User talk:MER-C/archives/38

wiki-java

Hello, sorry to interrupt. I have a quick question. I started using wiki-java (which is btw really great) recently on the Georgian Wikipedia. Although I have a bot status and none of my bot's other edits appear in the recent changes, the changes done with java do. Is that normal? Is there any way to remedy it? Thanks in Advance. Regards--Tokoko (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Calling setMarkBot(true) before editing should do the trick. MER-C 02:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Missed that. Great. thanks--Tokoko (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Why our page is deleted ?

Hi,

Can you please tell us, why our page is been deleted. Our company DREAMZ MYNEWCAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED is a registered with Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India. We have all the required papers and Certificate of Incorporation. Our website is www.MyNewCar.In . Our facebook page is verified by Facebook but it seems like Wikipedia is not allowing us to create our page. Companies like Flipkart and ola cabs have their wikipedia page but we are not allowed to create our own page.

122.170.58.44 (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

See here. MER-C 06:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

User:FreshCorp619

Hey. :) This guy is back with a vengeance (probably never left) - after trying the standard mole-whacking in the past, and especially given all the hullaballoo about the return of Billy Hathorn - I decided to go with fairly long-term semi-protection (3 months, generally) on the articles he's been focused on lately. (I've left a honeypot, though, at James Cardinal McGuigan Catholic High School.) I'm not sure what else to do. Until we get those much-needed better blocking tools, his IP hopping makes everything else a problem. :/ Just wanted to stop by and see if you had any thoughts on that approach? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. You should extend the semi-protection if he continues to show up. I would also briefly look at the contribs for that range to see whether a range block is possible. You shouldn't be surprised if better blocking tools fail to solve this problem. MER-C 05:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Why my page was deleted?

I am wondering why my page was deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rana Mahfouz (talk • contribs) 08:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

See here. MER-C 10:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

File:CT of brain of Mikael Häggström large.png listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:CT of brain of Mikael Häggström large.png. Since you had some involvement with the File:CT of brain of Mikael Häggström large.png redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Heads up

Thanks for m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#netflixhd.cf - they found another redirect site (m:User:COIBot/XWiki/surl.im). They may be a good source of information to blacklist, please keep your eyes open on this one. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I see them in the spam blacklist log almost daily. This one is no exception. Unfortunately that log is getting equally as useless as our CAPTCHA. MER-C 13:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

There always is this possibility .. maybe even with a 'one strike and you are out' approach. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I've seen multiple domains with the pirated videos on them -- netflixhd.cf and airingtoday.cf are both not redirects. It might help with the redirects if you add all the currently known destination domains. MER-C 12:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

That was what I was aiming for - add the destination domains and hope that the bots can resolve the redirects (if that happens anyway COIBot will report them as an XWiki report). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Curiosity

How did you get drawn into this? Tiderolls 02:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

ViuTV was listed at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2016-03-10. The deleted history made it obvious that it was a sock. MER-C 03:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Copyright question

Hello, I noticed you are active on the copyright boards and was wondering if you could answer a question. If an editor regularly posts large quotes from copyrighted works within the ref tags, is that a copyright violation? I'm talking about whole paragraphs (and sometimes more) lifted verbatim from books, but they are only visible if a reader clicks or hovers on the ref link. If you're not the right person to ask, could you point me to someone who is? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Depends on how large the quotes are. I'd trim anything longer than four or so sentences. I also suggest calling it an overly long quotation rather than a copyright violation. MER-C 03:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Blacklist Spam Question

Hi MER-C,

Please correct me if this is the wrong location for this.

I own a website, and recently have seen many external links show up that link to my website in the "Spam-blacklist" on wikipedia. I needed help with SEO so I hired a marketing team to boost my website. Everything was going well for several months, but my website has dropped significantly. I can't contact the marketing team I hired or figure out what is going on. Can you point me in the right direction to get this fixed, or give me some help with wikipedia? I'm pretty lost right now.

RyanDollar (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

What domain name are you referring to? Please note we generally do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site owners. MER-C 04:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The domain is dollartacticalsupply — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanDollar (talk • contribs) 18:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Our records indicate that the blacklisting was a consequence of the actions of an account named "RyanVarnals". The account demonstrated both access to the site in question and employed a known, highly deceptive SEO strategy. As I was responsible for the blacklisting, I will not take any action regarding it for fairness. You are welcome to request removal at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist but your request will probably be denied for the reasons above. MER-C 07:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

My sandbox page got deleted for some reason and got a first and last warning...

Hi there,

I am learning how to create a legit Wikipedia page for the company: ICON Ltd. ICON is a software development and digital marketing company based in Malta that has big clients such as AirMalta, Laferla Insurance and HSBC bank. I was using the Wikipedia sandbox editor to get familiar with the editor and learning how to create a nice layout for the ICON Wikipedia page. I created quite a lot of content already and wanted to save my page so it wouldn't get lost. When I saved I was still thinking I was in a protected zone where I was free to try whatever I wanted without the content getting uploaded so it wouldn't interfere with the Wikipedia standards and rules. Then I got deleted and a warning message that I can't do "this" ever again or I will be blocked from Wikipedia. I am wondering why I got deleted. The only reason I can imagine after reading through the rules is that I used the term "we" quite often. The reason for this is that I copied some of the information directly from the ICON website to further edit this content to Wikipedia standards. Can you please explain why I got banned and if I'm allowed to create a Wikipedia page for ICON?

Thank you, Max

Maxschurer (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This goes beyond mere "standards and rules", you showed an utter disregard for the fundamental purpose of this project.

> [Am] I'm allowed to create a Wikipedia page for ICON?

No. MER-C 12:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

ViuTV

I am requesting the article be unsalted and a redirect be created to HK Television Entertainment. Here is an article to Fortune magazine to justify its notability. [1] A new article will probably be created once the channel starts boardcasting next week. SYSS Mouse (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. MER-C 04:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Prime Lands

Hi, Its about G11, and copyright. what sentences violate them. There was no graphics for copyright issue. can i have the article back to work on it. Lithiumsrilanka (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

We do not provide copies of promotional content or copyright violations under any circumstance. MER-C 03:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review notice about non-governmental organizations

I started a deletion review on a category for which you closed a discussion. See it at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_April_14. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request on hold

I am willing to consider unblocking at User talk:CJojoC, on the basis of the editor's assurances given there. Would you like to express an opinion? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

An unblock is fine by me. MER-C 03:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll go ahead. It will be a good idea to keep an eye on the editor for a while. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

File:To Commons.svg

Would you mind assessing the PUF and giving it a proper closure? I deleted the file with a rationale of "Let's try that again", planning to undelete it momentarily, but while the software allowed the deletion to happen, it wouldn't let me undelete it or give it a proper closure. As a result, AnomieBOT closed the PUF to reflect my action, which of course wasn't how the PUF was supposed to end. It would help, therefore, if you'd re-close it, recreate the file, and delete it with an appropriate rationale. Nyttend (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Done, file deleted. MER-C 12:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

90th Missile Wing

I'm recreating 90th Missile Wing. Seems to me that deleting the page was a bit extreme, given that much material was from [2] and * Ravenstein, Charles A. (1984). Air Force Combat Wings, Lineage & Honors Histories 1947-1977 (PDF). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN 0-912799-12-9., public sources. Whatever copyvio material was in it could have been deleted, leaving the public source material behind. --Lineagegeek (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. Policy allows for the presumptive deletion of content added by repeated copyright infringers, which is certainly the case here. This particular user has also made vague, unsubstantiated PD claims and presumptive deletion has been performed in the past. MER-C 03:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Anonymous user vandalism

I'm not into vandalism much, but this user: User_talk:116.14.196.214 received already 4 warnings without a single block. I don't know how this works, but I thought I would just report it to an admin, just in case. Kind regards Coldbolt (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The thing about IPs is that they could be a different person, especially if there's one month between vandalism spells. See if they continue, issue one level 4 warning, then report to WP:AIV. MER-C 13:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this advice. Coldbolt (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hovercards prefs

Hello, you may want to participate and help publicize the voting for Hovercards preferences here. Thanks!--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding old (from 2011) statement/decision that copied material was in Public Domain

First off, my apologies if I'm not interpreting the page history correctly, but it looks like on 09:23, 9 October 2011 you reverted the "copy paste" tag on the page "Stark Law", adding a comment "this material is PD"

Unless the website http://:starklaw.org also copied its material from a third source in the public domain, I'm not sure how this is not a copyright violation, since that website does list a copyright notice to its material.

Thanks in advance for any clarification you can provide.

Best regards, J

Jet14 (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This was the original source. I might have screwed up in that some of the content was copied from the Stark Law website, but at least one paragraph was copied from the PD source. MER-C 07:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Thanks

Thanks for catching one of these I left for a second time. I think I've been forgetting to check these days. :) Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Four years ago ...

cleanup
... you were recipient no. 155 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Deleted Category recreated

Good day MER-C, someone recreated a category which has been deleted after discussion last year (Category:People with chemical elements named for them, see under Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_27#Category:Scientists_whose_names_are_used_in_physical_constants. You closed the discussion then, what is the procedure in this case? Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I just found out that a deleted category meets the requirement for speedy deletion, so I put the corresponding template. ;-) Alex2006 (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Walter Hoving

Hello MER-C,

How are you? This is regarding Walter Hoving article which has been tagged for copyright violation. I have cleaned up the article. Please review it here. Phrases that are matching now are obvious general sentences. Here is the Copyvio report. If this need more cleanup then I can do. Please look into this. Regards. Hitro talk 10:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The original copying was pervasive and came all from one editor, so I don't trust the previous content and caution against reusing any of it especially if the style doesn't quite fit an encyclopedia. The copyvio tools don't find everything. On that basis, I suggest preemptively rewriting everything. MER-C 13:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have rewritten every section within the article. I have eliminated almost everything that was part of previous content. I have removed all the unencyclopedic materials from every section. I do not think there are any valid copyright infringement left now. Please review the article here. Hitro talk 15:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Please place the rewrite at Talk:Walter Hoving/Temp (it is better for you to do this for attribution reasons) and I will move it into place. MER-C 08:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I have placed the content at the temp page. Please move it to article mainspace. Hitro talk 08:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. MER-C 12:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Data2Go Wireless

