Talk:Maya Beiser

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Superp in topic Conflict of Interest

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Maya Beiser. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Needs to be encyclopedic edit

The article has several warning templates at present. One was "advert|date=November 2017", which I removed after deleting about half the text, which was essentially advertising the subject's wonderfulness. Others remain to be dealt with. The article needs a complete rewrite by someone who cares to and can do it (not me). I do believe the subject is notable. Zaslav (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Conflict of Interest edit

At least three users who contributed significantly to this article appear to have a close relationship with the subject:

Though the article has been improved (promotional content reduced, shopping links removed, etc.), some (often unsourced) puffery still remains. In my view, in its current form, it should be flagged COI. Superp (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Another suspect COI user:

Only ever edited this single article, repeatedly removed maintenance tags. Superp (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

For the record: Rivera1929 responded on my talk page. Superp (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply