User talk:PaperWario

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, PaperWario! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Junvfr ツ (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Speedy deletion declined: Arkady L. Bukh[edit]

Hello PaperWario, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Arkady L. Bukh, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackmcbarn:) From the research I have conducted, this article was likely written at the direction of the attorney.

  1. The attorney's website began to advertise a "As seen as Wikipedia" badge at the same time that the Wikipedia article was written (according to the Wayback Machine).
  2. It was uploaded in its entirety by an account that is no longer active.
  3. No other substantive changes were made since the creation of the article. That means this article owes its existence to the initiative of a single anonymous person, whose account has since been removed.
  4. It is consistent both stylistically ("high-profile attorney") and content-wise with promotional pieces typically written about lawyers. The entire contents of the article consists solely of the list of his clients.

There are 450,000 lawyers in the United States, and a small fraction of them have been involved in cases that warrant an entry in Wikipedia. This one certainly does not.

Those are all reasons to believe that the author had a WP:COI, but having a COI isn't grounds for speedy deletion. You should take the article to WP:AFD if you want it deleted. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arkady Bukh[edit]

Articles are allowed to be improved during AfD. Please review deletion review policy at WP:AFDFORMAT (If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination....). People can view earlier versions if they want but the point is to improve the article to see if it can be salvaged. Thank you. —МандичкаYO 😜 16:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimandia Of course articles are allowed to be edited during AfD. But this calls into question your motives for defending an advertisement clearly written by the attorney himself, given the evidence provided.
My "motives" were merely cleaning it up. You can see from my edits I REMOVED promotional information. The only thing I did was basic cleanup, smooth out the English etc. I think you should familiarize with the WP:AFD policies. I'm not "defending" an advertisement. Based on the amount of coverage and interviews, the subject of the article meets WP:GNG. The article itself being too promotional is irrelevant; the only question is GNG. Please take time to read the AfD policies as you don't seem to understand how it works. Thank you. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimandia I am not sure you have read the notability guidelines yourself. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter. You have pulled a promotional YouTube video and a few obscure articles in a foreign language with regional coverage, most of which only trivially mention the lawyer. An interview in a random medium in a foreign country does not make someone notable. This does not meet the notability requirements in any way whatsoever.
That's a guideline for content. Promotional articles can be fixed to remove promotion. This is called editing. The guidelines for deletion, which you're supposed to read and follow (WP:BEFORE), very specifically, states you should not nominate articles for deletion if they can be improved with editing. Your comment about "obscure articles in a foreign language" shows you truly don't understand Wikipedia's policies that state sources need not be in English (WP:GNG) . You are trying to get this article deleted because you think it's too promotional when that is not a valid reason for deletion, as the article has encyclopdic content (WP:DEL-REASON). See your failed speedy deletion above - an admin looked at it and saw it was not an advertisement. You really should just sit back and let the AfD proceed as normal. Please do not interfere with that process again as you did by reverting genuine improvements - this shows bad faith editing on your part and is disruptive to the goals of Wikipedia. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimandia: You're the one who should sit back and follow rules. This article cannot be improved by editing, because the subject of the article is not notable. You cannot create notability by editing. And you're continuing to throw red herrings and blatantly misrepresenting what has happened with this article. A mod did look at it and did not say it that it wasn't an advertisement. He said it wasn't an unambiguous advertisement and hence did not qualify for a speedy deletion, which is fair. He also suggested that it moves to AfD where it can be scrutinized by other members, and most agree so far that it is in fact an advertisement. The sources you have provided are obscure--the fact that they're in a foreign language is icing on the cake. The kid who hid the Tsarnaev's backpack (hell, I can't even remember his name) is not notable himself, let alone his lawyer. The kid doesn't have his own Wikipedia article, and his existence is explained in one sentence in the Tsarnaev article--so how is it that his lawyer magically appeared in a huge article of his own overnight? Do you realize how many lawyers represent people magnitudes more notable than that Kazakh kid and don't have Wikipedia articles? Fortune 500 CEOs are represented by lawyers every day in cases that are all over the Wall Street Journal, and these people will never have a Wikipedia article, because they know better than to abuse Wikipedia. Seriously, how much are you get paid by this Bukh guy to jeopardize your Wikipedia reputation and act so oblivious??
haha oh my.... That's as ludicrous as if I asked you how much you're getting paid by his competitors to try to delete his article. So lame. Thanks for the LOL. —МандичкаYO 😜 04:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest policy and disclosure[edit]

Information icon Hello, PaperWario. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Sendo.vn, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

  • Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
  • Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
  • Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Brianhe (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Hi there PaperWario. I'm a volunteer on conflict of interest related subjects and came across your contributions in relation to another editor. I have a simple question: are you paid for the things you write about on Wikipedia? If the answer is yes, it's not the end of the world, but there are some things you will have to do to continue editing here. You can just reply here, I'll be watching for an answer. Thanks. Brianhe (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • :::Brianhe Are you trolling me? Because if you are, it worked. Why in the world would you think that I worked for Sendo.vn, and why would a company oriented strictly at the Vietnamese market need to pay someone to create an article in the English version of Wikipedia about them? I also don't understand what you mean by "came across your contributions in relation to another editor." If you mean the argument int the deletion nomination of that phony lawyer article, you should be talking to the other editor who chose to save that article for deletion, because I suspect she's the one who has a conflict of interest. PaperWario (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Companies have many reasons for self-promotion on this Wikipedia, not the least of which being access to the world's capital markets which are conducted in English language. Yes, I'm serious, and the investigation that led me to your creation, sendo.vn, was WP:COIN#Rocket Internet, a real mess with I don't know how many actors involved now. Feel free to chime in there if you have any insights to share as to how sendo or you are or are not involved. Brianhe (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • :::Brianhe Did not think about the capital markets thing and not familiar with Rocket Internet, but no, I am not affiliated with Sendo.vn or their parent company. I am interested in e-commerce startups in Southeast Asia and try to read articles about that region regularly. Also, if you haven't noticed I've created other company pages when they were missing from Wikipedia. But regardless of this, I still need to make two points. First, it's pretty brash to approach a user and straight up accuse him of shilling for someone, based on no evidence whatsoever. And second, I find it mind-boggling that I nominated that fake article about a lawyer for deletion, because it is 100% promotion both in style and content and is linked on his site with a lame "As seen on Wikipedia" badge. It fails for COI, Notability, and other reasons, and yet when I nominated it for deletion, the nomination was met with an editor screaming "COI is not grounds for deletion!!" I suspect that the Wikipedia editor who saved that garbage from deletion has a COI, so maybe you should investigate that. PaperWario (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply and sorry you found the tone "brash" ... part of it is a boilerplate text and the "question" part is an attempt at a new standard form that I've developed, based on text that has been used by another long-term COIN volunteer. We're trying to get to something that actually works in educating people about the COI guideline, and encourages participation in discussions. If you have concerns about another editor's COI, the right place to bring it up is at WP:COIN. However, if the article is their only works and it's already been deleted, don't you think it's water under the bridge? — Brianhe (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • :::Brianhe I appreciate your volunteer work, and I guess sidetracking does happen when you're trying to investigate something so extensive. Regarding that article-- it never got deleted, because the editor in question created so much confusion in the nomination discussion by providing lots of bogus links that the moderating editor declared "no consensus" and let the article stay. But if you look at the article (linked on my page above), it's a clear advertisement and fails COI, Notability and BIO. The lawyer obviously had someone from his office write the whole thing. PaperWario (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for discussing. My experience has also been frustrating at other venues on Wikipedia; in particular I find the SPI process wanting. Separate from that, there are a lot of anti-deletionists, which you have probably found out, who don't care how an article came to be, and in many cases, don't care how bad it is but will make excuses for keeping it around (for someone else to clean up, of course). I migrated to COIN partly because it seems to get more done. You might want to give it a look for the same reasons. Articles sometimes get nominated for deletion as a result, but more often will have several editors pile on to clean up clear conflicted edits. — Brianhe (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ledger (journal)[edit]

The article Ledger (journal) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable new journal that has only been announced yet. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ledger (journal) for deletion[edit]

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Randykitty (talk) 07:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin software implementations[edit]

You argued for merging Bitcoin XT into Bitcoin at Talk:Bitcoin XT. I was wondering whether you also had an opinion on the article Bitcoin Core. It has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Core. --Ysangkok (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Binance Smart Chain (June 13)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
KylieTastic (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, PaperWario! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Binance Smart Chain (June 14)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vermont was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
It would likely be beneficial to include this as a section in Binance, as alone it does not seem to currently be notable.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Vermont (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Binance Smart Chain[edit]

Information icon Hello, PaperWario. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Binance Smart Chain, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Binance Smart Chain[edit]

Hello, PaperWario. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Binance Smart Chain".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 00:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PaperWario&oldid=1215603198"