Hello,

I am wondering why Data2Go Wireless was blacklisted? We are a legitimate US based MVNO company with carrier agreements from AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile. We are not advertising or spamming on the List of United States mobile virtual network operators article. Our listing is formatted and displayed to similar companies in our industry on the same article. Please advise on the nature of the blacklist and what can be done to resolve any issues that may pertain to the ToC of Wikipedia to restore our listing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamdavidbruce (talk • contribs) 05:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Did your business pay anyone to get a link on Wikipedia and/or pay for any software to do the same? Please specify. MER-C 06:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi MER-C,no one was paid for a link nor was any software utilized for creating the post. Iamdavidbruce (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

To answer your original question -- we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to anyone affiliated with those domains. You have also not shown any interest in contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. MER-C 02:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

CopyPatrol

Hey MER-C! I know you are active in dealing with copyright violations, so I thought you might be interested in the new CopyPatrol tool from Community Tech. It combs recent changes and lists possible copyright violations. The interface should be straightforward; hit "No action needed" if it is a false positive, properly attributed quotes, etc, and "Page fixed" if it needed correction and you've done so. We plan to add more neat features like rollback, revdel, page deletion, and issuing of templates to the user's talk page. Hope you find this useful, and thanks for your ongoing efforts in this important area of work! :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The British International School of Tunis

The British International School of Tunis. Hi, you have removed our page which was I starting. The page did not contain any information that is unlike any other of the links in the wiki link "List of schools in Tunisia" that gives people information about International Schools in Tunisia. I can be contacted via the British International School website at (Redacted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martnuge (talk • contribs) 08:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Being an employee of a remarkable international school, you should know what an encyclopedia is, and therefore why that page is obviously inappropriate. MER-C 10:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

But I based it on the the frame work of one of the other existing links https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Cooperative_School_of_Tunis this other 'remarkable' school seems to be fine????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martnuge (talk • contribs) 12:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

If you seriously can't tell the difference between that and your "about us" page (which you tried to pass off as an encyclopedia article, despite it being written in the first person) then you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. MER-C 12:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Spam blacklist of bmihealthcare.co.uk

Hello!

Back in July 2015, you added bmihealthcare.co.uk to the spam blacklist. I agree there were links being added in a spammy fashion, but I've been digging into this after seeing the warning banner at the top of BMI Healthcare, and I don't think this site should have been blacklisted, as it has plenty of valid uses within Wikipedia.

I've raised this at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#bmihealthcare.co.uk, but given (a) I've just worked out you were the person who added this site to the blacklist and (b) the listing has been there for a week without anyone else commenting on it, I thought I'd draw it to your attention.

Cheers!

—me_and 17:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, however I am already aware of this request and decided to take no action, leaving it for someone impartial to evaluate. The blacklisting reason speaks for itself. MER-C 07:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Blacklist Question

Greetings MER-C!

I have a blacklist removal question for you, but want to disclose a couple things upfront first. I am the owner of the blacklisted website mentioned below. I read through all of the articles and pages related Wikipedia spam, blacklisting, listing removal, guidelines, etc. and completely understand that removal requests from website owners and others with a conflict of interest will be declined. I read your "Smart Questions" sandbox article as well. I believe this may be a stupid question, so my apologies in advance!

My company purchased alarmsystemreviews (dot) com and its content approximately 18 months ago. That site has been around for about a decade. We relaunched the site and have been publishing a lot of unique content. One of my content guys recently informed me that our website was blacklisted here on Wikipedia. Turns out he saw the blacklist warning when he tried to make an update to an article and source/reference it back to an in-depth piece of content we had published. I told him and the rest of my team to never do that again. I communicated to them that we should never self promote on Wikipedia and any references, citations, etc. to one of our websites needs to be naturally earned.

I have since spent a decent amount of time reading through the relevant Wikipedia information that I mentioned in the disclosure and researching when/why the domain was blacklisted. I use Wikipedia all the time, but I'm usually going down a rabbit hole and just reading all sorts of random articles. This was the first time I had to get to the bottom of a blacklisting and it was a bit of a challenge. I finally figured it out after a little while and it actually felt like a nice accomplishment!

This is probably way too much information, but I am going to share it anyway just in case it helps out someone else. Here is what I figured out:

First, I confirmed it was on the blacklist here (MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist). I then searched the spam reports from this page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam) and found a reference to our site on this archive page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_May_1) in the "User page spammer2" section.

It turns out that back in early 2008 you had a "user page spammer" who added a whole lot of external links on Wikipedia through user pages. All of which were blacklisted. Our domain was one of those links added by the spammer. Here is the detail on the spammer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=197727616#User_page_spammer https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2008-03 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_May_1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Taddeus45

There is a pretty wide variety of links coming from that spammer. My guess is the spammer claimed to be an "seo expert" or consultant that offered a backlink service. The original owner of our site probably hired this guy for links, "seo", etc.

This was years ago and the site has completely changed hands. The original owner passed away a few years back and we actually bought it from his relatives. We have no desire to spam Wikipedia. A few of the folks on my team came from the alarm industry (myself included) and we have been working on publishing more and more authoritative content. Being blacklisted prevents us from ever naturally earning a source/reference link on Wikipedia. I am concerned that being publicly blacklisted impacts search rankings in general as well.

The spam coming from that user back in 2008 was quite extensive and I completely get why all of those domains were blacklisted. When you look at our domain by itself though, it appears to have been an isolated incident.

I hope there is enough detail here to indicate the spam/abuse has stopped. I would like to have the website considered for listing removal, but wanted to hear your thoughts before pursuing it any further.

Do you feel like a request for removal from the blacklist is reasonable based on all of this information (even though it is coming from the site owner)?

Your thoughts on the request and/or any other guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for your time!

-Karl

Oh, and just when you hoped this message was finally over... This bad link https://www.toolserver.org/~eagle/spamArchiveSearch.php is referenced on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam-blacklisting. I found it while searching for more information on why our site was blacklisted and thought you should know. Karlmodl (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a compelling reason to make an exception -- your claims are very difficult for us to verify. If Wikipedia editors find that linking to your site would be useful to the encyclopedia, we will first consider granting exemptions for individual links then as the number of exemptions increases we may delist the entire site. MER-C 07:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. We'll work on publishing more content that could be useful to the encyclopedia. Also, we can provide (privately) upon request the Purchase Agreement for our site to prove a complete change of ownership. Karlmodl (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The best venue for doing the latter is via email. If you do, you'll have to give them the background. MER-C 06:41, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Block of Alex at IntellectEU

I see you blocked User:Alex at IntellectEU partly for having a promotional username. I presume you were not aware that usernames of the form "Person at Organization" are explicitly allowed by WP:ISU? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes I am. In this case the user was renamed after the block. MER-C 13:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies - I saw the request to change to "Alex M" immediately after the block notice and assumed that was their first rename attempt. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Page delete

Hi, I think the page Mandarin Oriental Atlanta need to be deleted that the content is already exists undated in the page Mandarin Oriental, Atlanta. Thanks Marksman003 (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Already dealt with. MER-C 12:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

First Page

Dear MER-C

I created a page for information on my business. This is the first page I have tried to create and you have warned me, by doing the same my account will be deleted as it is advertising. So firstly I apologise for not knowing the protocol and secondly how do I list my page without breaking guidelines and referring back t my website and company?

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1968pjd (talk • contribs) 12:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

See here. MER-C 12:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

NPP backlog

I noted your comments. I've added myself to the abuse filter group, not that I remember much about regex these days (don't worry, I won't break the Wiki) but it might help me join any discussions on the lines of the filter you suggested. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: It's relatively straight forward: article_articleid == 0 & article_namespace == 0 & !"extendedconfirmed" in user_groups with actions set to disallow will do the trick. The question is performance and that the "permission denied" warning occurs after the user has entered the entire article, not before. It's inferior to getting the WMF to change the site configuration, but if it works it'll force their hand.

Come to think about it, one could also use MediaWiki:Titleblacklist with <autoconfirmed> and a regular expression that excludes every namespace except the main namespace. This solution doesn't suffer from performance or post-edit warning issues (if I remember correctly, the "permission denied" warning comes after one clicks edit). MER-C 13:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed was the one we got consensus for. ACTRIAL was actually the RfC for the test, not the actual big RfC, but somehow the name stuck because it means AutoConfirmedTrial. Assuming there were not going to be any problems getting it rolled out as a MedWiki intervention through a Bugzilla request, I had already made a set of template messages in php for user notifications. Don't know where they all are now, I suppose I could dig them out somewhere. I look at it this way: Even if 'consensus can change', that was such a huge consensus that there wouldn't need to be a new one if one wanted to openly defy the WMF. Let's hope it doesn't come to that because we still need them to finish the landing page they promised, which would have made all this redundant.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but autoconfirmed probably won't be sufficient. Both a landing page and ACTRIAL are needed -- spammers will ignore the landing page.

Somehow, I think Orangemoody was a lost opportunity -- we could have asked the WMF there and then. We should bear in mind that a well-timed plea (perhaps to the media when they're writing articles about some paid editing scandal) might help get the message across. MER-C 08:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Orangemoody, yes, a lost opportunity. That's exactly what I was telling everyone at Wikimania in Italy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

The missing landing page (there's a current discussion at WT:AfC that clearly epitomises this dilemma) would probably take at least a year to develop at WMF speed even if they carry on where te WMF left off, unless we can convince someone at the top of the tree to make it a priority. There was a very large and clear community support for WP:ACTRIAL - so large that I believe it does not need to be re-debated. What do you think then, of just going ahead and doing a local edit filter version for a six-month experiment? I already made the related templates back then. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I would support such a measure, after careful testing. (On second thoughts, this is not possible using MediaWiki:Titleblacklist without causing unintended consequences.) This will be controversial; whoever implements this without double checking with the community first should be prepared to go to arbitration. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to be the center of major drama. MER-C 08:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Gadget (definition) talk ns

Hi MER-C, wondering if you'd be willing to take a look at the request I made at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist for listing the gadget talk namespaces (at least for now). Thanks, — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. MER-C 02:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

NPP % AfC

A dedicated venue for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also proposed has been created. See: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Why retain outdated Virtua Fighter and Shinobi logo

I see that you retained the infobox and logo for the outdated Shinobi and Virtua Fighter images.

