlier so I could throw away the key. MER-C 16:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MER-C I lost track of an 1898 book that appears to have been the source for many of their edits ... probably public domain, so plagiarism rather than copyvio ? Thanks for taking action, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's still copying, and the example from today establishes that this editor didn't know or care whether the source was copyrighted. It is likely that both the plagiarism and copyvio problems are systematic. MER-C 17:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]