This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Just a quick note to say thanks for reviewing Hetty's page and for your kind words about the article. Have a great week! 47thPennVols (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello. It appears you have flagged the page Buchalter, A Professional Corporation as an immediate deletion. There seems to have been a previous article about this firm but it too was taken down. To contest this immediate deletion, I provided several points outlining the notability of this firm. However, you were unable to respond to the case in which I presented because another editor seems to have deleted that page as well. Can you please outline here why this page was voted into immediate deletion? I have edited several Law Firm pages and have noticed almost all have flagged pages however are able to stay up. What edits do you see fit to change in order to make this article work? This topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. I have identified and included independent sources (also called third-party sources) that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views. The majority of the references are solely about the articles subject. The deletion of the original page was questioned by a Wikipedia editor who has been editing for over a decade. This editor requested the page be relisted for further discussion DOC James. In accordance with Wikipedia's dispute resolution we were unable to come to a consensus as to which would allow for this article to be published in order to satisfy both editors. Per Wikipedia guidelines, may we discuss and compromise this dispute since there is a disagreement over complete deletion of this whole article? Missfixit1975 (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Missfixit1975

Hi, just following up on my comments and request to have a conversation above. Missfixit1975 (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)Mixfixit1975

Hi, just following up on my comments and request to have a conversation above. Missfixit1975 (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Missfixit1975

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 April 25, where Missfixit1975 tried and failed to ping you. —Cryptic 22:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi SamHolt6, I created a law firm article and had similar issues to yours. The article had links to Chambers, Legal500, Managing IP, IP Stars, etc... Considering, the amount of links compared to the some of the law firm pages that currently exist, I think that perhaps there is a real lack of transparency and unfair standards. I think that based on some of the law firm pages I have seen that your page should be restored.

Mithdol —Preceding undated comment added 01:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

worldwide view

Thank you for quality articles such as Battle of the Lines of Elvas, Consolidated PBY Catalina in Australian service, Ma Zhu and Palazzo Corpi, covering Portugal, Africa and Asia, among others, for toasting with tea, - Sam, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks, I am truly honored and hope to continue my work on the project!--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 132.9 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a ((help me)) notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Googlesupport22 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for reviewing the article. I appreciate your kind words! Gunbirddriver (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm seeing you are leaving friendly messages at talk pages such as this one (as opposed to that one). Are you using a script or a tool? Which? Thanks. Gryllida (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Gryllida: Yes, in a way. Normally I tagged pages for speedy deletion using our new page reviewer tool, which allows automatically notifies creates a notice on the talk page of the article in question's creator. This notice functions the same as, but is cosmetically distinct from, the template you referenced in your dif [1], which has to be added manually. SamHolt6 (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --Gryllida (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello SamHolt6,

Thank you for your note about the deletion of the above page. I just needed some time to update the sources for information I've put into the page. Hope that the page could be restored for my further update. Thank you. CalebYJ (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It turned out well in the end, didn't it? Thank you for taking the time to produce a draft.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Your name is on news regarding this edit. Use google translate.--Let There Be Sunshine 11:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Let There Be Sunshine: I see. Regardless, I stand by my edits; it seems from the article he was also upset with me for [2] deleting an image of his. Thanks for the heads up.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. That article and Samuel's statements are biased and deceptive.--Let There Be Sunshine 16:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

DavidinkeeneDavidinkeene (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC) No clue who you are and why you want my first page deleted; it's plain you dont know the band but i thought that was what a encyclopedia was for. But rather than learning you want to "speedy delete" I also dont know if this is how i "leave a note" on this page.. this is my intro to wikipedia post ing... Can raandom people just say "speedy delete" to any page they fancey? Is this how it works?

@Davidinkeene: your article was deleted (per my tag) for being overly promotional and for failing to assert a claim to significance. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it to be used for the promotion of subjects; rather, subjects must have their notability established through the citing of verifiable sources. To answer your question, yes I can tag any new article for deletion as I hold new page reviewer rights. Note that as an editor, you are warned before you publish an article that said new article is fair game for being tagged/flagged/deleted if it does not comply with Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I recommend WP:AFC as a possible alternative, cheers.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

  You deleted 5 minutes after saying it could be  discussed or fixed..what was the point of the warning? Seems to me you abuse your position.Davidinkeene (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Davidinkeene (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you are also incorrect; the article was deleted by Bbb23, not me.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright, Sam. I won't do it again. Surely, you can understand why I am upset, but I agree that a Wikipedia article is not the place to vent.

I look forward to more details being posted as you obtain them.2A00:C1A0:489E:9600:C8AA:7E25:273E:967B (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello SamHolt6, nevermind, I am new in wikipedia. Heroes of 71 is one of the most successful android games made in our Bangladesh(My counrey). So it became a little promotional when I wrote abut the game in Wikipedia. But you could've just edited it and made it non-promotional. I will make some chandes in that file and try to make it better please pick a look at that article and confirm me it it's okay. Sincerely Ayan Boom(😊😊)

Hi, the term (Cognitive_Information_Processing_Shell) had been deleted before since the infringing on the copyright of another website. Now I have prepared a new version but I could not create the term, could you help me create the term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obook1 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the information about the text Motovun Group. I'm not so used in the rules of wikipedia. And I didn't read the instructions carefully. I'll try to write something in my own words. – If I find the text on Wikipedia. Best regards Traveler456 (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)traveller456Traveler456 (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traveler456 (talk • contribs)

Sam -- thanks for your guidance on redirecting the Maura Horton to her company. I am in the middle of wading through some legal stuff around adaptive clothing (as larger companies catch on) and Maura holds multiple patents in the space. Trying to document it all. I will be sure to re-write and focus on her as the inventor/designer as opposed to company owner. Distinguishing people/technology/brands is of great importance here.

Thanks!

Stanton.coville (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to this new article!

TeriEmbrey (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I see you removed some lines in this article. I fully understand why, but I'm gonna use that press release link in an external link section to add some extra notability proofs to the subject (the more the merrier). Is that ok? Sorry for being a noob, Gidev the Dood^(Talk) 00:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

i dont know why you deleteed my page nkt mjinga wewe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit 254 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The article you created did not indicate why the subject was significant. I recommend you look at WP:NOTE to learn about Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. WP:BIO is the subsection you want, cheers.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I need help Shaquees (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but i'm not see the coverage needed about Shaquees to quickly save the article. I can assume from you username that you are related to Shaquees, so I can understand if you know much about him, but I sadly do no. Best of luck.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sam, I actually do believe that The Virginia Hill is a hoax and that both eduting users actually work together. Looking at their edit histories, both do not seem to be here to build an encyclopaedia. I have raised Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/McCartheeey. Feel free to chip in if you have any thoughts. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

What's missing in this article? Why you nominate to delete ? [3] Tiimiii (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tiimiii: A flagged the article for speedy deletion as it is written in an overly promotion style and for violating the copyright of [4] slides from said website.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I just translate it from Albaninan language!? (I do not think it is not allowed) I think that should be improved and not deleted. ) --Tiimiii (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Tiimiii (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The former article's content was a word-for-word reproduction of slides from [5]. This was done without attributing the content to a third party, which in the United States represents a copyright issue. As Wikipedia offers all information on it as being in the public domain, it cannot contain information taken from elsewhere. This is in addition to the promotional nature of the article.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

This page "Doble (Artista) is an Artist/ Musician is about the life of Doble. This page is not for promotional reasons. It is only to specify "Doble" as an artist and to show his biography and history. Doble is a Reggaeton and Bachata Artist with a growing fan-base of over 600,000 fans in Facebook, Instagram and YouTube (Combined). "Doble" has also been considered by Sony Latin Music by his ability to sing in Spanish and not being of Latino decent. I am Doble's Manager "Jorge Ortiz" and I assure you that this page is not for promotional use. Doble's fans mainly is located in Latin American as his music is in Spanish. It would be considered racist or discriminative to not approved this page as an Artist and idol being the first Non-Latino Artist to sing in Reggaeton y Bachata. Doble is well respected in Latin America. You can find more information about Doble on his social media pages (https://www.facebook.com/doblemusicofficial/, http://instagram.com/doble_music, https://www.youtube.com/c/DobleMusicOfficial, http://doblemusicproductions.com/es/home-es/). If you need any more information to approve of this page, you can contact me at (678) 997-0105 Jorge Ortiz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leohwilson (talk • contribs) 02:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello SamHolt6. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Peter srinivasan, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: (Co-)Creating a notable work of indicates importance/significance (WP:CCSI#ARTIST). Thank you. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Replying he so as to not confuse a new editor with off topic banter, but yeah, I've had these kinds of conflicts a lot lately, to the point where after I read a new article and/or search for copyvio/sources, I make sure to refresh the page before trying to apply a speedy deletion tag in case someone has already gotten to it. But no harm no foul either way. If it qualifies for deletion, then it doesn't matter all that much if it's messy, and I really don't understand some folks who have a strong opinion on whether we properly use db-multi to combine tags. GMG^talk 13:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I have also seen some instances (like this one) where the new page reviewer tool does not display the "This article has already been flagged with a deletion template" and instead allows me to generate an unnecessary second deletion flag. No that much of an issue though, as I can always remove the duplicate--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath for the WMF to fix it though. Honestly, if I come across an article that gets an A7 or a G11 before I find where it's copy/pasted from, I just manually type the nomination for G12 most of the time. GMG^talk 13:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I noted your comment at Talk:Lines code editor, "I will move the article to the draftspace, but note I am keeping the G12 copyright violation tag in place until the issue is fixed". But we cannot retain a copyright violation in any space, and so I have deleted it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Understood.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sam --

So Todd is Cardology card reader for over 20 years. Cardology is a form of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartomancy. Can you explain a little more to me about why he should be deleted?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollywood949 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hollywood949: Hi, thanks for reaching out. I flagged the article for deletion on account of two violations of Wikipedia's guidelines. First, the article was written in such a way as to be overly promotional (hardly surprising given the content was lifted from his Linkedin), which is a contrary to WP:NOT. The second and far more serious reason is for infringing upon the copyright of the subject's Linkedin page. Copyright violations are a major issue for Wikipedia, as Wikipedia's content is in the public domain and thus can be used for any legitimate purpose. This represents a legal issue if content on a Wikipedia article is taken (I.E. stolen under US law) from somewhere without proper permission, as the real owner/producer of content may find their rights infringed upon by Wikipedia. Hope this helps--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I corrected much of the information, you don't even have his date of birth correct or anything, I included correct information and was going to include all of the sources today as it was getting late. But if you want your article to remain incorrect, that's fine. I'll have to let him know though so he can state that the wiki article is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcwaffles829 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mcwaffles829: I may very well be wrong, but Wikipedia has a policy (see WP:BLP) that requires major edits about living people to cite sources. This is especially prevalent given the contentious nature of Meechan's work. I will restore the information I reverted if you can provide the sources you hinted at, but not before.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow thank you very much.Mccapra (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, SamHolt6. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your help i really appreciate it Adil199900 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC) Adil199900 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I created a new page for FR8Star, a digital freight marketplace helping connect shippers and carriers and you flagged it for speedy deletion. This should not happen because this is a credible organization that has tangible solutions for an important industry. I'd be happy to add any additional information that would validate FR8Star for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdz323 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that there is anything inappropriate about my article on Jackson Northington Greer.

Sincerely,

    Jackson  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackson13039394 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC) 

I'm not sure if my last message went through, but If you tell me what was offensive about the article I will consult Jackson and see if he believes it can be removed.

Thanks and good night,

Jackson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackson13039394 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jackson13039394: Good evening. Given you comment above, are you in any way connected to the article subject? I would like to know this before re-evaluating my speedy deletion tags.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the confusion around the Emo Nite page. I was creating the "shell" of the page today and am planning to go in tomorrow to add in all of the sources that I have to back up the legitimacy of the page. Is that okay? I have many credible sources but wanted to get a template created before I go in to add the other sources. Perhaps I should've saved as a draft in the meantime. Cbringenberg (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Cbringenberg: I have left you a message on your talk page regarding Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure policy. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello.

I am writing to discuss the deletion of Ellen Stagg's wikipedia page. It seems her page was deleted some months ago and I'm not sure what those reasons were or where to find them.

I'm a newbie when it comes to working on wikipedia, so I'm not quite sure where to start, but I hope I can bring the page up to standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Typelocke (talk • contribs) 13:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Typelocke: The article was deleted for failing to address the notability issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellen Stagg. Hope this helps.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, the term (Cognitive_Information_Processing_Shell) had been deleted before since the infringing on the copyright of another website. Now I have prepared a new version but I could not create the term, could you help me create the term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obook1 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Obook1: Certainly. Do you have a draft or sandbox prepared?--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Reading it through to add links of all the accolades or awards mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakoba254 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The article currently cites no sources, and appears to have been tagged for speedy deletion.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

		Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past few weeks. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota. We think you might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap. You can join by using the box at the top of the WiR page. But if you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.55% of English Wikipedia's biographies). Our priorities for April: April+Further with Art+Feminism Archaeology Military history (contest) Geofocus: Indian subcontinent Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred

--Ipigott (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Necessary formality. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Fully understood NeilN, I see you already took care of the issue.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I took a look at this page and two other pages. However, this content is minuscule in the context of promotional, however it still falls under the guidelines. Why do these administrators always try and ruin other people's plan? Give this poor kid a break!! He is probably new to Wiki. (Devonallen3 (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC))

@Devonallen3: could you provide some context to clarify?--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

First of all, that was a mistake. I didn't know you could actually do that. Second, you asked me to elaborate, I will give you an example since you deliberately don't get it. Steven Furtick is filled with bias and promotional, yet this is still up on Wikipedia. Better yet, let's use another example, John Gray 9philosopher) this is filled with bias. AGAIN, I don't even know this dude, I'm just stating facts that instead of tagging different articles or whatever, tag other peoples. Heck even tag mine, if I create one lol. (Devonallen3 (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC))

@Devonallen3: again I need more context. You stated "First of all, that was a mistake"; what was a mistake? In regards to your second point, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS contains points that can be used to repudiate the argument that articles should not be judged on an individual basis. It should also be noted that I am a new page reviewer and as such new articles (like the one in question) are more in my purview than older articles. I'd also ask you to clarify your statement that I shouldn't tag different articles and instead "tag other peoples [sic]." Finally, I would hope that you understand my position as the one whom has signed off on the article's reviewed status. The article was clearly created as an autobiography by the subject, and was previously edited from an IP address that I have traced to the subject's alma mater. This raises several red flags for me, and may well indicate that the subject is attempting to influence the article using different methods. You yourself have attracted my suspicions, as you were able to direct yourself to the article in question and to my talk page, which is unlikely in the extreme given the size and scope of Wikipedia. If you do have any sort of connection to the subject (including being recruited to edit their article) I highly suggest that you disclose it, and if you have any further questions ask me here.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Dhaka Regency Hotel & Resort, this article is delated. The reason is, promotional article. This hotel is so close to International Airport which is so helpful for tourist. For this reason, I add this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jubair1985 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jubair1985: plain and simple; Wikipedia is not means of advertising or promotion, and it is also not a travel guide.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

How it's advertise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SBS.Mekawy (talk • contribs) 07:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The article was entirely written using promotional language and was a likely copyright violation.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear SamHolt6 Thanks for your message. I had only begun to work on the article and incorrectly published it. If it gets deleted as per your request, how long will it take to get deleted and will it be possible to 'start again and submit a more in-depth article' when I get more time to work on it? Thanks Pamelabastable (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)Pamela

Sorry but could you clarify which article you comment is concerning?--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sam , I will work on it and to specify the originality of the government aided center i preferred to use the same source. however will be working on it to re-curate it better.Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryashasi1 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about the deletion tag, but Wikipedia cannot tolerate any form of copyright violation. I'd be willing to look at the article again if it is written in your own words.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

I removed your G11 nomination of York County School of Technology because the article is relatively long-standing and has been edited by multiple editors – so it probably deserves a full deletion discussion. I fixed some of the formatting on it, but left the advert tag up because it's still fairly promotional. Thanks, Appable (talk | contributions) 19:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Understandable.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

How do you recommend I go about getting the Mike Bayer page up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jitjatjot (talk • contribs) 23:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jitjatjot: my honest advice would be to wait a few months and then return with a new article put through WP:AFC. I'm suggesting you wait a few months because you're multiple attempts to create the article (under two names, I might add) have not endeared you to new page reviewers like myself, and the article has been protected from creation indefinitely. *Maybe someone will grant you some form of clemency at a later date, but not at the moment.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: Thank you for the response. I have done my best to write the article in a neutral tone. The page got deleted several times, and each time I have take the advice from the previous versions, to try to make the article fit wikipedia standard. Yet, the challenging thing is that each time I put it up, and seek help, it gets deleted, without any suggestions of how to make it better.

I am happy to work with the wikipedia community to make sure the article is up to par. At the same time, it is difficult to do so if things get deleted and I can't refer to the old talk pages where I asked for help.

Would you be able grant clemency? My intention isn't to vandalize, but to contribute.

@Jitjatjot: Sorry but no, the page has been protected from creation and as such only admins can create it. I am not an admin.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

--SamHolt6 (talk), thank you for your feedback. This page is not identical to Draft:Mary Woolley (President and CEO). The content in this version (Mary Woolley (President and CEO of Research!America)) was rewritten and re-sourced to comply with AfC. Is there a way to un-delete this page? If you have any tips for improving it, I'm happy to incorporate them. Thanks. --IzzyComm (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)IzzyComm

@IzzyComm: you may want to ask an editor you have no prior interactions with, as I officially suspected your account and others of being sockpuppets per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Researchamerica.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

pls advise on how to avoid deletion, as article is not an advert. It is based on an institution which is 10 years old, creating & working in the theatre space in India. I have tried to include as many citations as I could to authenticate the content; same can be verified using the said references or links. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangshila

I flagged the article for deletion because it contained overly promotional language and its text was taken without attribution from a website. The second issue is the most important, as it represented a copyright violation.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! --GlobalSecretary (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

You are very welcome, it was a well-done article.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you. Yes, I copy the contents of this article from another 2 source. I add the references at the end of the page. I create this page to develop this concept and need the valid definition. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koolaee (talk • contribs) 05:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

@Koolaee: due to legal reasons (see Wikipedia:Copyrights) stemming from Public Domain in the United States Wikipedia cannot tolerate any sort of copyright violation. This pertains even to articles that cite the source they are taking content from. Your article must be re-written in your own words before I will strike my deletion tag. Sorry, but there is and can be no room for error in regards to copyright violations.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment and thank you for reviewing the Rizalina Ilagan article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crisantom (talk • contribs) 21:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome.--SamHolt6 (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi i created the article about malayalam cinematographer roby varghese raj who habe done 3 movies so far and now he is going to do a bollywood movie. I have given all the referral links to support the article, and still it get speedy deletion flag. Why this happens to an good sourced article. There are lot of article in wiki with out single referral link and its ok. Even i have added the imdb link too. Please remove the speedy deletion and allow the article to be public, so it can be usefull for others.106.208.243.58 (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@106.208.243.58: My short and long answer(s) is no. The article was created and deleted multiple times by different editors, and an admin even had to protect the page from creation. This did not stop you from recreating the exact article one day later under a slightly different name in an attempt to circumvent the protection from creation. It is clear that multiple editors do not see Roby varghese raj as being notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia, and your attempts to force the article onto Wikipedia are not appreciated. I would ask that, if you truly wish to create an article about Raj, you wait several weeks (or months) and created an WP:AFC submission, as right now the situation is heated in no small part due to your actions.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I wanted to talk about the Educatina article. Please don't delete it. The article is about a website that explains common school subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unknown contributor123 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The article was written in such a way (including the ending of sentences with an exclamation! point) as to be overly promotional. It also cited no sources, though it was the promotional content that resulted in it being deleted.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, SamHolt,

Regarding A sockpuppet investigation concerning your account is underway at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Louislouis510.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

LipaPay and Kilimall are brother companies, so I added a LipaPay's link on Kilimall's page as reference is not bizzare. (No other changes I did on kilimall). Kindly help remove the inspection please.

Many Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qinyihuan (talk • contribs) 17:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Qinyihuan: You're editing history is comparable to the suspected sockmaster, and I note that you referred to a "We" at User_talk:331dot#Remove_protection_LipaPay_Article_as_we_won't_create_again_until_we_launch_several_large_PR_to_large_local_media. In light of this I will not be withdrawing my investigation until checkuser has returned a result.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Sam...I don't understand why you've put the page into draft. I've done page creation before and I'm unclear what issues you are having. I'll gladly update it if you can share with me what is incorrect. Please advise. FaceFalt (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I moved the page back live. My wish is to get your feedback and not get into a dispute. Please share and I will update the page if the format is lacking. Thanks :.) FaceFalt (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Glad to be of service.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
4		Parthenius II of Constantinople (talk)	Add sources
4		Cyril II of Constantinople (talk)	Add sources
9		Polycarpus I of Byzantium (talk)	Add sources
13		Great Wall Movie Enterprises (talk)	Add sources
5		Dionysius V of Constantinople (talk)	Add sources
6		Eugenius II of Constantinople (talk)	Add sources
10		Gregory III of Constantinople (talk)	Cleanup
266		Code of the United States Fighting Force (talk)	Cleanup
36		Mad Detective (talk)	Cleanup
21		In the Family (TV series) (talk)	Expand
12		Basil III of Constantinople (talk)	Expand
99		Supreme People's Court (talk)	Expand
52		Brian Frosh (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
92		World Waterpark (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
13,169		Syrian Civil War (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
561		Military history of African Americans (talk)	Merge
3,373		Douma chemical attack (talk)	Merge
74		United States Army Africa (talk)	Merge
8		Carnaross (talk)	Wikify
5		SPCE (company) (talk)	Wikify
13		Microsoft Innovation Center (talk)	Wikify
4		Kizito Maria Kasule (talk)	Orphan
5		Corrina Sephora Mensoff (talk)	Orphan
20		RadPad (talk)	Orphan
5		Constantius II of Constantinople (talk)	Stub
13		Zheng Guanying (talk)	Stub
4		Cyprianus of Constantinople (talk)	Stub
256		Wu Kong (talk)	Stub
14		Pedicab Driver (talk)	Stub
39		Martial Arts of Shaolin (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi mate, That's fine Thanks

I`m Klinsmann bdw :)

I have updated the article as it was brought to my attention that it was deleted for some reason so I had to re-create it again.

Thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klinsmannmusic (talk • contribs) 07:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Klinsmannmusic: I apologize for any inconvenience, but I am obligated to tag your article for speedy deletion as it is violating the copyright of an off-wiki site. Wikipedia takes a hardline stance on the issue (see WP:COPYRIGHT) as it is a legal issue in the United States. The article will have to be re-written in your own words.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

A few days ago you tagged this article with the comment "Adding UDP tag (contestable) due to blatant COI editing". I am not sure which editor you suggest is being paid, so I would like to know how to contest this. I am not sure, but I suspect it is a matter of club members getting involved rather than paid editors. --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: you can remove the UDP tag at your discretion. I added the tag given User:The 59 Club's edits to the article and their subsequent mention at the COIN noticeboard. I will also note that you are probably right, as an IP re-added the same information that 59 Club added days later, implying more of a fan than an outright paid editor. If you want me to remove the tag, leave me a note.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that, SamHolt6. I came across this when Reverendtonup (a new editor) asked at Wikipedia:Help_desk#someone_keeps_deleting_edits. He seems to be a member (refers to "our charity motorcycle club") and he doesn't appear to understand the policies around verifiability, etc. I will try to guide him through it.--Gronk Oz (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I have updated with reliable news sources in 'Cahndragiri (film)' page. Please help me to remove the 'deletion suggestion'. Thank you, Saikiran.wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saikiran.wiki (talk • contribs) 12:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Saikiran: sorry but my argument and vote to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandragiri (film) still stand. I am not comfortable deciding about a film's longterm, encyclopedic notability before it is even released, and WP:NFF and WP:NFILM are clear.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Sam! I appreciate it. Gunbirddriver (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, you moved this to a user draft while I was nominating it for AfD. Imo not really worth doing so since it is a declined article for creation submission with almost non-existant refs. So it goes.TheLongTone (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@TheLongTone: Agreed, so it goes. I will move it back to the mainspace so the AfD can continue, I was unaware that the article had already been rejected at AFC.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi SamHolt6, I am wondering why my submission 'Jasmine Kaur Roy' is being moved to Draft again. There is a considerable amount of updation from my last draft and the references are all independent and verifiable. So how come it is not passing the afc criterion. Kindly reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy.avinash (talk • contribs) 18:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, SamHolt6. I re-added Favor Delivery to Favor (disambiguation), because the article does refer to the business as simply "Favor" in at least one place, making it potentially ambiguous. If, as your edit summary suggests, the company is not notable, you may want to PROD or AfD the article. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It comes down to personal preference about the notability of subject company, but you are correct; it is more about ambiguity than notability.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason to dispute anything I have put on our page. Why is the wikipedia community attacking me for just wanting to update the page? Thats it. We are a public high school. The only edits I am trying to make are legit ones. I am getting flagged with a Conflict of interest for no reason. I workhorse, yes... But who else is going to know what should be on this page? This isn't a business. This is all factual cited content. VERY frustrating. No clue why this is being flagged. CflemLCHS (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @CflemLCHS: I recommend further discussion to go to one of the places listed here: Talk:Lakeview_Centennial_High_School#Conflict_of_Interest -- thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

TBH has summed up the situation. Also, the article has clear copyright violations in it.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It survived only 50 minutes, but I saw the "Russia Today article" section you added today to User talk:Philip Cross. For those who may have missed it, here's verbatim copy/paste:

Hello Philip, it seems your edits have riled some people, but I am guessing that you are already aware of this fact. I haven't looked at these edits myself, but can guess which side is in the right. Today I saw this article [6] on Russia Today's website (titled "Mystery figure targets anti-war pundits and politicians by prolifically editing Wikipedia") and thought I should give you a heads up in light of the attention this article may bring. I have to say you are the first editor I have met that has had a bounty put out on their name. Cheers.--SamHolt6 17:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I hoped User:Philip Cross would respond. Despite its disreputable source, RT's article may be an early warning sign that this tempest is about to boil out of its teapot and scald Wikipedia in the process. Like you, I have not examined Mr. Cross's voluminous edits, and honestly have no wish to do so. However, I am aware of his antagonistic presence on Twitter, and believe it reflects badly on Wikipedia. Please, can you suggest a proper forum on this website where our discussion would not be subject to deletion by Mr. Cross? KalHolmann (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@KalHolmann: in all honesty, I am unsure. If I had to recommend one noticeboard, it would probably be WP:ANI.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Potential conflict of interest; I have questioned edits under the Philip Cross name several times, for right-wing bias or non sequitur. Wouldn't it be "due diligence" to have a quiet look at PCs sources to see if they and his use of them are proper? I think there are patterns of behaviour in his editing that are predictable and give credence to his/her critics. Lack of knowledge and understanding of Wiki policy and procedure doesn't automatically mean insincerity and sincerity isn't always implied by being thoroughly acquainted with them. The way that Wiki policy and procedures are framed ("there are no rules") clearly gives the management the mother of all cop-outs. SH6: Pleading ignorance about the details of the edits of PC then making judgements doesn't inspire confidence, especially when you dismiss another source in a glib manner. Keith-264 (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you mistake me Keith. I look for news articles related to Wikipedia, and when I saw the RT article that directly referenced people on twitter calling out Phillip Cross, I left him a note on his talk page. In hindsight it may have been too cheeky (PC has blanked his Userpage and talk page in light of the situation), but at the time I felt obligated to inform him of the article. I have no opinion on PC nor his editing history, so hopefully you will forgive me a talk page remarked made when the news broke. That being said, PC is an experienced editor, and RT is RT (Jimmy Wales' tweet as seen on the article helped me reach an opinion). As far as my ANI recommendation is concerned, I have no experience with editors who have had bounties put out on their names (as earlier comments establish), so I tentatively suggested ANI. With that out of the way, please leave another comment if you have further questions. I will warn you though, any further information you can glean from me will not be of much interest.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Sam, thanks for replying; if you weren't being flippant you did a very good job at disguising it but I can hardly complain considering my record. ;O) I have offered suggestions on other sites that the way to contradict "Philip Cross" is to learn Wiki procedure and beat PC at his own game by providing better sources which challenge his point of view and improve the quality of articles, rather than shouting "Wah!" If someone gets paid £1,000 for surpassing PC's scholarship, accuracy and impartiality I won't begrudge them, I think it won't be that difficult. As for RT, it's much closer to the BBC than it was three years ago, which is a shame but (at least in England) is still the only TV news that's worth a damn. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Strange times indeed. As you probably guessed from the above, I read RT daily (along with the People's Daily and the Global Times, though these are pure state news) because I have found they pick up on stories faster (important for me, as I like creating current event articles) than say the BBC or CNN would. I like altered/alternative perspectives (the chinese state press is refreshingly resolute in their opinions), but I have to say that as a Wikipedian I tend to be on the opposite side of the debate when RT is cited as a source. I have cited them myself in the past, but only in regards to non-controversy, as I feel that encyclopedias will always have (and dare I say should) have an establishment bias and this conflicts with RT's goal of providing an alternative perspective. If nothing else, the RT article and the bounty (still can't believe it) will ensure that PC's edits will be well looked over.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I did remove the tag for speedy deletion accidentally on Cold Therapy. What I copied was from Sam Vaknin's own explanation on his public website. But you're right, I will reword it. RichG (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@RichG: You are correct, but in this instance I do not see an issue with you removing the speedy tag as you also removed the copyvio content. Good luck with your continued building of the article.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Someone else said they wanted to delete the page as well. I wrote an explanation for them saying I was still working on it. One point I didn't make though is that the article will be translated into French and put on Wikipedia Suisse rather than Wikipedia UK (I am new to this and as a mother tongue English-speaker find the instructions much easier to follow in English than in French). It will be translated in the next few days and I will then remove it from the UK pages. Jeremymcteague (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)JeremymcteagueJeremymcteague (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

All well and good. Note that you can create and then edit a draft version of an article you want to create; this will allow you to edit without interference. You should also note that once you officially create an article, said article must conform to Wikipedia's various policies on notability (WP:NOTE).--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you undid my edit citing WP:TOOSOON. But WP:TOOSOON is about articles right? I read it but couldn't find anything about this kind of edits. Please help. Thanks Vivek Ray (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Vivek Ray: thanks for reaching out. WP:TOOSOON (or WP:Too soon) is an essay (not policy) that concerns a subject's notability. It is most often used to determine an article subject's notability, but can also be interpreted to judge the notability of smaller events that are referenced on larger articles. Then again, it is an essay an not a Wikipedia policy. As far as the content this discussion was generated by, WP:CRYSTAL would in hindsight be more appropriate.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: Again, WP:CRYSTAL says it must be verifiable. I provided source for my edit. In addition to it, I have seen similar entries made in various articles like A. R. Rahman discography, Shankar–Ehsaan–Loy discography and James Cameron filmography. The last one is even a Featured List. So, what should be done? Thanks Vivek Ray (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Vivek Ray: I would counter that CRYSTAl is put in place to stop speculation on future events, and that it quotes WP:NFF (in reference to the upcoming movie, not Patani). I would also mention that per WP:NOT even information that if verifiable in not always due for an article, as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I normally would argue that undue information about an actresses predicted role in a future film is falls under WP:NOT and WP:CRYSTAL, but as we have been discussing this an IP has added the content I removed to the article. This led me to good, an now I see that (for example, in this TOI article [7]) a few hours ago it was announced in multiple sources that Patani is going to have roll in the upcoming film. While I normally follow a strict guideline in regards to notability and article weight, it seems consensus is turing in the opposite direction, and who am I to interfere with the editing process? Consider my objection withdrawn, and thanks for atleast taking the time to engage in a discussion with me.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: Oh, so can i add it back? The source and the formatting, I mean. Also, thank you for helping me out with various policies and guidelines. Always helpful! Thanks. Vivek Ray (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Vivek Ray: Yes, but you may want to cite multiple sources. This Times of India article will work well [8]--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear SamHolt6, Thank you for your message. I note your comment about Disruptive Editing. For the avoidance of doubt, and if you had bothered to read the reasoning for the change, I am merely trying to insert 'correct' information regarding David Garrard (property) onto Wikipedia. There is information that is reference on this page that it sourced from the media who insert 'alleged' infront of it, but you and Batsun seem to waive such nonsense.

As stated, I am attempting to improve the article on its' accuracy and build the encyclopaedia; this is not Disruptive Editing.

I have also explained that this particular edit cannot be sourced. It is reliable and not every sentence on Wikipedia is sourced or referenced.

The behavioural guideline of Wikipedia also asks for common sense and occasional exceptions; both of which should be applied to my insert on Garrard. There is no reference or source to this insert on www and I have explained this too. I have been provided this information by a friend of Garrard. This has been explained on my minor edits also.

Garrard is currently ill in hospital and one of his wishes is to correct his wikipedia page. This has been conveyed to me by a friend of Garrards. As explained and you chose to ignore, there is absolutely no conflict of interest with Garrard, Im merely acting in good faith and goodwill.

As for other editors, Im not in conflict with them. Regards, Ben Gunn (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gunn Ben 66: noted, but you must understand several aspects of Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not deal in something so subjective as "truth", nor does it bow to any individual's "correct" edits. Rather, the encyclopedia is built on editors building a consensus to include information that is verifiable. The key policy here is WP:CONSENSUS, which mandates that if an editor object to content, it must be discussed on the article's talk page. This tends to result in productive instances of compromise. If no consensus is reached (WP:NOCON) then the content is not added to the article.

Now to the subject of David Garrard (property developer). On said article you have repeatedly added content that was contested by another editor by way of a revert. I do not have a bearing on the content itself, but I do have a bearing on your actions. Your attempts to add content to the article without even attempting to gain consensus are ill-advised, especially when considering your connection to the subject. In stark contrast, today Bastun directly pinged you at Talk:David Garrard (property developer), but you have thus far declined to engage with him. At Talk:David Garrard (property developer)/Archives/2018#May 2018 the other editor even cited policy reasons as to why they are objecting to your content; a correct course of action given that even verifiable, cited information is not given a mandate on Wikipedia in light of policies like WP:PUFFERY, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.

Taking this in context, I stand by my warning to you by quoting my previous message "If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them".--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

All the reference sources are accurate. I don't know why it went for speedy deletion. Please check it and revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saikiran.wiki (talk • contribs) 23:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Saikiran.wiki: - A key point of the AfD was a failure to meet WP:NFF and WP:NFILM. The subject movie has seen limited release, but still failed WP:NFILM. NFILM requires a film to have some sort of claim to signficance backed up with reliable sources, and the recreated article provided no such evidence.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: - The page I created was clearly met WP:NFF and WP:NFILM. For example the reference I added in that page which was 'movie daily online' reports the completion of the film. Internet movie database and Silver screen video channel which I mentioned as references also reported the same. How could I recreate the page again without any trouble? Please help. --(User talk:Saikiran.wiki) 03:28, 18 May 2018

Hi, I just left a message arguing for the general interest of the topic vinegrowing in a new climate zone and why this pioneering vineyard should be included in Wikipedia. Hope you agree with my line of thinking. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodla (talk • contribs) 14:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The article failed to assert a claim to significance, and so was deleted.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

yeah you can just delete it but make sure it ends up in Wikipedia:Deleted articles with freaky titles

Frizzyisme (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)FrizzyIsMe

I will look into it, but my time is short now (current events at Santa Fe High School (Texas)).--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Scottedwardcole (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand the COI guidelines that Wikipedia maintains. It is correct that this page I am seeking to create is about a book I authored (although, theoretically, anyone could have authored the events it chronicled). If I asked another person to draft this proposed wiki page, it would avoid this issue but that seems like a farce to just ask another person to add the page when the page content is the same no matter who seeks to add it. I understand about maintaining credibility but this book is already a true story, based upon events that seriously affected the lives of thousands of people, was well-publicized already, etc. I am just the person who wrote about it in this book form. You are also reviewing the proposed page before I have had the change to add various references which would add to the work's credibility and I would hope that Wikipedia would allow me to add those citations before summarily deleting the entire page.

@Scottedwardcolw: thanks for reaching out to me. I think I can provide some clarity concerning your article. First, Wikipedia editors who are editing in an area that that have a conflict of interest in is discouraged but allowed, please see WP:COI for more details. Note also that Wikipedia is not intended to be used as a means of self promotion. Second, while Wikipedia often covers major events, articles concerning books about major events are judged against WP:BK criteria. If they fail to meet this or WP:GNG, they are deleted. Lastly (and by far most importantly), new Wikipedia articles must comply with policy from the moment of their official creation, for once they are created, they fall into the purview of new page patrollers like myself. In your case, I tagged Fallout (The book) for deletion because it was overly promotional and contained copyright violations. The last point is the most important, for while I often attempt to preserve new-yet-incomplete articles by moving them into the draftspace, Wikipedia cannot and does not tolerate any sort of copyright violations for legal reasons (see WP:COPYRIGHT). With this all being said, I recommend that, if you choose to return to the site, you create your article in the draftspace or your sandbox, where you can edit without interruption. Cheers.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there!

I noticed you flagged the article for speedy deletion and, well, I wouldn't want that to happen.

First, it might be true that it uses buzzwords and "technobabble" as other editor pointed, but it's sometimes hard to not use those terms, especially because they are super ubiquitous and seep into my language. I'll try and fix those issues tomorrow. If I closely paraphrased something, it wasn't my intention either. I understand Wikipedia's need for neutral content and will revise those instances and follow the rules. I might've acted to fast and added the page just too quickly,

Similarly, if the article lacks sources, that's something I could also fix and improve, there are many sources out there for me to find and I will do it. In my defense, I followed the template of this software's competitors to create this wiki. I didn't know that might lead to a deletion notice.

Dsalinasgardon (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)Dsalinasgardon

no problem. I edited it 3 times to try and bring it within the rules and I even copied the structure and tone of other individual pages on the last edit. I will try harder to bring it within the rules! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelgt123 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure I was hacked Meepier (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

As you say, OK. Contact the Wikimedia Foundation if you believe your account has been compromised, but in the meantime your edits will continue to be treated as though you have not been hacked.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Created article in draft and moved it as suggested in Wikipedia literature; does it need to go through AFC? Aaronlecesne (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Aaronlecesne: no, new articles do not have to go through AFC. However, you used a template when you created the page indicating the article passed through Wikipedia's AFC process, which it did not. I have removed the template, so you should be in the clear.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

		The New Page Reviewer's Bronze Award
		For completing over 1000 reviews in the last year. Thanks very much for your help and keep up the good work! Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The Honourable SamHolt6, thanks for your suggestions, I have just deleted the inappropriate content of Coinyee, now it is likely an encyclopedia article PZOOPP.Fhristian (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome; As a new page reviewer, I have noted that articles about cryptocurrencies tend to be fleeting.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Sam.

Dm4244 (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I need to start over. Wrong format. Please delete so I can start again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevengeOfTheRobots (talk • contribs) 19:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Tagged under "Author requests deletion" speedy criteria. Deletion will follow shortly.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

After responding to the critique of my entry for Rain (network operator) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rain_(network_operator) by adding additional diverse news sources on the subject, I find the article has been deleted. Help me out here. What should I have done? Stevesong (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Busy at the moment, but note that as long as the article makes a credible claim to significance, it should be safe from speedy deletion.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

By the way, Template:SPA is handy for tagging SPs and MPs in AFDs. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@The Mighty Glen: very welcome, and thanks for the tip.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

i want to create wikipidia article about sons of lakshman urmila- angad,chandraketu but can't do it plz help — Preceding unsigned comment added by BHAGWAN (talk • contribs) 03:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but I need more context.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

i want to create a page on wikipedia regarding sons of Lakshman Urmila- Angad Chandraketu

i found the names of characters who played siblings of Ram Sita in jai hanuman series dd national on hotstar i found some information regarding death of sisters of Sita — Preceding unsigned comment added by BHAGWAN (talk • contribs) 02:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. You may want to read WP:MFA.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome, Osamu!Extrapolaris (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

I am working on this entry right now--I added information about Ted Patrick (editor) notability on the TALK page. --Jaldous1 (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I declined my own speedy tag, as you have made great improvements to the article and it now passes WP:NOTE criteria. Nice work.

Please don't do this: "Hi, I'm SamHolt6. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, 20 Weeks, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you." That's really rude (even if not intended that way) and comes off as combative (or uncollaborative, or whatever). You obviously had a reason for taking the action, so give it when doing so and give it again when notifying the reverted party. Demanding that people come to your talk page to beg for an explanation is not how we do things. :-/  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: thanks for reaching out to me, as this has been a bit of a misunderstanding. I marked the page in question (20 Weeks) as unreviewed as I had recently tagged said article for speedy deletion; however, I then declined my own speedy tag and, thinking that the reviewed status of the article was my own doing (marking a page for speedy deletion via the new page reviewer tool causes the article to automatically be marked as reviewed), flagged it as unreviewed without a reason and thus sent Dom an auto-generated message. Looking at their talk page, Dom tried to ping me on 8 June, but the ping never went through and so I was unaware of the situation. With this all being said, thanks for informing me, as it allowed me the chance to apologize to Dom.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Cool beans. PS: On a re-read, my own note seems more testy than intended (which is ironic, given that the issue was seemingly-testy posts!), so sorry about that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you give me sometime to go through and rewrite Kwao Lezzes-Tyt ? Shammahamoah (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, but articles that have been created in the main-space must conform to Wikipedia's policies. I would offer to moved the article to the draftspace, but an AfD was conducted concerning the article in January 2018, and the article has already been deleted by an admin.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sam,

I just saw your message. Completely understand your concern with this page (Jahnvi Kapoor) being made a number of times and deleted. However, I have contested the deletion. If it's accepted, I'd be happy to continue working on the page, and if not, that's fine too. Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nusratrah98 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nusratrah98: wonderful, I am glad that you are willing to understand my viewpoint. Debuting actresses are just WP:TOOSOON, but we can of course revisit the issue in the future once more coverage exists around Kapoor's soon-to-start film career.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I strongly accept my failures for creating less quality film biographies like these. I accept your proposal of speedy deletion nomination of P.S Mithran. I once again apologise for my great mistakes and I would make sure that I can relieve myself from these issues. Thanks Abishe (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I flagged the article you created for G4 Speedy deletion as it was deleted at an AfD only a month ago, and the two articles were similar. This was more of a procedural flagging than a criticism of your work.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Samholt6,

 This is my first article in wikipedia. and tried my best to follow all the terms and conditions of WIKIPEDIA. I request you to kind suggest change and help me to contribute in wikipoedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdatech (talk • contribs) 05:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC) 

You are an expert here. you can guess who is paid writer and who is unpaid. I did alot of research and hard labour in writing my first article but as a beginner I made few mistakes which you have noticed. I request you to kindly guide me how I can solve those issues. Please help

Bdatech (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I reatored it. The article is considerably expanded over the previous version. There could be another AfD, of course. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@DGG: understood, I will bow to the admin goggles on this one. Maybe another AfD could be in the works, but taking into account his new movie release in May.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello SamHolt6. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Caldwell Partners, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7, There is a good chance that any company traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange is covered in depth by multiple reliable sources and is therefore notable. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok. The major reason for my tagging was that the article text did not make a credible claim to significance, or any claim for that matter. Now I guess I will do a WP:BEFORE to see if AfD is in order.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you using a script to add shortdesc's to articles? I ask because it's better to use SHORTDESC: with a colon, i.e. the magic word, instead of SHORTDESC| with a pipe, i.e. the template. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Amorymeltzer: no template, just finding a way to pass the time. So using a colon is the preferred method? Got it, I will use that in the future.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6:: You did not give the main reasons for moving three of my contributions, Draft:Freda Rhymz, Draft:DJ Quest GH (DJ), Draft:Davy Sage and what are your plans of moving them back to main? Shammahamoah (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Shammahamoah: I did; see the edit descriptions for each of the individual moves.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, SamHolt6. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

GSS (talk|c|em) 15:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@GSS: looking it over as we speak GSS.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

At the prompting of another editor, I recently looked into connections between the editing of the blocked User:SudhanshuKumar1 (talk) (a sock of User:Sudhanshu6454 (talk) and User:RemoD007, a new editor. For convience sake I will spit this comment into two parts

• To begin, both Sudhanshukumar1 (contributions [9]) and RemoD007 (contributions [10]) use similar editing descriptions, such as "linked X to article" or "X linked". Both editors also commonly edit the names of non-notable directors into articles; this was hardy surprising in Sudhanshukumar1's case, as per Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_129#SudhanshuKumar1_potential_promotional_editing_and_failure_to_properly_disclose they were a paid editor in the employ of Digital Sukoon, a marketing firm that specializes in the film industry. It should also be pointed out that RemoD007 recently recreated Abhishek Sharrma, and article that SudhanshuKumar1 had also created.

• The above evidence for some sort of connection is decent, but I was able to do some off-wiki digging and uncover more. For example RemoD007 created 3 Dev (a film) and Ankoosh Bhatt (the director of 3 Dev). Interestingly enough, per these two sources [11] [12] the movie's digital marketing is being handled by our old friends at... Digital Sukoon, the company that employed Sudhanshukumar1 to write Wikipedia articles.

With all of the above being said, a case of COI and likely undisclosed paid editing seems clear.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, Thank you for your eagle eyes. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

[User:SamHolt6|SamHolt6]] Hello sir this is Ankoosh Bhatt I created my page on Wikipedia and my film page 3 Dev and I think My Name and film name is got a good news source (references). I'm a notable director you can google about me. In my upcoming movie, Abhishek is acted that's why I created his page on Wikipedia. I'm not related to any firm nor i'm employed by anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RemoD007 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@RemoD007: Who you are trying to fool? On your user page you state Hi this is Remo D'Souza... which is similar to your username too and can't be a mistake and now you are claiming that you are "Ankoosh Bhatt" so can you please clarify? GSS (talk|c|em) 10:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@RemoD007: - With respect, I am waiting on your response to GSS. Keep in mind that, from other editor's perspective, your actions are highly suspect. Yesterday you claimed to be a one director (Remo D'Souza), today you claim to be another director (Ankoosh Bhatt)... and I am still waiting for you to comment on the points I raised at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Suspicious_editing_by_RemoD007. I recommend you make further points at that discussion.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating The Spanish Girl in Reverie, SamHolt6!

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

Please address the issue with a broken citation link.

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

Learn more about page curation.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

You did not need to review that page. I asked for and got the WP:APAT privilege precisely to avoid wasting the time of WP:NPPs on my new articles. However, WP:NPAT seems to have broken down - you are the 3rd NPP editor to have reviewed one of my articles today (the other two were ((R to disambiguation page)), so what a waste of effort those were. Narky Blert (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: as an editor with autopatrolled status myself, I can sympathize. All new articles being created are being marked as unreviewed at the moment, as there is a bug in the WMF's software. They expect this will be fixed by Monday, per a discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Issue_with_auto-patrol?.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

"Hi all -- I'm Marshall Miller; I'm a product manager at WMF working with the Community Tech team. Thanks for filing this bug. We've realized that this problem was accidentally caused by Community Tech's work on improvements to the New Pages Feed, and we're working on a fix now. I'm sorry about this -- it's definitely frustrating that extra pages are showing up in the feed unnecessarily. We definitely don't want to rush and potentially cause any other issues, so the team is currently writing some additional tests for the fix and will be doing code review. Because of that, it's looking like the fix can be deployed on Monday. I'll give another update here in a few hours."

I'm not fully conversant with all the nuances of NA slang, but the expression "blowing smoke up your ass" does spring to mind. Narky Blert (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

		Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For completing over 100 reviews during the 2018 June Backlog Drive, please accept this Special Edition Barnstar. Thank you for helping out at New Page Patrol and keep up the good work. Cheers! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi SamHolt6, pure curiosity, but was does the template that you put in at Cruizer do? Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Acad Ronin: from what I can tell, SHORTDESC has many functions, a full list is at the top of Wikipedia:Short description. I noticed another editor placing these on articles I was watching, and so I have been following suit to kill the time. Per Wikipedia:Short description, what actually constitutes the parameters (such as naming formats) of the template is very fluid at the moment. Hope this helps.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. For now I am going to ignore the template. I have enough trouble remembering the paramaters of the templates I already use and am not eager to embark on learning a new template, or creating 40 character descriptions. To paraphrase someone I knew a long time ago, "I save all my creative energies for new articles." Best of luck with your endeavors. Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I am a music business student and noticed a industry professional didn't have a page in which I am now currently creating. I am curious as to why you have moved it "to draft"? I has incorrectly tagged a photo which has since been fixed and removed. However, I am not clear as to why it has been moved to draft? I would appreciate any help in getting it back to normal. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renee Glover (talk • contribs) 16:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC) One additional note, all the referenced publications are highly respected across various genres - ie. Billboard Magazine, Music Business Weekly, Wall Street Journal, etc.

@Renee Glover: I moved your article into the draft-space as it did not comply with some parts of Wikipedia's method of style ([[WP:MOS)), namely the subheading font. I also moved the article as there are concerns that the article was created for undisclosed paid editing (essentially native advertising), as implied by the UDP tag on the article and the edits made by another editor (User:Marketing & PR Solutions) to the article. As far as moving forward is concerned, I would recommend you send the article through WP:AFC, while also noting that you should disclose any conflicts of interest if you have them.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: I have corrected what I believe to be the incorrect method of style (the subheading font). There is no conflict of interest and certainly no financial transaction - therefore, I do not believe that the COI applies in this instance for monetary or relationships. Is it now OK to proceed and remove from the "Draft" status? Appreciate your help.

@SamHolt6: Just wanted to follow up on my question above. Want to move from the "Draft" mode so that it can go through the publishing process to be made public. Please advise. Thanks.

You might be interested in this SPI which I filed today. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I was trying to move a user-space AfC submission to draft, but found there was a draft already there (Draft:Al Rucker). In the logs you wrote:

moved page Al Rucker to Draft:Al Rucker over a redirect without leaving a redirect: Quarantining (again); article only edited significantly by SPAs, and created was blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ErnestCarrot as being part of a large paid editing sockfarm. Send through AfC if desired

One of the blocked users was User:DreamBigLosAngeles. The new page (User:Freespiritlosangeles/sandbox) has been created by User:Freespiritlosangeles. This editor did work on the draft, but then decided to do a copy & paste move to user-space before submitting so as to detach the article history. I think this could be part of the same group of editors.

I don't know how to proceed, but if you could deal with this that would be helpful. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Frayae: thanks for the heads up. I will be filling an sock puppet investigation shortly, as I am fairly certain the editors are connected. As far the AfC submission is concerned, it comes down to personal preference; I wouldn't try to send the article through AfC due to its history of undisclosed paid editing, but you could if you so choose. Alternatively, you could wait for the Freespiritlosangeles to submit the article in the time pending an outcome from the SPI.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DreamBigLosAngeles in progress.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't intend to submit the draft myself. If these are paid editors then it would be prudent to delete the draft entirely as promotion, but I will wait to see what happens on that. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

It's unlikely that it is a good faith edit given the scope of the controversy. The ideology box of the California Republican Party was edited to include Nazism as one of their ideologies. This resulted in Google searches showing Nazism as one of the California Republican Party Ideologies on the Google information box. This matter was widely publicized and the matter is discussed in the talk section of that page. Furthermore, the users edits specifically target many political pages and reverting that specific edit given the dense discussion on the talk section is simply vandalism. Entertaining the possibility that it was a good faith edit is simply outlandish.

108.252.124.176 (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@108.252.124.176: you may still be misreading what vandalism is. Quoting from WP:VANDAL, vandalism is "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose", and WP:VANDAL goes on to state "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism". Taking this into account, an editor who, as you noted, with a history ([13] in the order of 12000 edits to Wikipedia) of edits to politically inclined articles that construes a branch of the Republic party as conservative is almost certainly a case of misguided-but-good-faith editing. They likely did not read the talk page discussion and decided to fill the infobox with information widely associated with the republic party; this was incorrect but certainly understandable, and not grounds for an accusation of vandalism, much less a filing at WP:AIV (this filing was declined [14]). If they return and persist in adding such information to the CRP's infobox, then maybe action needs to be taken, but for now this is a non-issue.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me Sam... Indeed I guess that the quote had had been better and looked more impartial if rendered the way I did it, 'cause the truth about such a serious allegation isn't yet established and not all media are of the same opinion of these which was quoted in footnotes, which seem to be rather belonging to voices highly favourable to the subjects and being linked to people who partake for them. I would rather be cautious in this. Please rollback the quote: GPRamirez5 thanked me for having done the modify, evidently noticing that the authoring was not finetuned. Thanks. Regards. BCtl (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@BCtl: thanks for reaching out. As far as your addition in concerned, on most articles I would consider it a writer's stylist choice of words, but in this instance I will not. The sentence in question has been the subject of a good deal of debate, as can be seen on multiple threads at Talk:White Helmets (Syrian Civil War). Indeed, there is currently a WP:RFC underway at Talk:White_Helmets_(Syrian_Civil_War)#RfC_on_media_controversy concerning the sentence in question, so it would be inappropriate to make a change at this time in light of WP:CONSENSUS. As far as the content you added, I am aware of that various forms of media posit different views on the White Helmets (I.E your sentence is correct), but on Wikipedia we as editors are mandated to follow WP:CONSENSUS and thus far there has been no definitive consensus reached to change the article. If you still desire to make a change, I recommend that you start a new thread on the article's talk page or comment at the ongoing RfC. Best,--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Sam. Ok. I've no intention of superimpose another editing to the one which is already on the way. Waiting for a reached consensus then. Though, don't you think that it would be better if we mark the quote as not yet decided? Because in the current way it looks like a statement instead of a debated hypotesis, which could mislead the eventual users who would read and report it. Thanks for now. All the best. BCtl (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there A bit confused why the page was moved to draft status. Any explanation so it could be rectified? Thanks and cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eskimo47 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@Eskimo47: the draft (Draft:Christoph Janetzko) currently does not comply with Wikipedia's method of style (see WP:MOS) and needs copyediting. For example, the draft's lead is entirely in bold font, the article lacks inline citations and a dedicated reference section, and lines like "His works earned him numerous distinctions and awards" read like WP:PROMO, which is not encyclopedic prose per the aforecited MOS. The article could also use some copy editing.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: I understand perfectly what you write e.g. about the initial bold font. But your 'WP:PROMO' is extemporated in detail in the very same paragraph. And isn't there a whole section in the end with links and references? Thanks and cheers

Sometimes magic happens. I revisited the edit I made to Larry Perkins to reconsider if the red link I created was justified. Voila, it had already turned blue. Thank you! JennyOz (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

@JennyOz: my pleasure, thank you for your kind words.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

How can i add subject in my page (Youngvoice new)...???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sardersalimreza (talk • contribs) 08:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sardersalimreza: I would recommend you create a draft articles (in this instance, Draft:Youngvoice new) and send it through WP:AFC. Wikipedia:My First Article may also help.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Castaway (disambiguation) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to ABC

The Castaways (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to ABC

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear User:SamHolt6, you redirected Daniel Masson's page to Draft. Do you think i am a paid user? Is there any chance to get it back in article space. Can you help me to get this page back in article space?SpeakNeak (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@SpeakNeak: Good day. I moved your article to the draftspace as it was marked as a possible case of ACTRIAL evasion and spam at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Keeping_the_pressure_up. The article also drew my attention (and resulted in me tagging the article for possible COI and undisclosed paid editing) as you claimed an image of Masson as your "Own Work" at the WM commons [15]. This normally implies a conflict of interest in regards to the subject, which must be disclosed if you have one. If not, I need an explanation of where the image came from, as Wikipedia cannot tolerate copyright violations. As far as returning the article to the mainspace (I.E re-creating it), I suggest that the article be sent through WP:AFC to allow for other editors to judge its veracity. If you have any further questions, reply to me here.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi SamHolt6,

I'm the creator of Draft:ACIL Allen Consulting, which you moved to draft and added to the COI Noticeboard. I don't have any affiliation with ACIL Allen, and most of the content was already at Michael G Porter - which was not appropriate given he was the founder, not necessarily involved throughout the duration (and is presumably not involved now).

I've added detail about ACIL Allen in its original form as the Tasman Institute, from an academic paper. Between this paper and the AFR article describing the merger, I think I've established that there are multiple significant, independent, reliable, secondary sources on this topic. I suspect this recent Science Direct article qualifies as well, given the general discussion of the consultancy preceeding the more specific critique of the particular report.

Would you agree? If not, what would you recommend as next steps to demonstrate notability?

--AntediluvianBlue (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@AntediluvianBlue: thanks for reaching out. My advice is fairly simple: Put the article through Wikipedia's articles for creation process (WP:AFC) and add more sources (if you feel so inclined). This will likely result in the article being created, and the issue will be solved. I will not be moving the article back to the article mainspace as 1) I am a strong proponent and subscriber to WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH and feel like the sourcing steps to close to trivial mentions, and 2) the article was picked up by another editor (note I did not edit the list at COIN, only act upon it as part of my New Page Patroller function) as a possible case of spam or ACTRIAL evasion. Again, AFC is your best bet, and your article will likely be created.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sam, I probably did this wrong so feel free to delete the page I'm linking to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Passions_Network&oldid=851843870

I was trying to contact the appropriate person, and I think I created a page that didn't need to be created (or maybe shouldn't have). If that is a public page, can you delete it (preferably after reading it)? :)

As mentioned, my company page has been in Wikipedia for over 6 years and was not/is not meant to be 'promotional'. I removed the one external link to the site, but I'm open to any other changes that need to be made. I really just want the page to describe the website like other online dating sites have descriptions for their sites.

I 100% am not looking for Wikipedia to drive traffic or promote my site.

Please let me know how I can fix things.

Thanks, MichaelPassionsNetwork (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Update: Hi again SamHolt6...little by little, I'm getting things straightened out. Apparently my previous username (created 6ish years ago was also considered promotional). I've changed it now. I really would like to bring my company's former page into compliance, as I just want it to be an informational page regarding the company. Aside from removing the external link at the bottom of the page, please let me know what else I need to do to fix the issues you see with the page. My company is 14 years old and I am proud of it, and I would like to fix whatever issues are negatively affecting my company page in Wikipedia. Any guidance you can give me on what I need to change/remove, I will honor without hesitation. Thanks. Mic4444 (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Trying to figure out what I need to change on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Passions_Network to bring it back into compliance. The page was never meant to be 'promotional', but rather simply informative. It has been in Wikipedia for approx. 6 years with no issues, so this has caught me by surprise. I've removed the external link to the website (due to your comment of inappropriate external links, and that was the only one). I'd like to make whatever changes are needed to have the page moved back into Wikipedia as an active page representing my company (and in a non-promotional manner). Any insight into what sections are still non-compliant would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.Mic4444 (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

A bit busy for the past few days, and I am having to look through the now-blocked paid editor's disclosures, but a response is forthcoming.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good SamHolt6. I have had some other editors clueing me in on issues with the Draft page, and I am slowly figuring out how to fix things. If you look on the Draft talk? page, you should see the comments/suggestions from the other editors. At this point, I'm just trying to figure out how to submit new information for the page without inadvertently 'editing' it directly, so that neutral editors can review/approve/deny various updates/changes. I realize the article/page is on thin ice, and I want to clean it up so that all this is a non-issue. With prior references from ABC News, Wired, Business Insider, etc., I think there is some proof the article/page should be considered 'notable', but I understand it has been tainted by the way it was originally created (even though my goal was simply to have an informative page in Wikipedia). Definitely taking every recommendation from each Wikipedia editor who has taken time to comment though, so I'm optimistic I'll be able to bring the page in line with Wikipedia standards (once I'm a little more clued in on how to submit info. without editing). Any specific areas of concern that you see would be helpful though, but I understand everyone here is a volunteer and you can't spend hours a day making suggestions for all the sites listed. Thanks!Mic4444 (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mic4444: After such a delay I wish I could offer more advice, but I feel I should for the most part reiterate the advice other editors gave you at User_talk:Mic4444#The_problem_with_paid_editing. You should try to improve the draft as best you can, mostly by adding new references. Note that Wikipedia's stance on notability and paid editing have undergone several major overhauls since the draft in question was created, and these reforms have raised the project's barrier to entry for company articles. I would focus on finding sources that are explicitly about your company, as from my viewing of Draft talk:Passions Network most of the new sources you provided I would consider listing articles or trivial mentions (I.E. they do not directly concern the subject and instead compare multiple, similar entities, normally concerning a wider topic), both of which do not always meet WP:NCORP or WP:CORPDEPTH. I could also recommend an alternative course of action to those I saw suggested on your talk page. You could 1) request that Draft:Passions Network be deleted or 2) allow the draft to go unedited for 6 months, after which time it will be deleted automatically; while this will result in the old article being deleted, it would also delete the page's history and all connection between the topic and Bernie44 (who's paid editing was and is not looked kindly upon). After the draft has been deleted, maybe a customer of yours or an interested editor will re-created the article, without the taint of paid editing, and I will note from experience that organically produced articles are normally granted more leeway than paid articles. Hopefully this helps, and thank you for posing questions to me in a courteous manner. You can ask further questions of me here, or ping me in any discussions you are having anywhere else.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mic4444:- Could I ask a few questions that are only partially related to your company and Wikipedia? Please do not feel pressured to answer:

• Without disclosing any personal details, what kind of service did you employ to create a Wikipedia article for your company? What did the service you used advertise, and did they deliver on what was promised?
• Has the deletion of your article affected your business in any way (such as SEO, search engine optimization), and did having a Wikipedia article aid your business?

Remember, you are not obligated to answer and if you are so inclined, answer only as far as you are comfortable.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: I'd prefer to fix the Draft if at all possible, rather than have it deleted or wait until it is deleted over time. When I listed the new references, I was hoping that on some there would be enough focus on my site that it would address the issue you raised. Unfortunately for me, most journalists writing about 'niche dating sites' like to mention a variety of sites within their articles. While Passions Network is regularly written up, it is rare that it is the sole focus of an article. I will endeavor to find some that fit that bill though. I'm hopeful that once I have addressed the references area, one of the editors will help me identify the next best section of the page that needs work to make it less promotional. I must admit that I continue to read the page as informational, but I understand that several editors have reviewed and all agree it crosses the line...so clearly there is work to be done & changes to be made. As mentioned, I'm open to changing anything, as I feel duped by what has unfolded. With regards to your questions, I have no problem answering anything you'd like to know (that doesn't reveal company details that would be inappropriate) and all of your questions are fine. 1) What kind of service did you employ to create a Wikipedia article? I hired someone who claimed to be able to create a page that would be acceptable to Wikipedia provided I could prove that my site had history, members, and articles to back it up. When I provided him with references from Business Week, Wired, CNET, etc., he immediately said there shouldn't be any problem, as my network was already 8 years old at the time the page was created, and articles referenced that it had somewhere around 2-3 million members and was growing in size. He said all of those things validated the company to the point that he felt he could create an acceptable page. 2) What did the service advertise and did they deliver what was promised? To be honest, I don't remember the exact details of what was promised, but the primary goal was simply to have my company listed in Wikipedia since competitors were listed, and I felt like a site like mine (with the history and membership already mentioned) certainly should appear along side my 'peers' within Wikipedia. As I've mentioned, my intention was never promotional. It was really due to a sense of pride in my (at that time 8 year old) site and a desire to be on the same level as comparable sites in having a listing in Wikipedia. Since they did create a page that seemed acceptable to Wikipedia (for the last 6 years), I think they/he did what he promised...although recent events have clearly upended my perception of what was done/what should have been done/how things should have been done. 3) Has the deletion affected your business in any way, or did it aid in any way? That is a good question that I don't think anyone with any knowledge of SEO can answer confidently. This change took place so recently that if there were to be negative SEO effects, I haven't seen them yet, and since my network has been around for 14 years, I would be (very) surprised if a single change like this would cause any significant SEO change. I actually do not know how Wikipedia articles effect sites (with regards to SEO issues), but I would assume that Google would have long ago viewed listings in the way they did DMOZ (yes, I am showing my age here). DMOZ used to be the holy grail of SEO for Google in the VERY early days as it helped categorize sites, so being listed was hugely important, and it relied on editors in a similar fashion to Wikipedia. Over time, long long ago, Google de-valued DMOZ completely as an SEO signal. I would suspect the same is true (possibly to a lesser degree) with Wikipedia. It most likely provides some benefit to be listed due to the stringent rules I am now struggling with, but I think Google has moved it's focus away from individual links (and my personal opinion is that they now make decisions almost exclusively based on user interactions with sites...bounces, page load speed, SSL, responsiveness, mobile-friendlyness, time on site, page views, etc. To wrap up this rather long answer I'll just reiterate that my interest in Wikipedia is almost exclusively a point of pride in my company. There are very few online dating sites with millions of members that are over 14 years old. As one of those few sites, it is incredibly frustrating to me to see sites with fewer members, less features, less history & less press in Wikipedia. I continue to hold out hope that if I work with the editors who are pointing out problems, that (hopefully) someone will be able to scrub any advertisement/promotional aspect of the page clean, and I can get back to having (what I believe to be) a legitimate, non-promotional and 100% earned position within Wikipedia. Thanks.Mic4444 (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I used an internet café today which was reportedly having a block IP Address from Wikipedia. It has affected my account, help me fix it. Elshalombae (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Elshalombae: understood, but please note that you can leave your comments at the SPI investigation page, which is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Daniel Kobe Ricks Jr.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

No sure if you saw it, Cap2201 came back on their talk page about the potentially paid editing. Thoughts? _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jake Brockman: it looks like the same thing that they stated at the conflict of interest noticeboard. They didnt really ask for anything, only forgiveness, so I am unsure what action should (if any) be taken; I wouldnt be opposed to blocking them given their feet dragging when it comes to proper paid editing disclosure, but perhaps this would be too harsh a measure. So, maybe we just wait and see if they ask for anything?--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd hold off with the block for now. Maybe just wait and see in good faith. You did move or tag the pages, didn't you? Let's just keep them in that state and deal with request are and when they come up. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey guys,

    I'm writing to let you know that I've added the requested paid contribution disclosure notices to the talk pages of Draft: Srikant Chellappa and Draft: Joanne Wilson, as well as on my user page. While I completely understand why all my other created pages were reverted to draft form, I was wondering if it would be possible to have the rest of my contributions reinstated, as they were simply meant to provide information on artists and works that I personally admire. Please accept my apologies about not properly labeling the contributions that were paid. I wasn't aware of the proper processes, and honestly the money isn't worth the trouble. I accept full responsibility, and will keep my editing un-compromised going forward. Thank you for your time and consideration, and have a great day!

Hey SamHolt6,

      Hope this finds you well. I'm writing to let you know that I've added the requested paid contribution disclosure notices to the talk pages of Draft: Srikant Chellappa and Draft: Joanne Wilson, as well as on my user page. While I completely understand why all my other created pages were reverted to draft form, I was wondering if it would be possible to have the rest of my contributions reinstated, as they're simply meant to provide information on artists and works that I personally admire. Please accept my apologies about not properly labeling the contributions that were paid. I wasn't aware of the proper processes, and honestly the money isn't worth the trouble. I accept full responsibility, and will keep my editing un-compromised going forward. Thank you for your time and consideration, and have a great day!

Cap2201 (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC) cap2201

@Cap2201: I can appreciate your desire to have your regular articles returned to the mainspace, but I will not be conducting such an action at this time. Cap2201, the fact of the matter is that you operated as an undisclosed paid editor for the first year of your editing. This is not an irreconcilable offense and I truly believe you were unaware of Wikipedia's paid editing policy, but note that whenever you create an article you are directed to Wikipedia:Your first article, which covers paid/COI editing. Moreover, my concerns and caution stems from your initial interaction with Jake Brockman, during which he explicitly linked WP:COI to you. After this, you did properly disclose that you had been paid to edit Anthony Esposito (musician), but at the same time failed to disclose the two other articles that you later revealed to have also created for pay, both of which were live on the mainspace. Harsh as it may be, this implies to me that you 1) either intentionally failed to disclose other articles you created for pay until pressed, or 2) heeded Jake's advice and disclosed but failed to read the policy article that a concerned editor explicitly provided to you.

In light of the above and you recent edits, I will replace the UDP tags on your disclosed paid articles with proper Paid Contributions tags, but will not be removing UDP tags from your other articles or return them to the mainspace. I would also like to ask for a definitive list of all the articles created for pay (if there are any more), including those that have been deleted. Thank you for your time.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: Thanks so much for getting back to me, SamHolt6. I completely understand your decision on the matter, and I sincerely apologize for not disclosing the payments I received for the other two articles sooner--I had personal issues that prevented me from doing so in a respectable amount of time. The only pages that I was contracted to create were for Anthony Esposito, Srikant Chellappa, and Joanne Wilson. (Another page, Dylan Beynon, was rightly deleted.) I'd never intended to do any kind of paid contributions on wikipedia, and only did so when I was approached by a third party earlier this summer. My other creations and contributions were done entirely for free of my own volition; those pages include: Matt Kivel, Sam Sax, Asymmetry (Novel), and Kai Carlson-Wee, along with various contributions to other existing pages. Please let me know what steps I can take to set things right. I apologize for any time and energy you've had to expend because of this confusion. Thank you! Cap2201 (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Cap2201: your courteous behavior does you credit Cap, regardless of our disagreements on editing. Note that AfC is another option you can pursue in the future, when the skepticism has died down. Cheers.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

(English below)

Olá. A Wikimedia Portugal é uma associação portuguesa sem fins lucrativos, fundada em 2009, reconhecida pela Wikimedia Foundation como "chapter" de Portugal. A nossa missão é, em geral, contribuir para a disseminação generalizada do saber e da cultura, através do incentivo à recolha e criação de conteúdos isentos de restrições de utilização, modificação e distribuição, e da difusão dos mesmos; e em particular, promover e apoiar os projetos da Wikimedia Foundation, entre os quais a Wikipédia, com ênfase para os projetos nas línguas faladas em Portugal, o português e o mirandês.

Gostaríamos de contar com o apoio de (e reciprocamente apoiar) todos os voluntários naturais, residentes ou simplesmente interessados em Portugal. Embora fundada em 2009, a associação teve um largo período de inatividade, que estamos agora a ultrapassar. Vimos por isso convidá-lo, caso nisso tenha interesse, a inscrever-se como associado da associação, demonstrar apoio à existência de um "chapter" em Portugal, e a envolver-se em atividades futuras inscrevendo-se na lista de distribuição de email. Recentemente, a Comissão de Afiliações da Wikimedia suspendeu o apoio à Wikimedia Portugal, pendente, entre outras coisas, do apoio da comunidade de editores portugueses. [16]

Agradecemos desde já!

Hi! Wikimedia Portugal is the Portuguese chapter of Wikimedia, founded in 2009 and recognized by the Wikimedia Foundation. Our mission is to contribute to the general dissemination of knowledge and culture through the incentive to the collection and creation of content without restrictions on use, modification and distribution, and promote their difusion; we promote and support the Wikimedia Foundation projects, among which Wikipedia, with emphasis on projects in Portuguese and Mirandese.

We would like however to count on the support of (and in turn ourselves support) all volunteers that are citizens, resident, or simply interested in Portugal. Despite being founded in 2009, the chapter has gone through a long period of inactivity that we are trying to overcome. We have sent you this message to invite you, if you are interested, to enroll as associate to the chapter, demonstrate your support to the existence of a chapter in Portugal, and get involved in the discussion of future activities by registering in the mailing list. Recentely, the Wikimedia Affiliations Committee suspended support to Wikimedia Portugal pending, among other things, the support from the community of portuguese editors. [17] GoEThe (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Do review this WikiProject Nigeria article Samson Olatunde. Cheers Aghachi7 (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Y done; needed some improvement, but passes review.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi SamHolt6, would you be able to review Samson Olatunde? Another user posted on my talk page asking me to review their article, but I have no experience in reviewing articles or with Nigeria. As you are a member of Wikiproject Nigeria, I feel like you should be qualified to look at new article. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, the user posted the same message above mine. Natg 19 (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Why are you deleting the CRU Acquisition Group entry on the Cru page? I addressed your concern on the Conflict of Internet noticeboard and that was deleted too. How do you go about explaining yourself on this platform if people just silence you?

@Faradorian: you may have me confused with another editor, as I have as of yet not been involved in Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Faradorian. As far as Cru is concerned, Wikipedia policy is not to add companies or subjects without articles to disambiguation pages, as they by definition do not have articles to link to. Furthermore, I warned you as you used the term "leading", which is not encyclopedia prose and goes against WP:MOS. I see another editor has also reverted your second addition of CRU Acquisition Group to the article. As far as your other question, I recommend you continue to participate in Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Faradorian. Cheers.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: Thank you for responding. I didn't know that policy about disambiguation pages and apparently didn't see the warnings. As this company is noteworthy, I will be creating a page for it and doing my best to use "encyclopedia prose." Thanks! Faradorian (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I have tried to clean up Draft:Swati Sharma (Indian singer) and added a submit tag to it so that (as you suggested) an uninvolved editor can evaluate the draft. When you move an article to draftspace, please don't remove the categories. Just add a colon before the word Category so that the draft will not show up in the categories. This way, a reviewing editor will not have to figure put the most appropriate categories for the draft. I do not know whether the article is suitable for articlespace, so I didn't move it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Noted, thanks for the tip. Sometimes the tools of the trade are lost the the fog of editing.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I want to point out that the China subsidiary undertakes upstream oil and gas projects were are huge endeavors in business terms and also effect on a local population and environment. Also it follows the pattern of a series of articles on Shell country subsidiaries because Shell has too many upstream projects and other business lines to put into the main page. Muzzleflash (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Surely another sentence can be fitted in at Royal_Dutch_Shell#China?--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I have moved the content of the page to a sub-section under the Shell main page and if there are more edits I will put the operations of the China subsidiary into a separate page. However, I find it bad editing on your part to simply redirect to the main page and not transfer the contents. Along with calling the subsidiary non-notable without much consideration, it shows a lack of conscientiousness. Muzzleflash (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• 103.196.221.187 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Indian Barcode Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, Sir what should i do to make the article look like more relevant Should Write about the history more ? Please suggest

103.196.221.187 (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sam, thanks for taking a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_Patrick_Cronin .

I'll let this sit until the major award season rolls around again, and see if he comes up with the win. Always the bridesmaid and all that. :)

Thanks again.

Good day. Bringing your attention to this article which was returned to mainspace after you "quarantined" it. Not sure if I've ever seen the term used on WP before. I don't do much COI noticeboard work, so when I went to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Keeping_the_pressure_up, there wasn't any discussion about the list of articles. Also, did not see a discussion on that editor's talk page either. Are they are a sock of some COI editor? Not sure how to proceed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Onel5969: happy to elaborate. "Quarantining" is a term I and other regulars at COIN use in reference to any editor's right to unilaterally draftily (i.e move to the draftspace) new articles, articles with only a small number of active editors, or articles we feel are lacking in content as an alternative to deletion. As far as COIN is concerned, it is very useful for dealing with singles purpose accounts, though it is normally not enforced if it is contested by another editor. As for Minal Khan, I moved the article to the draftspace as it was listed as being a possible attempt to avoid ACTRIAL, and then added COI and UDP tags as the image used on the article is listed as the article creator's own work, which normally implies a connection to the subject. I have in all honest though little of the article since my last edit [18].

Now for how we proceed. Looking at User:RidaJunejo's contributions, they have continued to edit articles in regards to the Pakistani television industry, implying to me they are more likely a fan than a one-time coi editor. I will ask them if their image is truly their "own work" as claimed [19], and then decide if to remove my COI/UDP tags; I will note that a search this morning seems to imply the image is from another source and is improperly licensed, but I still wish to ask RidaJunejo in person, so to speak.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I get notificiation when user mentioned me, you think of me as paid editor because i uploaded pic of her, actually that image was of screenshot from her drama serial. Wikipidea allows images which are not copyrighted and that image was not available on google that time thats why i tagged my own work.

All well and good, I have removed my COI tag from Minal Khan and flagged the image in question for speedy deletion. @RidaJunejo: and @Onel5969:, anything else I can do for either of you?--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, talk page stalker here. RidaJunejo, it should be assumed that the tv series itself is copyrighted by the production company. Taking a screenshot from the TV or live stream does not make it your work or release copyright. In most cases, this will be a copyright violation. Pls see WP:SCAN. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

No, thanks SamHolt6 for your help and your explanation (you too, Jake Brockman). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you have created several art stubs for the Metropolitan Museum of Art collection. Thanks for your work! Since they released their images and ~metadata there has been a lot of buzz around this and of course it is worthwhile work. I noticed you are clever enough to add categories and create talkpages so I just wanted to nudge you to add your articles to Wikidata items (when applicable) too. The entire oil painting collection was imported to Wikidata already (not the loans, in case you were wondering why some but not all paintings you saw on your last visit were in Wikidata). The images were uploaded and are on Commons with a "DP" in the filename, so if you click on that you can find the Q number. I just linked two of your recent creations and I hope you will continue to make painting stubs (not just for the Met of course). Jane (talk) 08:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jane023: understood. I have linked my most recent stub article (The Trojan Women Set Fire to their Fleet (Claude Lorrain)) to the image's respective profile at Wikidata [20]. Thanks for giving me the pointer, and note i'm always open to more advice. Cheers.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks, Jane (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The page you wrote has been selected for quick deletion for the following reason: The page does not seem to be good enough. You can ask for it to be undeleted.

Did you even put it at Articles for Creation project page? —H172, 17:06, 21 August 2018

With respect Heating, new Wikipedia articles are not required to have been put through AfC if the have been made by editors who pass ACTRIAL, as I do. I should also note that, while custom speedy deletion descriptions are acceptable, most editor appropriate being given a policy-derived reasons for why their pages have been flagged for deletion.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Failed to add these sources on first draft, which should pass as significant coverage:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coral-pena-on-movie-the-post-steven-spielberg-meryl-streep/ http://www.fox5ny.com/good-day/241232269-video https://deadline.com/2016/03/24-legacy-dan-bucatinsky-coral-pena-charlie-hofheimer-join-fox-pilot-1201714780/

Thanks

Meepletar (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Genoese Navy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brillant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Why do you want to delete this? What is so hurry? He is a sports person from India and representing India at the 2018 Asian Games.
I have put in information available on internet, wish people will add more information and so do I.
Nitin.kunjir (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Notability is the issue; see Talk:Amitesh Mishra for my deletion logic.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello SamHolt6. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Amitesh Mishra, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: full-length feature in RS (The Financial Express (India)) indicates significance. Thank you. SoWhy 07:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

		The New Page Reviewer's Silver Award
		Thanks for your work reviewing new articles over the last year, which total more than 2000. In particular, your deletion tag log shows a very good record. Thanks for your efforts and keep up the good work. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: thanks, I will try to keep up the good* work.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, hope you will be fine. we meet earlier one month ago here. Actually i need your help as i can see you have page movers and new page reviewer rights. I was about to create Zara Noor Abbas but that page was protected at main space thats why i create it on draft but cant move it to mainspace. Is there any option how could we do this. I also submitted it for review will you kindly please check and review that page. RidaJunejo (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@RidaJunejo: I see. The article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zara Noor Abbas (concluded on 5 October 2017), but was then recreated and deleted two more times. After the third creation the page name was protected from creation, meaning the article cannot be created under that name again. I will review the article over the next few hours, maybe make some edits, and then possibly* consider moving it to the mainspace. Any further references you can cite (that meet WP:RS, of course) would be helpful.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6:, Thank you for your support and response. Actually that time she was a cult following because of her on-air drama series thats why may be recreated again and again. As of now she has many news coverage and deserves separate article, and i cited maximum of WP:RS in draft, will also include other RS in future.--RidaJunejo (talk)

its a regular and popular show on uk tv and the person is presenting is well known on internet and on social media. I will add some more info as well. he is into films etc as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulessjesus (talk • contribs) 00:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi SamHolt6, thanks for taking out time to read my article, please is there any guidelines I miss out. If there is can you provide me with Tips and solutions. Thanks for your Aigbokhan Chukwuemeka Ogbeiwi (talk) 04:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing Jay Pizzle, SamHolt6.

Unfortunately Joe Roe has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

CSD declined.

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

– Joe (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, SamHolt6. I've seen you editing recently and you seem like an experienced Wikipedia editor. Would you please consider applying to become a pending changes reviewer? Pending changes reviewers have the ability to accept pending revisions on pages with pending changes protection or revert them. It doesn't take much time to do, but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Kindly read Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes before making your decision. Thanks. SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 21:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Alex Shih (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

A good outcome, thanks Alex.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Greetings!

You are receiving this message because your username or portal was listed as a participant of a WikiProject that is related to Africa, the Carribean, Cinema or theatre.

This is to introduce you to a new Wikiproject called AfroCine. This new project is dedicated to improving the Wikipedia coverage of the history, works, people, places, events, etc, that are associated with the cinema, theatre and arts of Africa, African countries, the carribbean, and the diaspora. If you would love to be part of this or you're already contributing in this area, kindly list your name as a participant on the project page here.

Furthermore, In the months of October and November, the WikiProject is organizing a global on-wiki contest and edit-a-thon tagged: The Months of African Cinema. If you would love to join us for this exciting event, also list your username as a participant for this event here. In preparation for the contest, please do suggest relevant articles that need to be created or expanded in different countries, during this event!

If you have any questions, complaints, suggestions, etc., please reach out to me personally on my talkpage! Cheers!--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it mistake to delete Marko Kolanovic page it no reason whatever, I think page should remain StarWarsGlenny (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@StarWarsGlenny: Ok, if in the future you believe an article should be kept, you can contest said article's deletion on its talk page. This all being said, you should consider my warning to you as your final warning; you were blocked once before for disruptive editing, and warned twice before about removing speedy deletion templates from articles.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello SamHolt6. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wrongspeak, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Having been created by a notable person indicates importance/significance (WP:CCSI#WEB). Thank you. SoWhy 07:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

All well and good.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You marked this page for speedy deletion, so I am re-submitting the page with changes after rewriting the information in my own words and so hope the copyright issue is resolved for good. Kindly leave a comment instead of deleting it if there are any more issues, I will ensure they are addressed asap. Thankyou. I am new here and wiki is a bit complicated so still learning my way around these rules! (wikimonkey 10:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimonkey20 (talk • contribs)

@Wikimonkey20: ok, but note in the future that Wikipedia cannot tolerate copyright violations of any kind, per WP:COPYVIO. As an open-source website that exists within the public domain, the republishing of any content from other sources infringes on the latter's copyright.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello SamHolt6,

First off thanks for reviewing my page "Yang Li", that was my first wikipedia page. :) I was wondering in general how a page could be reviewed, since I myself am not sure how I got that page to be reviewed. I just created the article Yang Li (fashion designer), and waited a bit for it to get reviewed and show up on google. However, I recently created another page called "Kiko Kostadinov" (you can view it on my profile page) This page has not been reviewed, and it is searchable within wikipedia but not on Google. I was wondering how I could get my page to be reviewed, since I submitted it multiple times to articles for creation and did not get a response at all. Would it be a burden for you to review the article? Thanks so much and I apologize for any inconvenience.

From parallel2paradise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parallel2paradise (talk • contribs) 16:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Parallel2paradise: sorry for my belated response. As far as your questions are concerned, new articles that have not been created by autopatrolled editors or admins are listed as "unreviewed", and appear at Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol for New Page Reviewers and Admins to review. A "reviewed" article is an article that has been checked and "reviewed" in accordance with Wikipedia's policies (mostly WP:NOTE) and the reviewer's personal preference. A "reviewed" article is not necessarily error-free, but are deemed of good enough quality to be listed as reviewed. As for your other question, Google posts all Wikipedia articles (even unreviewed ones; I used to have my articles reviewed as well), but they tend to post "reviewed" articles faster for whatever reason. Hope this helps, good luck with your editing!--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article First Opium War you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Alex Shih -- Alex Shih (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The edit I made that you have recently undone and deemed unconstructive corrects a significant inaccuracy. Ramos did not make his debut as a tennis umpire at a 2007 Wimbledon final. To read that an umpire began his or her career by officiating one of the most prestigious matches in tennis is perplexing and would be extraordinary if true. Consulting the source cited, it becomes clear that 2007 was Ramos' Wimbledon final debut; I can't even be sure whether this was his Grand Slam final debut without further research. I'm saddened that you would label my edit as "speculation tantamount to vandalism" in the revision history, and I hope you will restore the edit or make a correction of similar spirit.

Hocahydelowacast (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hocahydelowacast: my apologies, you are correct and I have restored your edit. I also should apologize for the vandalism tag, I miss-read you edit to be a statement on Ramos' future prospects as an umpire.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm SamHolt6. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. TEST, what happens when I warn myself? SamHolt6 (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sam, I have just seen the recent activity on the Buchalter article and also the investigation. I wanted to make it clear that I have no connection to previous attempts. The firm asked me to look into this due to my experience in content writing. The version I uploaded recently was part of the draft I put together, so I was still looking to expand this over the coming days.

You mentioned that due to its history, AFC might be best. As I am unconnected to the previous problems, it would be good to know what you mean by its history. My plan was always to speak about my connection to the company, but wanted to get the content finalized first (as I mentioned above it was still a working progress) and not sure if my approach has caused this latest issue? CoachCarter14 (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@CoachCarter14: clarifying your connection to Buchalter would be the first step to take. As an editor with a conflict of interest in regards to the firm, you must comply with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline. Specifically, editors with a conflict of interest are strongly discouraged from editing relevant articles, and are instead expected to request other editors make edits for them. Depending on the nature of your relationship, you may also need to consider WP:PAID. As for the Sockpuppet investigation, I will be sustaining it as the topic of Buchalter has had a history of attracting sock accounts, the latest being in May 2018. Your disclosure of your relation to Buchalter (while avoiding WP:OUTING, mind you) and the results of the SPI will determine how you should proceed.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I’m writing about Wikipedia pages Draft:Brihans Natural Products Ltd. and [[Draft:Sheetal agashe]. I am a regular customer of the brand and so I made edits according to What the notice said on the page, I have also met Sheetal ma’am at Femina awards function. But I haven’t been paid to make any edits, I only did changes as a fan of the company. If any previous Pr company have previously made any paid changes, I though I cleaned up that with my edits.

I apologise if you are angry with my editing, I am very sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.220.81.67 (talk) 12:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Noted, but unfortunately you edits seem to be unproductive, and recent attempts (by another ip) to remove maintenance templates from the two drafts in question is downright disruptive. The fact of the matter is that Brihans Natural Products Ltd. recently became the target of a known sockfarm that dabbled in paid/coi editing (per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simbalillyoreo/Archive, and now these new ips are being investigated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Simbalillyoreo, filed by another editor mind you. Rather than fix the article, this recent and highly suspect editing has only raised the level of concern around the article and further justified the COI/UDP tags. As for yourself, if you have the connection to aspect of the company (as you comments imply), you are to abide by WP:COI and refrain from editing the article as this would only add to the confusion. Rather, you should request changes at the relevant draft's talk page.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello SamHolt, Got your message about the incomplete tag I added to the article on serial killer Joseph Roy Metheny. The reason it was added is this: Like many articles this one is severely underdeveloped, consisting of a lead section and little else (a lazy way to go about things if you know what I mean). It really needs more detail on Metheny'life, murders, and arrest which needs to be added to the article with proper citations from reliable sources. Unfortunately there are a lot of high importance articles on serial killers that have been relegated to the sad state of underdevelopment and obscurity. The fact that there are not a lot of GA and FA class serial killer articles is just sad. The best way to fix that is to get more people involved in the complete, and proper expansion of articles, starting with the ones like this.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: as good a reason as any. I'm a supporter of good-quality stub articles for things like individual works of art, but I agree with you that biographies should be fleshed out more, especially if information is easily accessible. Good luck with your future editing.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello SamHolt6

Greetings!

Thank you for the quick and prompt review I really appreciate it. I followed the guidelines to be very specific and not to send a message that we are trying to promote ourselves. If you could highlight and assist me regarding this I would very much appreciate it as this is the first time I am doing this and we don't want to break any wikipedia's policy. I would be more than happy if any moderator on wikipedia can write a neutral article about the organization and I can provide the necessary documents required as well.

I look forward to your response!

Thanks in advance

Arpit — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArpitDubey09 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@ArpitDubey09: thanks for reaching out to me, I will try to be concise in expressing my concerns. To begin, I do not see the text of the article to be overly-promotional, but the article seems to exist in order to promote the company. This is often a secondary concern that can be overcome if the company is notable, but sadly I do not see how the company can meet Wikipedia's criteria for entry, WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. For example, the sources cited by the article are either 1) trivial mentions in passing from press release-esque news stories (press releases are invalidated from being cited by WP:NCORP), or 2) are not independent from the subject and built on interviews with members of the company or written using information provided by the company, and hence are primary sources. Furthermore, the article does not assert a credible claim to significance for the company, which is a requirement from most articles on Wikipedia. With all of this in mind, I recommend that you wait for your company to, through its hopefully successful business enterprises, generate more coverage in independent sources. NV Gallery's planned release in the UK and US will likely help with this.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6 Thank you for the explanation that pretty much clears everything. I will try to get the independent sources and re-do the draft to make it more neutral. Have a great day ahead! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArpitDubey09 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for helping me know the reason why the template was reverted back. I have put a proper reason as to why the template had been removed. Thank you! --Fastbucky2000 (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rk566RUFine. MER-C 15:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hii the page i createdDraft:Apoorva (actress) was moved by GSS to draftspace can you tell why it was moved i have provided reliable source to the artical please help Iamheentity (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Iamheentity: I think you have it now, but I moved the article to a new name, and did not move it to the draftspace.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I know that you did not move the artical GSS moved it i am just asking the reason why it was moved please helpIamheentity (talk) The page i created is having sources from a good news websiteIamheentity (talk)

@Iamheentity: GSS stated in his edit description that the draft is "not yet ready to be included in the mainspace it required reliable sources". You can ask them about it yourself, to be sure.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Iamheentity: Please see my message on your talk page that I left just after moving your article. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

Hi SamHolt6, can I request you to have a look at these pages? Recently, the page for Dennis M. Levi was moved to drafts by you and the page creator was blocked as it was a spam account. A new page Dennis Levi is on the mainspace again. I did some digging and found that the blocked account had created a page for Michael Belkin, an optalmologist, which was deleted as well. The page has been recreated, which is Michael Belkin (ophthalmologist), by another user but the one who created Dennis Levi is actively contributing to it. I thought it was logical to bring this to your notice. Have a nice day!Csgir (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Csgir: I agree with your assessment, thanks for the tip. I have moved both of the articles the editor in question edited to the draftspace, and have filed a new SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ws95684. Cheers.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Happy to help, SamHolt6. Csgir (talk) 06:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for my guidance. I've corrected the article Aima Baig with change of birth year. I've also added citation for reference from a valid and confirmed source. You can check the source also. And since I'm not an expert, so for any reason if my change is reverted, it's your responsibility to correct it properly. Thank you again for help and support. Tahirhas225 (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tahirhas225: not a problem at all, it is a very common mistake that new editors (including myself, years ago) make.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi SamHolt6, I drafted the article - Draft: Genevieve Howland - that you declined. I want to understand what is the minimum number of subscribers on YouTube that verifies for being significant. What else can I do to improve the page? Thanks. --AlphaKGN (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

@AlphaKGN: by far the best way to improve the draft would be to find sources that are directly concerned with the subject. Currently, you have cited sources that mention Howland as one-of-many or as part of a trend, but per WP:SIGCOV these constitute trivial mentions; thus, finding a source has Howland as its principal topic would be an excellent addition to the draft.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: Got it. I did a quick research and found some book reviews. Will reviews of her book do or no? --AlphaKGN (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@AlphaKGN: it depends on the type of the review. If it is an opinion by a non-notable reviewer, it is not reliable or significant, whereas it would be if the reviewer is well known. It also matters what the reviewer says about Howland in particular; for example, if the reviewer describes the book in question as groundbreaking or innovative, it make a case for Howland to meet WP:AUTHOR. If it is a more standard review that praises the content of the book and not Howland herself, it would not be a significant source.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: Thank you for the guidance, Sam. I will go search for more pieces of evidence and relevant references.--AlphaKGN (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sam,

My apologies I've been trying to improve the Rob Gros page, and am rather new to this. Could I ask for your assistance in how best to go about removing the banners on the top of the page? Happy to assist with any clean up that is required to meet the standards.

Thanks HayC2 (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@HayC2: I have no soft answers for you, HayC2. You can improve the article by adding more sources and accompanying footnotes, but from my view the COI/UDP tags are warranted given the editing activity surrounding the article. Safe to say, your recent attempts to remove the tag coupled with an SPA uploading [21] the image used in the article have not helped things. Fair warning; you may also want to standby for a mention at WP:COIN in the next few days.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi SamHolt6,

Thank you for your response and help.

My last attempt to improve things was to try and reduce the page to only focus on the medical innovation Rob was involved in which makes up the majority of sources and footnotes. I felt this strengthened it and corrected the notability issue. Originally, I thought more detail would help but in hindsight, I would've done it differently and kept it much more succinct.

Can only apologize for the amateur editing in that case, it was a genuine attempt to try and resolve the issues as I understood them. I am happy to add more sources. Do you have any further advice while i can ask?

Hi SamHolt6,

Do you think it is worth me editing the article further or is it a candidate for deletion? It says on the cleanup page it is best to resolve the issue on this talk page.

If I were to edit the article significantly to reach a more neutral viewpoint - could this resolve the close-connection banner? (or would it make it worse as previously) I ask as it would be preferable to have the page taken down than to have it continue in its current form. Am I within my right to take it down or should I pursue the improvements.

Thanks again for your time on this. It is appreciated.

HayC2 (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

HayC2 (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

This is regarding the page Pets of Imran Khan where you put your vote as Keep but please check this links too https://gulfnews.com/news/asia/pakistan/imran-khan-s-pet-dogs-get-official-wikipedia-page-1.2264449, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/imran-khan-s-dogs-have-their-day-on-wikipedia-lw9k79fnk there is smell of paid editing after checked this sources thats why i want to put my vote as Delete, please will you help me? 39.44.173.80 (talk) 07:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any indications of undisclosed (or disclosed, for that matter) paid editing. Having read practically every source cited by the article, I remember that some of the post-6 August sources specifically indicate that the article creator was part of the Wikipedia:Help_desk. This is why they are quoted so much.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you don’t need a source from what is directly apparent and supported within the actual content of the page. All of their videos fit the classification for propaganda. Nevertheless:

“: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause also : a public action having such an effect”

Is Mariam Webster’s definition of propaganda a good choice for a source?

Please let me know how “Prager University” does not fit this criteria. I will wait with baited breath.

ΚΛΤΛΝΛGØD^Τλłκ 05:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@KATANAGOD: noted, but one proper noun is conspicuously absent from the definition you provided; Prager University. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia built around verifiable, reliable sources. It is not a place to right great wrongs, nor it is a place for personal definitions or descriptions of a subject. Merrian-Webster is under almost every circumstance not a reliable source as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and MW does not assign descriptors, only definitions.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Can I use their own videos as a clear source of obvious propaganda? According [Wikipedia:Verifiability] that counts as a reliable source. I can provide sources from the internet from publishers/writers with repute. I'm not using personal definitions either, nor am I righting.. wrongs? Its just the objective truth. I'll concede that the definition of Propaganda according to Verifiability. Would this be a better source? It fits most of the criteria presented in the subsection in verifiability; RS. I'm a strong believer in neutrality so hopefully this will suffice.

ΚΛΤΛΝΛGØD^Τλłκ

@KATANAGOD: unless their video's refer to themselves as propaganda ( it is also WP:PRIMARY), we cannot label them as propaganda using Wikipedia's voice. The Motherjones source is a start, and maybe could merit inclusion further down in the article, but to label PragerU as propaganda in the article lead would require more reliable sources that also describe it as such.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

We’re not labeling them anything, it’s the objective truth as I said earlier. You can’t say someone isn’t a murderer because the definition of murder doesn’t include the culprits name. The primary source isn’t going to label themselves propaganda because that label obviously goes against their interests. This is an example where regulations and rules are a direct detriment to the public and free information itself. Gatekeeping for the sake of it is ludicrous. If anything I think I’m Being bold and applying basic common sense. This should not be a debate about sources rather the accuracy of the actual term and how it relates to the subject. Propaganda isn’t even a negative connotation, it’s a descriptor.

ΚΛΤΛΝΛGØD^Τλłκ 15:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@KATANAGOD: if we were to include your edit to the lead, we would be describing PragerU as propaganda in Wikipedia's voice. This would be no issue if many, many reliable sources described PragerU as "propaganda", but instead we see only a few using such a label. Instead, most sources rightly describe Prager as a conservative-minded media hub, and as such Wikipedia reflects that. Contrary to your point above, the debate will always be about sources, as Wikipedia (and encyclopedias in general) are not concerned with something so subjective as "truth" or "accuracy"; rather, Wikipedia is centered around Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, per WP:VER.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Well that's shit. ΚΛΤΛΝΛGØD^Τλłκ 00:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi SamHolt6, I updated the bio for Mitchell_Goldhar, and it was reverted for COI. So what is the process for updating the bio. Thx

(Necamswiki (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2018 (UTC))

@Necamswiki: hello. The reason you were deleted is that you were asked about having a potential conflict of interest at your user:talk page and at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Mitchell_Goldhar, but declined to respond to these inquests. Per the COIN discussion, you have a clear conflict of interest in regards to Goldhar, and thus must refrain from editing his article directly; rather, you can recommend change be made at Talk:Mitchell Goldhar.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

How/What do I have to do to recommend the change to be made? (Necamswiki (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC))

@Necamswiki: start a new thread at Talk:Mitchell Goldhar and list the changes you want to see made. If there are many, I recommend using (*) asterisks to create bullet points.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The current page is only 4 lines, My changes are a lot, to use bullet points do I have to do per paragraph? (Necamswiki (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC))

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

You were right, I found a link on another site to the exact moment he said it. Sorry for deleting it and thanks for fixing my mistake. Here is the link to the exact moment he said it if you wish to include it, I haven't done much editing and dunno the protocols.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQjNhajzR7A&t=1h29m31s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.208.152.37 (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello SamHolt, Please give me your input on the draft. After looking at Texas Pete, Valentina, and some of the other hot sauces, I believe it to be more on the guidelines to what is required and I believe that I have made the necessary corrections that were mentioned.

I am of Puerto Rican descent and love our culture, but I am not being paid nor am I affiliated with these people.

Thank you for your help. Boricuaqueen (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Boricuaqueen: thank you for reaching out to me. As for how to improve Draft:Don Ricardo Sauce Co., I highly recommend you find more WP:RS concerning the topic, with special emphasis being placed on finding coverage that is independent of the subject. As far as the conflict of interest tags are concerned, I am going to be maintaining the tags. Unfortunately, off-wiki evidence (which I cannot disclose here due to WP:OUTING) indicates that you may have written about the topic before, and the only other editor to make changes to the draft, an ip address, is traceable to Ocala, Florida, in the vicinity of the company headquarters of the brand.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sam-

New to wikipedia. Hoping to get your help and insight in creating this page appropriately.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.40.19 (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello SamHolt6, I just wanted to say thank you, for your response in regards to the draft. Yes I will continue to find more information. I now understand as to the conflict of interest in question. I will continue to work and look forward to hearing from you as to furthering my work on this. Thank you...Boricuaqueen (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello SamHolt6. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Qudian, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Being listed on NYSE (with a 1.64B mkt cap) is credible claim of significance. Thank you. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The article has been deleted via G11 at any rate.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to this, why did you reverse my edit? Thanks. H — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hesperian Nguyen (talk • contribs) 21:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@Hesperian Nguyen: hello, I have filed your question under a new heading. From your comment I am guessing your question is in reference to the COI and UDP tags I placed on Jim Ricks. I have restored these maintenance templates after you removed them as their is credible reason to believe the article creator has a conflict of interest; for example, they have claimed [22] the image used on the article as their own work, implying a close connection. The article creator has also failed to respond to a [23] inquest as to whether or not they have a conflict of interest. As such, the templates will remain, as the editor in question is the originator of the majority of the article's content.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sam, Ok I get it. Thanks. I thought the COI might be for me. I did volunteer on his project In Search of the Truth and loved it... I really think its an amazing global art project! Slight bias I guess! Thanks again for taking the time to explain. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Surely this is free - you just haven't tagged it properly. Please tag the larger version. Johnbod (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure I've asked this before, but when creating these extremely short stubs, you should at least give the nationality of the artist and a national category for the painting. But if the date isan't actually known, don't add a year category - you could add a decade one. Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sam, can you please take a look at Storify News? The founder is probably the one creating the page - names are same. He was making disruptive edits to the Storify page by changing and directing the reference links to his website - have undone them. I added a "notability" tag to Storify News but the editor removed it without giving any reasons. Have marked the page for deletion as 'Storify News' is not notable and the content is promotional. Have a great day! Csgir (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Csgir: the editor in question has just been blocked for advertising, and I have added a few articles to my watchlist. An interesting case... their creation of User:SEO Marketing makes me think they were trying to manipulate Google's search algorithms in a way I haven't seen before. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--SamHolt6 (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6:, yes, I noticed that. I left a note to @SOWHY:, requesting to delete the saved draft of the same page because the it was copied from the [[Storify}]]page. I had a question, which I was reluctant to ask, because I don't want to spoil anyone's work here. But, it is a necessary question - if a page gets deleted a couple of times for suspected COI work, and gets "recreated " by an editor with various Wiki rights, will it be COI or non-COI???Do note that this happened within a week of each incident. Csgir (talk) 13:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Csgir: it depends on the context. If another editor re-creates an article that was previously deleted for COI reasons, we should assume good faith (WP:AGF and hold that the editor has seen some value in the topic. However, if the text or content is the same (copy-pasted for example) as that created by a COI editor, it should still be tagged with a conflict of interest template.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, SamHolt6, and welcome to Women in Red. I see you have already written a few short biographies about women as well as many articles about paintings. In addition to further biographies, it would be good to see more articles on paintings and other artworks by women artists. If you run into any difficulties or need assistance, please let me know. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018 at Women in Red

		Please join us... We have four new topics for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons in October! New: Clubs Science fiction + fantasy STEM The Mediterranean Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

thx

Thanks for your help Sam Victuallers (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Victuallers: you are very welcome, and thank you for the twitter exposure. On a similar vein, I created Lela Karagianni a few days ago, and am now looking for more female members of the Greek resistance that are notable.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which has been dedicated to improving contents that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora.

This is a global online edit-a-thon, which is happening in at least 5 language editions of Wikipedia, including the English Wikipedia! Join us in this exciting venture, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section, if you haven't done so already.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing Users who are able to achieve the following:

• Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
• Country Winners
• Diversity winner
• High quality contributors
• Gender-gap fillers
• Page improvers
• Wikidata Translators

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:50, 03 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey Sam. I have two questions: I disclosed that I'm a paid editor long time before on my userpage - why is there a ((UDP'))-mark of the article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:GUB_Investment_Trust And what can I do to get that article away from the draftspace? Best!

@Luuuuuka: hello. The first step that you should take is completing your disclosures as a paid editor. Note that the English Wikipedia's paid editing policies are different from those of dewiki. The relevant polices are WP:PAID and WP:COI; these must be complied with.

• To begin, you should disclose (or ask me to do it for you) on your paid article's talk pages that you have been paid to edit them.
• On your user page, you must disclose who has paid you to edit for them; currently, you have disclosed you are being paid by a marketing firm, but you must (per WP:PAID) disclose who has paid this firm to employ you to edit.
• Now that you have disclosed you have edited for pay, you must comply with WP:COI and WP:PAID and not edit articles directly. Instead, you should use a requested changes template. You also should send all articles you create - including those not created for pay - through WP:AFC.

As far as Draft:GUB Investment Trust, the draft needs more cleanup in order for it to be considered for restoration to the mainspace; this has been noted by anther editor as well, but you can submit the article to AfC if you wish. The same goes for Draft:Khubaib Ali Mohammed, which I have draftified and now must go through AfC. I will also generate a standard COI message on your talk page. Note that you will be expected to comply with all relevant policies. Best.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @SamHolt6: for the informations - Life long learning... Have a great day!--Luuuuuka (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(({1))}

please note discussion here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/14._Oktober_2018#GUB_Investment_Trust The paid editors tried to mix facts of different companies with similar names (GUB Investment Trust, GUB Unternehmensbeteiligungen, GUB Capital AG, ... at least one of them filed bankcruptcy and is out of business now) pretending that there is just one corporation. --Zxmt (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi SamHolt6,

I see you have moved Testbook's page to the Draft:Testbook (company). I would really appreciate it if you could let me know if the article has any issue. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshitija G (talk • contribs) 16:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Kshitija G: hello, thank you for reaching out to me. I moved Testbook to the draftspace for several reasons; 1) a simmilar draft of the article was declined by another editor in April, 2) the article was picked up as a possible attempt to evade ACTRIAL at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Suspicious_new_articles, and 3) the article likely fails to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. As for how to have the article returned to the mainspace, AfC is your best option. I highly recommend you cite more reliable, independent, in-depth coverage concerning the company. Best.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sam, Thanks for the response. I agree with you that the article was previously declined the last year on April 2017, it says written like an advertisement and did not have enough coverage. But now, it has been covered by several mainstream media such as The Telegraph, India Today, The Economic Times, VCCircle etc. This time, I have removed all promotional stuff making it neutral and added some more references to back it up and it does pass WP:NCORP. I would request you to please reconsider this. Thank you! Kshitija G (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sam, awaiting your response. Thanks.Kshitija G (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

		Three new topics for WiR's online editathons in November, two of them supporting other initiatives New: Religion Deceased politicians Asia Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): WikiProject AfroCine launches (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Thanks for reviewing DXRC, SamHolt6.

Unfortunately Domdeparis has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Article already deleted by discussion and the sources do not show it meets WP:NRADIO. It should have a least been tagged for notabilty

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

Dom from Paris (talk) 10:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Let me bring to your attention the following: 1. I have absolutely no conflict of interest with the subject. The image is from a chance meeting 2 years ago at a conference. 2. I am a researcher in the same field and you could note that I have made numerous edits to different pages related to the field of nanomedicine and biomaterials. 3. The article was properly requested through AfC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Medicine/People_in_medicine#Medical_scientists 4. Should you have any further issues kindly feel free to address me. 5. In the field of Nanomedicine the subject has made immense contribution to the knowledge and development of drug delivery systems. 6. The subject has been the recipient of the prestigious Ellis island medal of honor and the Rusnano prize (considered prominent in the field of nanotechnology) 7. There is no significant reason for the subject not to be listed on Wikipedia. Should you have any conclusive evidence, please feel free to discuss them rather than delete the page. 8. I have fixed sources of income and editing wikipedia is certainly does not fall into it. I do not edit wikipedia for questionable people. Be careful before you smear such an allegation. 9. As I understand you are a veteran on Wikipedia, please feel free to use the talk page of the page in question before acting in a questionable manner.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemantunadkat (talk • contribs) 17:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC) 

@Hemantunadkat: noted. However, you do (per WP:COI, which has a subsection covering academics) have a conflict of interest in regards to the subject; the fact you were able to generate a high-quality image of the subject is testament to that. Note also that the COI template (I struck the UDP tag) is used to indicate maintenance is needed, which the draft does need, and is not intended to defame any editor. The COI issue, real or not, is of secondary concern to other aspects of the draft. For example, parts of the article do not include inline citations, and some sources cited in the article fall under WP:PRIMARY. Note also that, if an article is to be properly sent through WP:AFC, it must be reviewed by a member of WikiProject AFC; you moved the article to the mainspace, but are not part of WP:AFC, and so the article never had the chance to be looked over. Thus, the article should remain in the draftspace for further improvement before being submitted and officially reviewed by a WP:AFC member.--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Hemantunadkat: also, if I can ask; what did you use to capture the image used in the article?--SamHolt6 (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Noting also that in early September 2018 another editor, User:Morteza.mahmoudi (who also had a connection to the subject), created Omid Farokhzad multiple times before being blocked. This is why the draft is titled to include the subject's middle name, as his professional name has been salted due to repeated recreations.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6:

I do not even have an Academic COI. I am neither a collaborator nor co-author with the subject. List of my publications can be found on https://scholar.google.com.sg/citations?user=77oKUO0AAAAJ&hl=en. The COI on academics clause if read by a wise person also states "How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense." If attending a conference where the subject is a speaker constitute COI then I leave it to the admins and arbitrators. I had seen the article by User:Morteza.mahmoudi (again I have no connection to this user in question whatsoever) and it definitely needed to be worked upon which I did. I did move the article to mainspace as I felt it was reasonably neutral. Regarding the primary citations, I will be grateful if you will be kind enough to point me to them. Furthermore, you may want to note that WP:PRIMARY also states that "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." It is definitely not a crime to carry a DSLR camera to a conference and I do it all the times since I could afford it. I took the picture of the subject at World Medical Innovation Forum at the Westin hotel in Boston sometime in April 2016. I have taken pictures of more subjects that are on Wikipedia. If you really want to help clean up, I must draw your attention to genuine issues such as Akhilesh_K._Gaharwar which is created by the subject's own wife. I put the COI and POV tags there, also the notability of the subject is questionable.

Hi Sam,

Thanks for taking the time to review my last article. I would be happy to know why you thought it’s worth deleting?

I am really trying hard to add a relevent topic. I tried and focus on tech as that is my area of interest. I did first try to add a topic about the Company’s CEO, as I thought he was notable. I accapted the fact it was not be the case. However, after discovering broken links to the Company on different wiki pages I thought it might be more suitable to add the Company instead. Harvard Business School published a case study about them so I don’t really see how they are not relevent. Happy to give you my identifying information so you may see there is no conflict of interest.

Thanks, Nate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate.stancil (talk • contribs) 14:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The Taylor Brands article has a history of being created (including creation by COI/UDP editors, in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use) and then later deleted. Thus, the article should go through WP:AFC so that it is reviewed before being created.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi SamHolt6!

Thank you so much for the welcome. I really appreciate it! I am still figuring out the Wikipedia ways, so your help is much appreciated.

Apologies for not providing sufficient explanation for my edits to the Lisa Brown page. I was removing the misleading content that was originally included by previous users. The additions by previous users regarding Lisa Brown's trips to Latin America are misleading and take things out of context. We can offer contact information for the original author of the article, who understands how comments have been taken out of context for purposes of political slander perpetuated by Brown's opponent (Abdon Pallasch). I was hoping to correct the Wikipedia page to be accurate in the following: Lisa Brown did not support the Sandanista government. She was only concerned about human rights. She was not in Nicaragua as an activist, but as a UN-sanctioned elections supervisor. Regarding her teaching, she taught the same macro-economics course in Nicaragua as she taught at Eastern Washington University.

The trip to Cuba and her praising of aspects of its healthcare system should be removed, as this is not a relevant trip to highlight when talking about a 20-year career that included disagreeing with Democrats and fighting to pass a Rainy Day Fund, in addition to dozens of economic accomplishments.

Also, I removed this line: "Approximately 40% of the citizens in Spokane relied on public assistance programs during Brown's tenure.[22]" As this is a completely made up statistic - the source article indicates that.

Please reach out with any further guidance for maintaining the accuracy of this page. Thank you so much for reaching out!

Mrforster1 (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Mrforster1: apologies for the belated response. Please note that, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's content is formulated around what is noted in reliable sources. If you disagree with what the sources cited by the article say, the burden is on you to disprove them. This can be done via you (or any other interested party) starting a new discussion at Talk:Lisa Brown (Washington politician), but please note that Wikipedia is also not intended to be censored. Thank you for your time.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, in light of this article [24], I will note that you must disclose any sort of connection you have to the subject. The relevant policy is WP:COI.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gaurav Chaudhary 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/Gaurav Chaudhary (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Aggarwala2727 (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi SamHolt6!

Thank you so much for the clarification. Your assistance in keeping wikipedia honest is very helpful. I have updated the edit for your review which reflects the language used in the article referenced.

I also apologize for the format of this note as I am still learning how Wiki works.

@Truthhistorian1: noted. However, I have reverted the majority (I restored your edition to the subject infobox) of your recent edits at Donna Hylton. I am requesting you discuss the issues you see with the article at Talk:Donna Hylton, per WP:BRD. Best.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@SamHolt6: I have added the comments to Talk:Donna Hylton but I am unsure how to tag you there. Thank you.

@SamHolt6: I have changed the article in accordance with the BLP specifications/rules. I added a new citation to reflect this. Please review the materials on Talk:Donna Hylton and the edit descriptions and please do not revert the changes before replying to me on the talk page. Thanks! Have a great weekend.Truthhistorian1 (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Revisionism

THANKS for keeping the revisionists at bay re the Hylton article. Yours, Quis separabit? 01:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

	BintangWiki Asli
	thank you're has repair my article Kompas (TV Program) Dimas gilang (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey,

I noticed you moved Kompas (TV Program) to Kompas (tv program). Please note that the correct title per WP:NCTV is "TV program". --Gonnym (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Y corrected, thanks for the note.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)