File:Shinobi Title Screen.jpg‎
File:Virtua Fighter logo.jpg‎

Is there any reason to keep them now? they're no longer used on any articles and they're not as professional as the images I've updated them with...

Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

We aren't. They're still tagged for deletion, and will be deleted on the 1st of October. MER-C 00:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. I am fairly new to Wikipedia so I still have a lot to learn. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Filter 793

The spammer is now getting around this by using some really bizarre characters that I'm not sure normalizing can catch. I don't know enough about regex: Bestbabajai11 (talk · contribs). Thought you might know how to stop him. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed: phab:T66175. I've changed the filter to work around this. MER-C 11:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: This bug has been fixed (thanks MusikAnimal!) and the code should be deployed on the 4th of October. MER-C 04:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Are these documents public domain?

See this Earwig result. If I go to the Country studies index I see "Copyright © 2003 - 2016 Country Studies US"[3] Other material is copied from this - the editor says this is PD, presumably based on "The Library of Congress is not aware of any U.S. copyright protection (see Title 17, U.S.C.) or other restrictions in the material in this collection, except as noted below. Users should keep in mind that the Library of Congress is providing access to these materials strictly for educational and research purposes. The written permission of the copyright owners is required for distribution, reproduction, or other use of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use or other statutory exemptions."[4] The editor never responds on their talk page and seems to ignore the dab warnings. He/she continues to copy material from other articles despite warnings by User:Diannaa who might want to comment here also. Hm, was there a better place to raise this? I always struggle to find one. If any of this is indeed copyvio I think we need to block the editor, who also case has a poor grasp of English, doesn't use edit summaries and need to work on the way they cite their sources - using just urls & titles for books isn't very useful. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, they do use edit summaries at times, just not frequently enough. They are a good faith editor but need to start responding to these issues. Doug Weller talk 11:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Both links are works of the US Government and are in the public domain. That said, yes I agree this editor needs admin attention now and should be blocked if there are more copyvios. In this case, I would deploy User:MER-C/payattention.js. I come across editors like this too often, including one a couple of days ago. MER-C 11:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I had a funny one last night, I was told that someone was a reliable source because they are a member of the Library of Congress. That makes me a reliable source then! I added Bolivian National Revolution to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 September 30. It doesn't seem right that we can add PD material to an article but not make it clear exactly what is PD. Doug Weller talk 12:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I finally blocked Ingarix (talk · contribs). I couldn't get your script to work for some reason so just copied the text over, I like that very much. I suspect there's a lot more copyvio then I've found the latest seems to have taken material from various sources and used it as though it were sourced by something else. Whether that was deliberate or incompetence I can only guess. The editor also ignores dab messages, and gets a lot of them! And using GBook links as sources. Doug Weller talk 12:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The future of NPP and AfC - progress

Thank you for joining the The future of NPP and AfC Work Group

There have been been recent discussions and some special task pages have been created. for your attention and input. Please visit the following pages to get up to speed and add your comments, particularly the straw polls and priority lists. Please also add these pages to your watchlist.

• en:Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC/To do
• en:Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Kasymbek Medievich Mediev

Hi, I see you've deleted Kasymbek Medievich Mediev per WP:G5. But the page was created before the user was banned, so as far as I know G5 shouldn't be applicable. I remember having a look at the article and although the formatting was poor, I had the impression it was a notable enough subject. Would you be able to restore the deleted page? Uanfala (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Article emailed. I'm very suspicious of any content created by sockpuppets, so I won't restore. MER-C 11:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

How to create a business page for wikipedia.

Hello MER-C,

I work for an LLC named iQuriousKids Inc. I recently created a Wikipedia page for the same which was removed & I received the following message: This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at IQuriousKids Inc., you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MER-C 12:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you please guide me on how to create a business page without violating any of the Wikipedia's policies. Please show some mercy :P— Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.74.176.204 (talk) 07:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

No. MER-C 08:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Double namespace prefixes blacklist entry

Hi MER-C, I'd like to bring 1 2 3 to your attention. I occasionally check new pages being created with prefixes like "User talk:User:", "User talk:User talk:", "Wikipedia:Wikipedia:", "User:Template:", and combinations of these namespace prefixes with Special:PrefixIndex. A few months ago, I alerted ANI about cleanup in this field, and it appears that it simply continues, and as far as I'm aware during my efforts in cleanup, 100% of double namespace prefixes are unintentional.

The "Category:Category:.*" double namespace prefix is already on the blacklist, but I'd suggest that combinations of popular namespaces (ones I mentioned above) should be added. Do you have any thoughts? (FYI, there appears to be acceptable double ns prefixes like "Draft:Template:") — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I added the four you mentioned. MER-C 11:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi MER-C, thanks for the reply. I have a follow-up request. Currently on the blacklist, the double-ns entries are:

Category:Category:.*
User talk:User:.*
User talk:User talk:.*
Wikipedia:Wikipedia:.*
User:Template:.*

I did a somewhat comprehensive passthrough the double namespace prefixes and fixed a few more malplaced pages. May you remove these entries and replace them with:

User( talk)?:User( talk)?:.*
User( talk)?:Template( talk)?:.*
User( talk)?:Draft( talk)?:.*
Wikipedia( talk)?:User( talk)?:.*
Wikipedia( talk)?:Wikipedia( talk)?:.*
Wikipedia( talk)?:Help( talk)?:.*
Wikipedia( talk)?:Draft( talk)?:.*
Template( talk)?:Template( talk)?:.*
Template( talk)?:Portal( talk)?:.*
Category( talk)?:Category( talk)?:.*
Portal( talk)?:Portal( talk)?.*
Book( talk)?:Book( talk)?:.*
Draft( talk)?:User( talk)?:.*
Draft( talk)?:Category( talk)?:.*
Draft( talk)?:Draft( talk)?:.*

Thanks for your help, and let me know if you had any questions or concerns. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Before I do this, did you come across any false positives? MER-C 12:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I asked SmokeyJoe about Wikipedia:User:Truth, which he userfied. Template:Portal:Pakistan/Featured is orphaned and unused, and at MfD (all contributors inactive since 2011). (the page itself should have possibly been a subpage of "Portla:Pakistan/Featured" I presume, not a false positive.) I didn't include possibly legitimate double-namespace prefixes such as Template:Wikipedia:, Category:Wikipedia:, Draft:Template, etc, or ones that affect multiple existing pages or disturb a trend. The existing pages on these proposed entries are redirects left over from title corrections. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 14:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Intending this revision for the live blacklist, with the attached error message on repeated namespace instances (for now), pending request for modification from Od Mishehu. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the repeated edits, but thought I'd elaborate again. I've alerted Od Mishehu about the existing custom message, and in summary, requesting these changes:

1. On MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-double-category-prefix, change [[:Category:{{PAGENAME}}]] to [[:{{FULLPAGENAME}}]] to generalize its usage.
2. Move MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-double-category-prefix to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-custom-repeated-namespace-prefix to reflect its new scope
3. Sync MediaWiki:Titleblacklist to this revision of its sandbox. (This adds additional double-namespace prefixes and the error messages on select entries)

— Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. The background of me creating this was the fight against the creation of a few dozen double-category prefix pages. I did everything I could to stop this creation - and the blacklist was one main target, the other being Cydebot as the category renaming bot. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

All done. Please let me know if I screwed up. MER-C 05:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks basically right! I might intend a separate custom message for some entries via a generic edit request, won't specifically need your consideration. Thanks so much again for your help. — Andy W. (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications

RfC for page patroller qualifications Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/793

So we've got a problem... ccnorm changes the pipe characters | to the letter I, so we can't use regex with pipes :( This can be confirmed with Special:AbuseFilter/tools, e.g. try evaluating ccnorm("|"). I'm not sure what to do about this... the pipe is most surely a common replacement for I, so we can't remove it from the AntiSpoof list. We might be able to make ccnorm ignore pipes, but that of course means we can't look for I that was spoofed with a pipe. Ugh — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering why there weren't any hits; thanks. One workaround I can think of is to ccnorm the phone numbers manually e.g. 7568325124 => 7SG8E2SI2A, but that's not a long term solution. Using contains_any gets rid of the pipes, but loses the flexibility of regex. Maybe a new function matches_any that takes a bunch of regular expressions, then combines them server-side (like the spam blacklist)? MER-C 05:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

matches_any sounds like an intuitive solution! Maybe also norm_matches_any and ccnorm_matches_any, so you don't have to put ccnorm or norm around each parameter. I've created a task at phab:T147765 — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Long term spamming campaigns

MER-C, I was thinking to set up a page/essay/similar akin the Long-term abuse, but then on spam. There are some cases that seem to keep returning, and also to counter remarks like 'but this has been blacklisted for # years, for sure it must be over'. I am currently again in discussion with one of them, and I am getting sick and tired to, again, have to read back and see what again happened in the far past (especially since some discussions are not tagged with a {{LinkSummary}} to track them, or where the different sites of the subject are not appropriately backlinked to the original cases, or where there are even deleted pages which contain(ed) evidence. Any suggestions? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Make the spam blacklist log searchable and public. But that relies on the WMF doing something, and that will take a long time. A page on general spam tactics is useful, our documentation is out of date. As for specific spammers, there isn't much point -- just add tracking to the historical documentation should suffice. MER-C 08:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The tracking helps, but I feel some clear documentation is sometimes needed (shorthand, typical behaviour etc.) for the real long-term ones that keep on returning (fisheaters; theubie; Agora; etc.).

WMF doing something for the spam blacklist as requested years ago, and even suggested by Brion .. nah. They have 'more important stuff' to do. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Does this have a compatible licence?

I've found material directly copied(and sourced) from[5]. The licence for this is here but I don't think it's compatible with copy/paste for us. Am I right? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) You are correct, CC BY-NC-ND is not a compatible license. The page you indicated has © 2011-2016 Regional Administration Plovdiv. Where is it indicated that it is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.5 BG? — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Few Questions

Hello MER-C, I have a few questions,recently you reverted changes made on a wiki page for using copyrighted or promotional content. Sobha Renaissance Information Technology 1)If I cite a third-party instead of directly linking to their company website will that be considered a violation? 2)If I cant find the third party source and I directly tag the certificate or a letter will that be considered valid? Eg,A well-known website says we have the best burgers in a city,I cannot find the link to the website so I directly link to the certificate given at the time so it can be verified.

I understand that we cannot publish promotional content on Wikipedia but all the content I plan of adding can be verified by sources not directly related to the company.

--Tarun.joseph (talk) 06:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Editing Wikipedia with a promotional intent is also prohibited. Who's we? MER-C 05:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

That is another question I have, taking the above example about the best burgers would saying that x website said we have the best burgers be considered promotional even if we can cite the source?

when I say "we" I mean the contributors of an article.--Tarun.joseph (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Wait a second... what is your relationship with Sebash.carmel who made the edits in question? MER-C 07:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

He is my Boss.Until you asked me this question I wasn't aware that if there is a conflict of interest you are not supposed to edit an article directly related to you.I have now proposed changes on the talk page [6].If there is anymore issues please let me know. --Tarun.joseph (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Removal of citation

Hi there.

I recently added a citation to the remote control article page, but it has been removed. I'd just like to ask why, for my own learning purposes, as I found the referenced page after some research and thought it to be a very good match for the citation required.

It was my first delve into citation corrections, and hopefully the first of many, providing that I understand why this one was removed.

Scottc16 (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

All statements on Wikipedia should be attributed to reputable sources. That site does not qualify. MER-C 04:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

File extensions

Hi MER-C didn't initially intend to ping directly, but this edit request here is pending, and wondering if in your assessment it looks reasonable or not? (this was the other update to the TBL I had queued up, no other updates.) Thanks so much for your time. — Andy W. (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Request review of page deletion

You deleted a page on 9 October, 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allripe The deletion discussion occurred 1-9 October 2016 This relates to a platform and technology involved in DIY food assessment. The delete discussion was only from regions that were not in the middle of growing seasons at the time. It is understood that food gardening and DIY food assessment is controversial to some, however this is not a valid reason to delete the article. The deletion discussion failed to provide context, it also showed an ignorance of the issues. The deletion discussion also contained errors. Requesting a review of this page deletion. Johnrawl (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC) There is discussion about the page deletion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Allripe Johnrawl (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Your reasoning does not address our inclusion criteria (see what Wikipedia is not and noteworthiness for corporations) and the debate was unanimous, so no. MER-C 04:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

Hi I'm confused about the copyright violation for the page I started for Seen + Heard. What is the proper protocol for creating a page and citing the website the information comes from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandromurillo (talk • contribs) 17:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a venue for promotion or public relations. (The for-profit nature of the subject being promoted is irrelevant.) MER-C 03:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Phone number in edit summary

I think you were active in blocking spam phone numbers? An edit at Wikipedia:Chemical infobox (diff) should probably be rev deleted even if it's not spam. I mentioning it here in case it fits any patterns you have seen. Johnuniq (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

A quick search on DuckDuckGo yields no hits = not spam. MER-C 02:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Please review article reference

Hi Mer-c,

Thank you for informing me that my reference may not be relevant. I do understand that links are no follow and the reason why i posted is because original reference link in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_hot_water_dispenser is misleading. The article talks about energy savings and efficiency of an instant hot water dispenser. However, I will like to take to your attention that the reference link http://www.pereocean.com/sg/direct-piping-water-dispenser.php is a commercial page and worse, it does not feature instant hot water dispensers and thus it is not relevant. I done abit of research and instead found another website http://www.dispenser.sg/water-dispenser that does provide the correct info. But the information was removed as mistaken to spam. Do let me know if this is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jblawg (talk • contribs) 08:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

>I done abit of research and instead found another website that does provide the correct info.

I don't believe you. MER-C 11:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Its okay that you do not believe me and it is obvious that i'm adding this site's url for quite some time. But the truth is also that, this site is about instant hot water dispensers, and inside the page has detailed information. For now, i will contribute more to the article and i feel the layout is a mess with a lot of repetition and unnecessary information. Do advise me on the right way to have a mention/reference on information from the site, thank you very much.Jblawg (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

That's not the purpose of Wikipedia. dispenser.sg is not an acceptable reference and does not have a valid use on Wikipedia. MER-C 12:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Use of Advertising {{warn}} Templates

I've noticed from some of your dealings with promotional users and spammers that it seems you use {{subst:uw-advert4}} before any of the other warning templates for advertising. Am I confused or is that the case? R. A. Simmons ^Talk 20:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The latter. MER-C 03:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Not to sound like the Spanish inquisition, but isn't that kind of contrary to the purpose of the whole warnings system? R. A. Simmons ^Talk 17:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

No. I issue level 4 warnings in response to first and second person spam pages -- something no genuine newbie who spends ten seconds thinking about what Wikipedia is would do -- and yes, I do mean it when I issue blocking threats. MER-C 08:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I definitely understand your frustration with promotional editors—it gets very annoying. Not to tell you how to edit in any way, but I just think that you might be expecting a lot from new editors. Yes, many of these editors have conflicts of interest and intend to promote themselves, but the level 4 warning on a first offense feels a bit heavy-handed and seems a bit like biting. I totally understand that some editors may be malicious, and I'm sure you get fed up, as I sometimes do, but it's best not to lose our assumption of good faith.

These are just my observations really, and I don't know your thought process, but I think that using such strong rhetoric with new editors (especially those with an agenda) makes them feel attacked or gives them a perception that Wikipedia is hostile to them/their ideology. I think that these beliefs are what lead many new editors to disregard policy, be disruptive, and vandalise outright. Furthermore, many sockpuppets are new editors who were banned without their really understanding why. Not understanding the ban, they feel it is unfair, and create new accounts in an attempt to get back at Wikipedia—often through vandalism.

I understand your stark position against promotional editing, but I think that if you simply explained to some of these new editors who self-advertise that there are policies against what they are doing (and maybe directed them to AfC), they would feel less like they are being personally attacked and more like they are being integrated into the community. "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity," I advise "but don't rule out malice". I hope you can understand that these are merely suggestions and in no way criticisms of you or your editing behavior. You obviously have experience and skill as an editor and I hope that you can understand where I'm coming from. Thanks. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 16:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not frustration, it is the result of experience—spammers probably won't even see talk page warnings as they are here to drop links, not read stuff. I'm sure MER-C would not mind if you were to replace some warnings with a gentle message, and you could report back on how many cases result in useful edits. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Johnuniq I get where you're coming from, but there are many examples on this very talk page of people coming to MER-C after receiving such a warning and asking for advice on improving their practices. I've noticed that the responses they receive are often similarly less-than-pleasant, generally consisting of "No". I believe that going straight to the level 4 warning is probably appropriate for actual spammers who simply flood pages with links. They obviously know what they are doing and have a clear intent to misuse Wikipedia. However, those editors (essentially vandals) are very different from uninformed COI editors who may actually be attempting to make a good-faith contribution to Wikipedia, rather than simply promote themselves. I suppose this isn't really about warnings, but more about biting-like interaction in general. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 01:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Let me make it clear -- I steadfastly refuse to help anyone promote their ______ here. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Any and all attempts by COI accounts to insert links and text about their ______ are promotion. The only appropriate answer is a firm "no". Not "no, but..." or "go through AFC", just "no". Somebody who does not have the ability to discern the purpose of Wikipedia, disregards it or does not have the initiative to find out, is not someone who should be editing this site. You are seriously underestimating the portion of users I deal with that fall into that category (hint: it's not 50%, it's >99%). It is in the community's best interest that I (and everyone else) spends as little time as possible dealing with these timesinks. I'm not going to explain this at length, you should read this and this in their entirety.

That said, if you want to spend time attempting to get something useful out of SEO spammers, PR flacks and the like, be my guest. After all, it's your free time, not mine. For the record, I am actually helpful to genuine newbies (also, as demonstrated on this page). MER-C 09:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, can't blame me for trying. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 15:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Mrmattdavis890

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mrmattdavis890 Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Copyright Query

I uploaded two images and you deleted them. I am confused, I cited and linked the sources and credited the original copyright holder. I did not intend to break copyright rules, you don't mind elaborating as to why I uploaded incorrectly? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

One of the great things about Wikipedia is that it and (most of) the images it contains may be copied and modified by anyone, for any purpose. Images you find randomly on the internet are generally copyright; their authors formally do not allow you to do this. Furthermore, it is plagiarism to tag an image that you did not create with "I, the copyright holder of this work...". See this policy (not Wikipedia, but the same ideas apply). MER-C 13:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for elaborating. I'll keep all of this in mind! I'll just stick to editing articles and have a more experienced user upload images of people Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Why delete the reference and label me a spammer

Ive been reading the history of your edits and referencing anyone whom you presume as spammers and otherwise to yet another page of yours, a self-justifying on what's right or wrong.

Not sure what's wrong with you labeling anyone a spammer.M3lvinyap (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

If you had actually spent the 10 seconds necessary to suss out what Wikipedia is, you would realize that page is 100% correct. Instead, here is the long version -- all with the long-standing consensus of the Wikipedia community -- WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Spam, WP:External links, WP:Conflict of interest and WP:Identifying reliable sources. MER-C 12:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)