User talk:EastThermopolis

Hi EastThermopolis! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 31 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Stand News, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 23:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 08:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:OpenSea Company Logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Buster Edwards into Dexter Fletcher. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you edit for pay on behalf of

1. [1], which removes content sourced to high-quality RS such as the WSJ and replaces it with unsourced content or puffery sourced to the subject himself.
2. [2], which adds original research about how the subject's inclusion on the US sanctions list means nothing
3. [3], which removes an enormous amount of reliably sourced content and adds brazen NPOV-violating text (such as how his ex-wife was "using legal loopholes and discrepancies" to sue him for divorce) and how he lost on technicalities. The add also adds lots of poorly sourced puffery about the subject.
   talk) 14:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Emphatically and categorically not. I was honing my editing skills on that particular chosen subject - on a page that clearly needed editing. EastThermopolis (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But why did you remove content sourced to high-quality RS and replace it with unsourced content (including highly personal details) and self-sourced content by the subject of the article? That's what I don't understand. Some of the sourcing is also in the Azerbaijani language. Do you know that language?

talk) 15:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The article had carried a long-standing warning about unreliability. I made edits to correct that - as I do with many other articles on here. What languages I speak or otherwise are irrelevant. EastThermopolis (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits made the article less reliable. In ways that I do not understand how a non-COI editor could accidentally do. I've started a discussion on the COI noticeboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Farkhad_Akhmedov.

talk) 15:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I didn't get some of your editing, ENIC is still active but running dormant accounts for the last two years. Some of the cites you removed were still useful. Govvy (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:05, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm truly puzzled by your speedy deletion nomination (and by now subsequent deletion) of the recently created Page about ACF Investment Bank.

I created the Page following extensive research - providing Wiki-linking, in addition to offering comprehensive citations on the not insignificant role ACF Investment Bank has played in the global TV and  industry over many years.

In encyclopedic terms - given all the TV shows listed on the now deleted Page that ACF Investment Bank, I believed it would have provided linked information about the obvious and important role a company like ACF investment Bank plays within the TV industry.

I also reject your claim about this Page being "unambiguous advertising". Can you please provide clear and objective evidence to support this assertion (not your subjective  or 'hunch' viewpoint)? Could you also explain why I, would seek to facilitate and promote "unambiguous advertising"?  If this Page was as you describe, "unambiguous advertising", I would ask you to point to any in example of 'puffery' or similar within the text I wrote.

I would be grateful if you could help retrieve the deleted material on the Page. EastThermopolis (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also explain why I, would seek to facilitate and promote "unambiguous advertising"? Your edits bear a lot of the hallmarks of paid editing. That would be one reason why you would promote "unambiguous advertising." Thenightaway (talk)

If this Page was as you describe, "unambiguous advertising", I would ask you to point to any in example of 'puffery' or similar within the text I wrote. See the COI section of your own talk page[4]. Onel5969 should perhaps start another COI discussion. Thenightaway (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"All the hallmarks"? So you offer no evidence whatsoever. You are throwing around accusations without any substantiation about your claims. How is this fair? I ask again, where is you evidence about "unambiguous advertising", because you're offering none. I researched the Page content thoroughly, linked, cited with encyclopedic content linking to other Pages within the industry. What is the problem? EastThermopolis (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Digitalbox. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Reading Beans (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Reading Beans. Additional sources have now been included, as you requested and the draft has been re-submitted for review. EastThermopolis (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EastThermopolis, I added {{citation needed}} in areas needing citation. Take care of those and ping me here, I'll accept the draft. Happy editing! Best, Reading Beans (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth
  (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent
  of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Digitalbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CNMall41 (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CNMall41. If you're going to interject on this matter, please can you do me the simple courtesy of:

a) reading the discussion I'd already been having above with Reading Beans, following the article being moved to draftspace; and

b) explaining what's going on now please? Are you pulling-rank over Reading Beans's actions / discussions - is that's what's happening here? Please be clear - as I'm in the process of constructively addressing all the helpful issues raised by Reading Beans above and now you've intervened making other demands.

Can you please explain the process of what's taking place now and tell me who will have the final say on this matter i.e. yourself or Reading Beans?

Thank you. EastThermopolis (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EastThermopolis, no one has the final say, neither @CNMall41 or myself. We are all working collaboratively to build a worthy encyclopaedia. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But surely you understand my predicament here? And you still haven't had the courtesy to explain the process from hereonin. If I meet the helpful suggestions proposed by Reading Beans re: 'citations needed', that then presumably in your view, is not enough? Please explain what's going on here and what I have to do next. Do I meet the requirements set out by Reading Beans or do I meet your requirements? I just need clarity. Thank you. 2A00:23C6:C384:3301:E11C:3C1:6CC6:3341 (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve looked at the draft and you still haven't addressed the issues I raised earlier. I believe that's why they declined it. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Reading Beans - as I say above: "I'm in the process of constructively addressing all the helpful issues raised by @Reading Beans" - and that's where I currently doing. I don't understand what the latest intervention by CNMall41 is about. The article was parked-up while I resolved your suggestions. It's not clear what's happening now? 2A00:23C6:C384:3301:E11C:3C1:6CC6:3341 (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 is not saying a different thing. Address the issues I raised and your draft will be accepted. Happy editing. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks @CNMall41 and@Reading Beans for your help. I'll address the issues you raised in the next few days. Regards, EastThermopolis EastThermopolis (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will

WP:CONSENSUS, not hierarchy. Hope this helps. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you CNMall41. I assure you no incivility was intended on my part. However, if you and/or Reading Beans were in any way offended, I can only sincerely apologise for that. I was merely asking for some clarity on the process - which you've now kindly proffered. I will look to meet criteria you set out in relation to this particular article. EastThermopolis (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CNMall41and Reading Beans,

Please see the edits that were previously requested for this article, which currently resides in draft here: Draft:Digitalbox.

In terms of notability, one of the main reasons I created the article in the first place, was due to the fact this particular publishing house, owns three publication titles that already have Wikipedia articles written (by others) about them. They are: The Daily Mash, The Tab and The Poke.

A review of the new edits would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks for your time. EastThermopolis (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see it was submitted and will be reviewed in due time. If you want me to review I will gladly do so although a quick look at it showed me this still does not meet guidelines. Also, if you are basing notability on the publisher, note that there is no inherent notability and

WP:OTHERSTUFF. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for your comment CNMall41. I would indeed like you to review it and if you feel it does not meet the guidelines, maybe you could assist in helping me meet your interpretation of these guidelines, so I can successfully re-submit? Some feedback (other than just sending me links), would be very helpful and greatly appreciated. EastThermopolis (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed and opined. The relevant guidelines are stated above in my longer reply. I also reiterated these on the draft so you have quick access to those guidelines. Good luck. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by CNMall41 were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth
  (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent
  of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about

independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability

of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Per request from submitter to review. Normally I would leave to another reviewer. This still does not meet

WP:ORGCRIT

. They don't. They are brief mentions, routine announcements, or unreliable sources. Can you point out which references meet that guideline?

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Digitalbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CNMall41 (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given you've proved to be quite unhelpful throughout this entire process, arbitrarily overturning the views and helpfulness of another reviewer colleague (namely, the user: @Reading Beans) at the very onset, and adopted a totally unnecessary combative tone in your posts, I would respectfully ask you now step back from this matter and hand over the review process to another reviewer (or reviewers) to make the decision - as you indicated above. Earlier in this conversation, you lectured me on the importance of the principle of consensus. I therefore now seek a consensus view, made by others, in respect of this article. Please arrange for this process to commence immediately. Thanks for your time. EastThermopolis (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth
  (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent
  of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. 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:

Please don't resubmit without addressing previous concerns.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Digitalbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Greenman (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ACF Investment Bank 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/ACF Investment Bank 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 until the discussion has finished.

UtherSRG (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm TylerBurden. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Saab AB, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This was an oversight. Apols. EastThermopolis (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello, EastThermopolis. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you.