Misplaced Pages

:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AJackl (talk | contribs) at 20:55, 13 February 2015 (→Response by Alex Jackl: Thanks John). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:55, 13 February 2015 by AJackl (talk | contribs) (→Response by Alex Jackl: Thanks John)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    ShortcutsSections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Misplaced Pages to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
    Are you in the right place?
    Notes for volunteers
    To close a report
    • Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature.
    • Old issues are taken away by the archive bot.
    Other ways to help
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:AvePoint Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Adam Boehler Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Commvault Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:DEGIRO Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Michael Dell Talk:Etraveli Group Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Group-IB Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Khalili Foundation Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Home Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:Louise Showe Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Old Buckenham Airport

    The user has only ever offered contributions in relation to the subject article. The username, Priory Flyer, may we refer to an affiliation with Priory Farm, a nearby airfield in competition with the subject of the article. The user added a section called Accidents and Incidents which details a list of occurrences at Old Buckenham Airport. No such similar section exists at other small airfields similar to Old Buckenham. Further, none of the reports cited infer at all that the accident or incident was as a result of the airfield's wrong doing, infrastructure or otherwise. When read, however, it appears that this section was deliberately designed to give the impression that Old Buckenham is unsafe, when that has not been found to be the case in any of the cited incidents. I have tried dialogue using their talk page, but no response has been given. It appears that this account has solely been set up to create this misleading section and edits to remove or change the section are undone by PrioryFlyer with no discourse. I believe that they are essentially attempting to use Wiki to benefit a rival organisation and therefore this is a COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 453rdenthusiast (talk • contribs)

    In general, accidents and incidents sections should be added to more airport articles. Palo Alto Airport of Santa Clara County should mention the crash involving three Tesla employees who took off in heavy fog and hit high tension lines.. As for this article, it's starting to look like edit warring. Both editors, please don't do that. It won't help. John Nagle (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    I put a note on both user's talk pages about edit warring and how to avoid it. Let's see what happens. John Nagle (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    This edit to James Stewart looked rather promotional, so I undid it. Putting links to Buckenham's site into other articles with a tenuous connection to the subject looks spammy. I left the edit to Martin Shaw . John Nagle (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

    Dow Corning

    Hi, I have a few suggestions for edits to Dow Corning, which I've shared in a Talk page post. In addition to suggesting that one sentence be removed or reworded, I have citations for some unreferenced information currently in the article and suggestions for a few other basic facts to add. I'm not making any edits myself because I have a COI; I work for a communications agency that represents Dow Corning. I'd be very grateful if someone could take a look and offer feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

    Responded and made changes to satisfy most of the requests. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

    Craig Walendziak

    I just found this article and it seems to be almost entirely written by one user who only used the account to create the page. They did a really nice job too. Then another user who has the same first name as the page itself uploaded some pictures of the person who the page is supposedly about. As far as I know having two user accounts on Misplaced Pages and Wikicommons is not allowed but I also suspect it's not allowed to write an article about yourself (is the user "Craig mack378" is actually the same person as the person in the article). Anyway, this isn't my field of activity on Misplaced Pages so I simply wanted to bring this to the attention of more experienced editors who can decide if anything should be done about this. Thanks!Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

    Hi, this is Craig Walendziak -- I did not write the article, but I did add the pictures. I did so for the sake of completeness, I did not think this was a conflict of interest.

    Thanks,

    Craig — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig mack378 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

    that was 'so obviously a piece of paid editing or completely conflicted piece of COI work. disgusting. look at this first draft by the article's creator: . how the hell do they know his birthday, place of birth, wife's name etc etc. Blech. Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    OK, now we have what appears to be a sock who just reverted most of my changes. Added that account above, along with the other two and the IP address as well. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

    Hello, I am the drummer of Fear Tomorrow. Went to check Craig Mack's wiki page. Saw someone removed half the things? Craig Walendziak is a very popular musician in the hardcore scene. A lot of people know where Craig was born and his wife's name... I'm not sure why Jytdog is so confrontational? Thanks. Dilbert Grapes (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

    You are the one being aggressive by editing and leaving no edit notes, and not talking. I am glad you finally started talking here. Thanks for doing that. And thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. Please read and follow WP:COI - you should not directly edit the article of your band mate. And please read WP:VERIFY - things in articles, especially articles about living people, need to be based on published, reliable sources. Think about it -- I could say, just as easily as you, that I am the bass player for Fear Tomorrow and I know for a fact that Craig has a very tiny dick. Should that content be added to his article, on that basis? Really, think about it. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

    talk Hey I'm new here. I was in a band with him 15 years ago... that has long since disbanded. You are being very aggressive. You took a well written article and deleted half the content and replaced it poorly written sentences. Your edits were heavy handed. Those albums WERE verified in the post. (Check the discography links). You removed his whole education history? That seems weird. Many other people have their education listed. I'm just curious why you were so aggressive. And are still being aggressive. I'm not trying to be confrontational - just keeping an open source article enjoyable and accurate. Do you do this to every article? Dilbert Grapes (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

    hmm i know you are knew and i am trying to explain things clearly to you now. i explained every one of my edits. Most of them were removing unsourced content. again, i point you to WP:BLP and WP:VERIFY. Please read them. Those are both Misplaced Pages policies and you agree to follow them every time you edit Misplaced Pages - they are in the Terms of Use that you agree to, just by editing here. It is fine to be new, but you have to follow the rules here. Editing is a privilege (freely offered to all) but people who don't learn the rules and follow them get banned. that is just how wikipedia actually rolls. it is not a garbage dump where anybody can write anything -- content has to be sourced, especially in a biography article. Jytdog (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

    Steve Gibson (computer programmer)

    I have my doubts whether this editor is editing objectively. The article is full of primary sources affiliated with the subject, and seems to be rather fluffed up beyond what is really needed for an objective Misplaced Pages article. A "controversy" seems to have been manufactured out of thin air. What reliable third-party source has labelled this a "controversy"? Possible promotional intent? Skyerise (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

    I have my doubts whether this editor is editing objectively. The "controversy" section was not my creation. My additions are all Googled citations. Skyerise's contribution's comments clearly indicate negative bias towards the subject. ~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
    That was a very poor article. I worked it over today and have it on my watchlist. Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks. That was exactly what it needed. Skyerise (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

    Coats PLC

    Gingerjuice, which has been editing Coats PLC, is a social media company with Coats PLC as a client . Yet it has not declared this conflict here, violating the TOU. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

    That is one embattled article! Now blanked and listed at WP:Copyright problems, numerous copyvios added by at least two different editors, one in 2010, one in 2013. I think it is fairly safe to assume that Coatsuk, who made four edits in 2010, also has/had a COI. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

    Adam Blitz Charlie Hebdo Shooting

    @Adam Blitz: added his self-published blog post as a source to Charlie Hebdo shooting. Can an admin warn him about COI, and why general Misplaced Pages articles are not the place for self-published criticism of Misplaced Pages articles? -- Aronzak (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Note - I'm concerned about the doxing of User:Zero Serenity by media outlet The Federalist - low quality journalists may try to antagonise wikipedia editors (WP:NOTHERE) to then dox them and make a "story" out of how they disagree with Misplaced Pages. -- Aronzak (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

    That's Adam Blitz's own blog on the Times of Israel site. (Disclamer there: "This post has been contributed by a third party. The opinions, facts and any media content here are presented solely by the author, and The Times of Israel assumes no responsibility for them. In case of abuse, report this post.") Linking to the Times of Israel at first seemed OK. But linking to one's own blog is usually considered a COI. Someone already undid the relevant edits.
    The "doxing of User:Zero Serenity" issue seems to be unrelated. It's discussed here: Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-09-24/In the media and has to do with Neil deGrasse Tyson, the director of the Hayden Planetarium. What's the connection to Charlie Hebdo? John Nagle (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, I undid his changes when I saw them. I'll contact an admin involved with the NDT issue. I think there is an issue of canvassing, by taking Misplaced Pages disputes and broadcasting them exclusively to people who are likely to share his political ideology, and I'll take it up with an admin on their talk page. -- Aronzak (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    User:Aronzak --Adam Blitz (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Sir, I have no idea what the reference is to Zero Serenity or the inflammatory remark about "low quality journalists may try to antagonize Misplaced Pages editors". The facts are very simple: there is no reference within the Charlie Hebdo Shooting article to the killing of Jews at the Kosher Supermarket by A Coulibaly. This has nothing to do with my "political ideology", as you write, or "broadcasting them exclusively to people who are likely to share his political ideology". The omission of these facts, that the killing was inspired by Charlie Hebdo related events is, if anything, ideological. There is no reason to exclude this additional tragedy from the story. I am not very accustomed to editing Misplaced Pages pages. Perhaps you would advise me as to how I may proceed.
    Promoting your own blog on Misplaced Pages is generally not acceptable. Please read WP:SOAP. The other shootings are covered at 2015 Île-de-France attacks, which is the parent of the Charlie Hebdo article. John Nagle (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    (Note comment from Adam Blitz on my user page. Moved to my talk page: User talk:Nagle#Charlie Hebdo) John Nagle (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

    Adam Blitz (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Sirs User:Aronzak and John Nagle I received a response from Mr. Nagle. (Thank you). I have attempted to explain that the other shootings merit coverage within the body of the article, "Charlie Hebdo Shooting", at least a line to convey the context. Île-de-France subsection is not the parent but the child. Mr. Nagle is mistaken, I believe. And the shootings at the kosher supermarket of Porte de Vincennes do not appear visibly within the sub-heading or the main article. There is no reason to exclude these especially when there is reference to other incidents such as Dammartin en Goele. I have no particular interest to promote my blog on Misplaced Pages. What I am interested in is illustrating that the causation of these subsequent anti-Semitic killings by A Coulibaly is clearly missing in the "Charlie Hebdo Shooting" article. My focus is academic scrutiny - not "political ideology" as User Aronzak writes. I would appreciate some help with the editing process. Please would you be kind enough to assist? I can be contacted at adam.blitzATcolumnist.com Thank you. Adam Blitz (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

    BayviewVillageSC

    Self-apparent COI, in both name and in choice of articles to edit. Epeefleche (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

    Looks like a user name policy violation, but the edits to the articles seem OK. They just uploaded a picture of the mall and linked that to the article. They also put a smaller version of the image into Bayview Village, which has had a mention of the mall for years. The picture was uploaded at very high resolution, tagged as "own work", and carries the camera data, so that does not appear to be a copyvio, although smaller versions of that image appear elsewhere on the Web. No promotional text was added; the "upscale mall" line in Bayview Village is not new. I'd suggest informing them of Misplaced Pages's policy on user names - individuals only, no group, role, or company accounts. WP:BITE would seem to apply; this seems well-intentioned. John Nagle (talk) 06:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

    The Doctors (2008 TV series) and promotional account.

    TheDoctorsPR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A user called TheDoctorsPR has shown up at the article and other related BLPs. It definitely goes against WP:ORGNAME, but what's the best course of action in cases like this? Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

    tagged the articles. watching the article and watching the editor's talk page to see if/when they come clean. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    This edit is a concern. Deleting a reference to a New York Times article is unusual, but the article linked to is completely irrelevant to Travis Lane Stork. It's about a security breach in Target's credit card processing system. Looking further. John Nagle (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    It looks like the Travis Lane Stork article was vandalized about a year ago by an anon, 173.15.232.237 (talk · contribs), in this edit.. Removed insertion by that anon. There's other plausible-looking vandalism from that anon in other articles.. Both of those edits have been reverted by others. Appears to be unrelated to COI issue. John Nagle (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

    User:EditorialatOMFIF

    Examples with Diffs (there are 10+ edits like these):

    Steve Hanke https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Steve_Hanke&diff=prev&oldid=646638513

    Jean-Claude Bastos de Morais https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Jean-Claude_Bastos_de_Morais&diff=prev&oldid=646525739

    Paul Judge https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Paul_Judge&diff=prev&oldid=646648079


    User EditorialatOMFIF has been rapidly adding sentences about involvement with OMFIF to Blp pages. Given the user name, this appears a clear conflict of interest. In any case these are unreferenced blp changes, and the username doesn't appear to comply with the username policy. EditorialatOMFIF was warned by AllyD on his/her talk page, but has not responded and has continued to make OMFIF-related edits. Also, the existence and editing history of OMFIFlondon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and OMFIF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked) show a pattern of behavior.Dialectric (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

    User:Coffee has blocked EditorialatOMFIF, the user reported here, so I believe this issue is now resolved.Dialectric (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

    Q.leroy and Lendico

    Q.leroy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a coi with respect to Lendico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He appears to deny this, but given the WP:SPA status and a trivial Google search I think that stretches credulity. He reverted a pruning of spam on the article. I doubt he'll stop. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

    watchlisted and tagged. also provided notice on editor's Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
    I do not work for Lendico and do not have a conflict of interest with this article. I wrote it in cooperation with other authors and I also wrote other article concerning their competitors in other language (French, Spanish and German). I believe this entries does not appear in my log of the English WP. I used to study peer to peer lending at a global stage and believed the organization deserved its own page. As you can easily see, Lendico is NOT present on any English speaking country and that article cannot therefore be considered as an advertising. I deplore again the attempt of Guy to interfere with my person since I submitted one of his article for deletion. I truly believe he is the one that should be considered for having a POI with Universal Medicine (negative one in that case). And I would like to gently ask him not to harass me anymore on WP Q.leroy (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    Q.leroy please state if you have ever had an affiliation with Lendico and if so, tell us what that affiliation was, and when. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

    Landmark Worldwide

    Two editors with conflicts have repeatedly pushed an advocacy PoV relying on original research to blank sourced statements and revert to a version tagged for puffery last July; wiping out nearly all edits since. The talk page hectoring pushing the Landmark PoV and destructive reversions have been and are unproductive in moving the article forward. • Astynax 20:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

    • COI does not consist merely of direct employment (as both editors are aware). The issue of COI has been repeatedly raised by others, including admins, on talk pages, and in the case of AJackl, once here. The "balance" being pushed is to dismiss/mischaracterize and blank reliable sources and material cited to them, reverting to a version that has repeatedly been identified as puffery. Baseless attacks on me as some kind of fringe NPOV-pusher are irrelevant here. The talk page mentions of COI by others over the years were better directed to this noticeboard, so I have done so. • Astynax 19:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

    Response by DaveApter

    I will respond to this frivolous accusation in more detail tomorrow. For now, I will confine my comments to pointing out that my sole relationship with Landmark is as a sometime customer who took several of their courses some years ago, which is what you will see if you follow the link given above to my user page. This no more constitutes a conflict than the fact that I have at times owned Apple computers would give me a CoI in editing on the Apple Inc page. I gain no advantage of any kind by my editing of the Landmark page, and I have no interest other than seeing that it is balanced, accurate, and in compliance with Misplaced Pages policies.

    I edited the Landmark article extensively in 2006-7 when it was under attack from advocates intent on preserving it as an attack piece, but over the last seven years I have averaged about eight edits a year (a minute proportion of my activity on Misplaced Pages), mostly reversions of clear vandalism. The two reverts I made today are only my second and third edits there since last September.

    Astynax has made a determined effort to create an article which portrays an extreme viewpoint on the topic and resists any engagement with the normal Dispute Resolution Processes and ignores consensus when it does not fit with his agenda. Last October he initiated an Arbcom case against myself and two other editors, whose only shortcoming is that we do not share his extreme Point of View . The Arbitrators made no findings of policy violations by any of us. I specifically asked them to settle the matter of whether I had a WP:COI and they made no such finding. That surely should be the end of the matter, but I have been continually harassed by Astynax and others ever since. DaveApter (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

    Response by Alex Jackl

    I, like Dave Apter, will respond in more detail later but this is a baseless, ridiculous accusation. I am not an anonymous user, like my accuser, and have been open about my involvement with Landmark for ten years – I put it on my talk page and use my real name when editing, and it’s never been a problem. Also- the accusation of "repeated" changes- I posted my concerns on the talk page explicitly twice and asked for feedback, and then I made a single set of reverts to former accepted material. That does NOT represent "repeated" alterations.

    Regarding any potential COI, I am editing this page solely on my own behalf and to improve the Misplaced Pages article. I have no stock in Landmark nor am I paid or recompensed by Landmark in any way. I have never have been paid or compensated by Landmark for my editing on Misplaced Pages. I also have not been active with Landmark for years.

    Respectfully, Alex Jackl (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

    That article has been a long-term headache and a subject of ArbComm sanctions. Can this problem be turned over to ArbComm enforcement? I doubt we can resolve this at WP:COI. This probably needs the big hammers available at AN/I. John Nagle (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
    Buck passed to WP:AN/I#Landmark Worldwide heating up, again. Take this over there, please. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

    Thank you John Nagle. I feel like I accidentally stepped into a bear trap. Hopefully this will get the page top some stability. Alex Jackl (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

    Nicky Finest Paid contribution

    Self admitted here. That being said, I'm not up to date on the latest policies of paid contribution, so this may not be the correct venue. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

    no reliable sources. fake content too. nominated for speedy deletion. placed notification on editors Talk page of this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
    Categories: