![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Last year an IP accused me of having a conflict of interest at Fashion Net. Now Haadaa would like a review of my edits there for the same reason. Would anyone like to take a look?
Haadaa (say it out loud ...) is an SPA who has mostly been using {{ request edit}} in a perfectly acceptable way, but who has not – to my knowledge – declared a conflict of interest. Haadaa, do you have some personal or professional connection to Stig Harder and his various businesses? If so, you are obliged to declare it. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 10:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
We request a review of whether Justlettersandnumbers may have a conflict of interest after his/her repeated removal of edits to /info/en/?search=Fashion_Net. Haadaa ( talk) 10:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Could Justlettersandnumbers and Roxy the dog please reveal your identities? If not, we have reasons to believe you're affiliated with competitors and will be reporting you, including at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Haadaa ( talk) 01:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
We don't believe they have a conflict of interest only if they refuse to reveal their identities (if they don't, it will just corroborate our suspicion). We believe they have a conflict of interest (and that they also are colluding in a concerted attempt to belittle and intimidate) in that they consistently remove legitimate edits sourced from independent media, like the page for the International Academy of Fashion Arts and Sciences that they hastily deleted.
article pasted by Haadaa
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The International Academy of Fashion Arts and Sciences (IAFAS) is an organization dedicated to the advancement of the arts and sciences of the fashion industry. Executive members of the Academy, including Diane Pernet, Chair of Fashion Department at Paris College of Art Donald Potard and Launchmetrics President Eddie Mullon [2] [3] have since 2016 been selecting the nominees and winners for the annual FASHION NET Awards. [4] FASHION NET Awards (2016) Winners in the other categories can be found at fashion.net/awards/2016. [5]
References
External links Category:Fashion awards Category:Fashion organizations Category:Organizations established in 2016 |
Are you trying to silence us by deleting our comment here as well? Haadaa ( talk) 06:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Haadaa, this is not an appropriate place to paste articles. If you want to temporarily preserve the content, please use your own sandbox ("Sandbox" link at the very top of the page, next to your user name). Please do not edit other people's posts or change the thread title. I've restored both the deleted comment from Justlettersandnumbers's post and the original title. BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 07:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Why on earth would you restore Justlettersandnumbers's bullying remarks? Is this the culture among Wikipedia editors? Insulting people? We posted the article here to demonstrate its authenticity, proper language and independently sourced facts. The article being deleted as prompted by Roxy the dog evidence of bias. We request you reinstate the article, or we can do it ourselves from our backup. If the sources indeed do not meet Wikipedia standards, please explain why and we'll wait until we find acceptable sources. Haadaa ( talk) 08:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers, for declaring your intentions and that you're not affiliated with any of the parties that may have an interest in the subjects of these articles. We will ensure that any future edits comply with Wikipedia standards and add content only sourced from notable media. We, ourselves, have no interest in promoting any of the companies, brands or institutions whose articles we edited or created; we were simply not aware of the content or sources we added not not having met Wikipedia standards. Haadaa ( talk) 21:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Taking a look at the content, it's a surprisingly thin article for the topic. Basic information is lacking - ownership of the site, business history, etc. The site doesn't say much about that, but the site claims that the site name is trademarked. The trademark FASHION NET is held by Fashion Net, Inc. a Delaware corporation. Business address on Madison Avenue is a Regus business center rent-a-space location. None of the references appear to be full articles about the subject; the ones listed are mere list entries, and some of the cites ("The Guardian. 1995. "Netwatch" by Jack Schofield. p. 5") are too vague. Lumiere Magazine is a site with a long history in the Internet Archive. The two sites have years of content, yet few third-party references. Not sure why. John Nagle ( talk) 08:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I tried, more than once, to AfD these three articles, via instructions on AfD-ing stuff and with Twinkle. Alas, the obfuscatory nature of those procedures has beaten me. I would rather the articles remain on the project than try again. They should be nuked though, which illustrates how mindbogglingly difficult the deletion procedure is to somebody who has never tried before. - Roxy the dog. bark 17:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user has been reported here before and is an SPA on this article and a related company. User:JesseRafe recently did a good job of cleaning the article up to remove the poorly sourced/non-neutral content but Natsecobserver has since slow edit warred to maintain their version. This has been their only attempt to communicate despite repeated requests and they complained that the article no longer contained "significant current information about the subject's career". Given that for the last 5 years their edits have only been focussed on promoting a narrow band of subjects, I doubt that they are here to write an encyclopedia. SmartSE ( talk) 18:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
We're seeing some COI editing related to binary option topics. An anon (location Ramat Gan, Tel Aviv, Israel, home of SpotOption) tried to delete all the bad stuff about SpotOption. [2] Someone caught that in about an hour. Please watchlist. As background, the Tel Aviv based binary option industry, having been exposed as a huge scam, is collapsing. Banc De Binary (one of the worst COI cases in Wikipedia history) ceased operations recently, and so did about four other companies in the industry. Israel's Knesset is preparing to make the entire industry illegal in Israel. SpotOption is the technology provider behind most of the industry. John Nagle ( talk) 05:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
An IP editor who has declared they are an employee of Odeon Cinemas in an edit here keeps removing sourced content from the article with edits like this. While I understand that the "controversy" is a dated and may no longer be an issue, it does seem to have been an issue so mentioning it is the article seems OK. I was able to find another source here discussing the matter. Perhaps the text does need some rephrasing and cleaning up per WP:UNDUE to make it more neutral sounding, but I'm not sure if I agree with the IP that removing it all together is appropriate just because it was a problem that has (apparently) been fixed. The IP has been advised about their COI and has been encouraged to try and use the article's talk page to discuss things, but it's not clear if it's the same employee each time. So, I am wondering if some editors more experienced in dealing with company-related COI stuff wouldn't mind taking a look at the IPs edits and see if they are OK. Not all of them appear to be bad, but the IP does seem to be trying to update articles as if it were they were things found on the company's official website instead of on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The articles listed above are chock-full of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and most likely not WP:NPOV either. The username Bpc.sg is probably a violation (initialism of Bible-Presbyterian churches Singapore). Watchman1234 has admitted to being connected with this church (and has an interesting interpretation of WP:SYNTH...), see User_talk:Watchman1234#The_Burning_Bush. I have tried to explain the issues to Watchman1234, but clearly did not do a very good job. I must admit that this subject is not something I am interested in at all and I would like to leave these articles behind me and use my time for things that are better at holding my attention. However, the sorry state of these articles really needs some extra eyes, which is why I am posting here. Pinging StAnselm, who has edited these articles before (and created the one on verbal plenary preservation). Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 16:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I shall attempt to see what POV means although my effort at WP:NPOV seems to have been disregarded. I sincerely hope Randykitty is sincere in wanting to stay clear and is not using any surrogate or proxy to act for him.doesn't help. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 07:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I have been accused of being in COI with Bethel Presbyterian Church, Singapore when people deleted that article and merged it with another, and now I am accused of being an acronym for Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) which is a DEFUNCT denomination. What's next? British Petroleum Company Singapore? Bpc.sg ( talk)
Can someone please make sure proper actions and COI notices have been applied to this article? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I dont know how this chat and stuff works on Wiki - I just wanted to some more info on the march4trump page that gives more of what happened. If this is a page that is supposed to talk about the event I dont see what the problem is with adding that I was involved in the event, I am President of Gays for Trump and we were involved. Also that Joy and Andre took a part of it, and I linked their wiki pages. Also the number of participants was wrong because I did the ticketing system and I know who were registered outside of the facebook page. I also know from 800-1500 people attended. Not 150. So I just need someone to put the info out there. Also I dont see what is the problem with having more pictures in the article including the nice on of me throwing out the shirts. The little picture in there just does not show the excitement this event had. So someone can work with me to make this page better. I took out any "adverting" links — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterBoykin ( talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
This BLP is notable but reads like a promotional campaign for the guy. I've tagged it, made a few copyedits, but the more I got into the article, the more promotional it seemed. I noticed the creator was warned about COI but don't know if anything was done. Atsme 📞 📧 16:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Autobiography, apparently tended by the subject through this and IP accounts for years without intervention. Requires major rewriting to bring to encyclopedic standards. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 14:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
This article was created a couple of years ago by Jim, who acknowledges he has a clear conflict but was unaware of wikipedia's guidelines. Having now read them, he asked on my talk page here whether the best thing to do was to delete the article, noting that he is currently turning the subject of the article into a commercial product. I'm not sure if deleting it is the best course of action (it may be) or whether there can be some editing done to help Jim make the article more neutral and overcome some of the COI issues, so was hoping someone here might be able to give some advice. Thanks, Melcous ( talk) 12:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
This editor is the wife of the article's subject, see this diff for example. She has continued to remove content from the page about his previous marriages, which are all sourced (and widely reported). I attempted to tidy up the personal life section and removed some speculation about a possible additional marriage in a hidden note and trimmed a comment about divorce proceedings to make it strictly neutral. However, she has continued to delete the content (and been reverted by multiple editors) see diff 1, diff 2 and diff 3. Melcous ( talk) 00:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
COI account with history of promotional edits, most recently re-creating Jodi DiPiazza and adding her to articles on "Weird Al" Yankovic and Katy Perry. The Bridget Taylor article has been a nest for promotional edits by multiple COI accounts, and needs a good overview. 2601:188:1:AEA0:BD6D:6704:FD43:F4A1 ( talk) 03:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
-- NeilN talk to me 07:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Editor has been "seeding" articles with references to scientific articles published by "Mohamed T. Ghoneim", most likely the same person. This is not my field and the additions might conceivably be legitimate and helpful, so perhaps somebody who knows more about this subject could have a look. Thanks! -- Randykitty ( talk) 22:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I added some part of my article (on ethical issues of copyright) to the Opposition to copyright. Is it a case of COI? Ali Pirhayati ( talk) 14:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
My argument is exactly related to the ethical issues of copyright and it has nothing to do with "my" interests. Why can't it be added? Ali Pirhayati ( talk) 14:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
It is not a poor argument, because they are "good" articles and they are confirmed by several users. I'm ready to discuss them, but there can be no discussion when the other user uses insults to push his POV. We need a third party. Ali Pirhayati ( talk) 15:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Are you ready to discuss without insults? Ali Pirhayati ( talk) 16:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Did you insult me or not? Ali Pirhayati ( talk) 16:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
What does it mean? Ali Pirhayati ( talk) 16:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The article states that the director is Kyle Schlesinger. This person also created Kyle Schlesinger earlier, using the account Kschlesinger, and worked on it with a third account, KyleSchlesinger. Daphne Lantier 23:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Straightforward COI. See, for example, Nathan L Brown. 104.163.144.60 ( talk) 04:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Last year an IP accused me of having a conflict of interest at Fashion Net. Now Haadaa would like a review of my edits there for the same reason. Would anyone like to take a look?
Haadaa (say it out loud ...) is an SPA who has mostly been using {{ request edit}} in a perfectly acceptable way, but who has not – to my knowledge – declared a conflict of interest. Haadaa, do you have some personal or professional connection to Stig Harder and his various businesses? If so, you are obliged to declare it. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 10:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
We request a review of whether Justlettersandnumbers may have a conflict of interest after his/her repeated removal of edits to /info/en/?search=Fashion_Net. Haadaa ( talk) 10:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Could Justlettersandnumbers and Roxy the dog please reveal your identities? If not, we have reasons to believe you're affiliated with competitors and will be reporting you, including at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Haadaa ( talk) 01:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
We don't believe they have a conflict of interest only if they refuse to reveal their identities (if they don't, it will just corroborate our suspicion). We believe they have a conflict of interest (and that they also are colluding in a concerted attempt to belittle and intimidate) in that they consistently remove legitimate edits sourced from independent media, like the page for the International Academy of Fashion Arts and Sciences that they hastily deleted.
article pasted by Haadaa
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The International Academy of Fashion Arts and Sciences (IAFAS) is an organization dedicated to the advancement of the arts and sciences of the fashion industry. Executive members of the Academy, including Diane Pernet, Chair of Fashion Department at Paris College of Art Donald Potard and Launchmetrics President Eddie Mullon [2] [3] have since 2016 been selecting the nominees and winners for the annual FASHION NET Awards. [4] FASHION NET Awards (2016) Winners in the other categories can be found at fashion.net/awards/2016. [5]
References
External links Category:Fashion awards Category:Fashion organizations Category:Organizations established in 2016 |
Are you trying to silence us by deleting our comment here as well? Haadaa ( talk) 06:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Haadaa, this is not an appropriate place to paste articles. If you want to temporarily preserve the content, please use your own sandbox ("Sandbox" link at the very top of the page, next to your user name). Please do not edit other people's posts or change the thread title. I've restored both the deleted comment from Justlettersandnumbers's post and the original title. BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 07:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Why on earth would you restore Justlettersandnumbers's bullying remarks? Is this the culture among Wikipedia editors? Insulting people? We posted the article here to demonstrate its authenticity, proper language and independently sourced facts. The article being deleted as prompted by Roxy the dog evidence of bias. We request you reinstate the article, or we can do it ourselves from our backup. If the sources indeed do not meet Wikipedia standards, please explain why and we'll wait until we find acceptable sources. Haadaa ( talk) 08:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers, for declaring your intentions and that you're not affiliated with any of the parties that may have an interest in the subjects of these articles. We will ensure that any future edits comply with Wikipedia standards and add content only sourced from notable media. We, ourselves, have no interest in promoting any of the companies, brands or institutions whose articles we edited or created; we were simply not aware of the content or sources we added not not having met Wikipedia standards. Haadaa ( talk) 21:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Taking a look at the content, it's a surprisingly thin article for the topic. Basic information is lacking - ownership of the site, business history, etc. The site doesn't say much about that, but the site claims that the site name is trademarked. The trademark FASHION NET is held by Fashion Net, Inc. a Delaware corporation. Business address on Madison Avenue is a Regus business center rent-a-space location. None of the references appear to be full articles about the subject; the ones listed are mere list entries, and some of the cites ("The Guardian. 1995. "Netwatch" by Jack Schofield. p. 5") are too vague. Lumiere Magazine is a site with a long history in the Internet Archive. The two sites have years of content, yet few third-party references. Not sure why. John Nagle ( talk) 08:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I tried, more than once, to AfD these three articles, via instructions on AfD-ing stuff and with Twinkle. Alas, the obfuscatory nature of those procedures has beaten me. I would rather the articles remain on the project than try again. They should be nuked though, which illustrates how mindbogglingly difficult the deletion procedure is to somebody who has never tried before. - Roxy the dog. bark 17:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user has been reported here before and is an SPA on this article and a related company. User:JesseRafe recently did a good job of cleaning the article up to remove the poorly sourced/non-neutral content but Natsecobserver has since slow edit warred to maintain their version. This has been their only attempt to communicate despite repeated requests and they complained that the article no longer contained "significant current information about the subject's career". Given that for the last 5 years their edits have only been focussed on promoting a narrow band of subjects, I doubt that they are here to write an encyclopedia. SmartSE ( talk) 18:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
We're seeing some COI editing related to binary option topics. An anon (location Ramat Gan, Tel Aviv, Israel, home of SpotOption) tried to delete all the bad stuff about SpotOption. [2] Someone caught that in about an hour. Please watchlist. As background, the Tel Aviv based binary option industry, having been exposed as a huge scam, is collapsing. Banc De Binary (one of the worst COI cases in Wikipedia history) ceased operations recently, and so did about four other companies in the industry. Israel's Knesset is preparing to make the entire industry illegal in Israel. SpotOption is the technology provider behind most of the industry. John Nagle ( talk) 05:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
An IP editor who has declared they are an employee of Odeon Cinemas in an edit here keeps removing sourced content from the article with edits like this. While I understand that the "controversy" is a dated and may no longer be an issue, it does seem to have been an issue so mentioning it is the article seems OK. I was able to find another source here discussing the matter. Perhaps the text does need some rephrasing and cleaning up per WP:UNDUE to make it more neutral sounding, but I'm not sure if I agree with the IP that removing it all together is appropriate just because it was a problem that has (apparently) been fixed. The IP has been advised about their COI and has been encouraged to try and use the article's talk page to discuss things, but it's not clear if it's the same employee each time. So, I am wondering if some editors more experienced in dealing with company-related COI stuff wouldn't mind taking a look at the IPs edits and see if they are OK. Not all of them appear to be bad, but the IP does seem to be trying to update articles as if it were they were things found on the company's official website instead of on Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 22:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The articles listed above are chock-full of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and most likely not WP:NPOV either. The username Bpc.sg is probably a violation (initialism of Bible-Presbyterian churches Singapore). Watchman1234 has admitted to being connected with this church (and has an interesting interpretation of WP:SYNTH...), see User_talk:Watchman1234#The_Burning_Bush. I have tried to explain the issues to Watchman1234, but clearly did not do a very good job. I must admit that this subject is not something I am interested in at all and I would like to leave these articles behind me and use my time for things that are better at holding my attention. However, the sorry state of these articles really needs some extra eyes, which is why I am posting here. Pinging StAnselm, who has edited these articles before (and created the one on verbal plenary preservation). Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 16:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I shall attempt to see what POV means although my effort at WP:NPOV seems to have been disregarded. I sincerely hope Randykitty is sincere in wanting to stay clear and is not using any surrogate or proxy to act for him.doesn't help. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 07:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I have been accused of being in COI with Bethel Presbyterian Church, Singapore when people deleted that article and merged it with another, and now I am accused of being an acronym for Bible-Presbyterian churches (Singapore) which is a DEFUNCT denomination. What's next? British Petroleum Company Singapore? Bpc.sg ( talk)
Can someone please make sure proper actions and COI notices have been applied to this article? --- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I dont know how this chat and stuff works on Wiki - I just wanted to some more info on the march4trump page that gives more of what happened. If this is a page that is supposed to talk about the event I dont see what the problem is with adding that I was involved in the event, I am President of Gays for Trump and we were involved. Also that Joy and Andre took a part of it, and I linked their wiki pages. Also the number of participants was wrong because I did the ticketing system and I know who were registered outside of the facebook page. I also know from 800-1500 people attended. Not 150. So I just need someone to put the info out there. Also I dont see what is the problem with having more pictures in the article including the nice on of me throwing out the shirts. The little picture in there just does not show the excitement this event had. So someone can work with me to make this page better. I took out any "adverting" links — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterBoykin ( talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
This BLP is notable but reads like a promotional campaign for the guy. I've tagged it, made a few copyedits, but the more I got into the article, the more promotional it seemed. I noticed the creator was warned about COI but don't know if anything was done. Atsme 📞 📧 16:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Autobiography, apparently tended by the subject through this and IP accounts for years without intervention. Requires major rewriting to bring to encyclopedic standards. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 14:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
This article was created a couple of years ago by Jim, who acknowledges he has a clear conflict but was unaware of wikipedia's guidelines. Having now read them, he asked on my talk page here whether the best thing to do was to delete the article, noting that he is currently turning the subject of the article into a commercial product. I'm not sure if deleting it is the best course of action (it may be) or whether there can be some editing done to help Jim make the article more neutral and overcome some of the COI issues, so was hoping someone here might be able to give some advice. Thanks, Melcous ( talk) 12:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
This editor is the wife of the article's subject, see this diff for example. She has continued to remove content from the page about his previous marriages, which are all sourced (and widely reported). I attempted to tidy up the personal life section and removed some speculation about a possible additional marriage in a hidden note and trimmed a comment about divorce proceedings to make it strictly neutral. However, she has continued to delete the content (and been reverted by multiple editors) see diff 1, diff 2 and diff 3. Melcous ( talk) 00:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
COI account with history of promotional edits, most recently re-creating Jodi DiPiazza and adding her to articles on "Weird Al" Yankovic and Katy Perry. The Bridget Taylor article has been a nest for promotional edits by multiple COI accounts, and needs a good overview. 2601:188:1:AEA0:BD6D:6704:FD43:F4A1 ( talk) 03:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
-- NeilN talk to me 07:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Editor has been "seeding" articles with references to scientific articles published by "Mohamed T. Ghoneim", most likely the same person. This is not my field and the additions might conceivably be legitimate and helpful, so perhaps somebody who knows more about this subject could have a look. Thanks! -- Randykitty ( talk) 22:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I added some part of my article (on ethical issues of copyright) to the Opposition to copyright. Is it a case of COI? Ali Pirhayati ( talk) 14:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
My argument is exactly related to the ethical issues of copyright and it has nothing to do with "my" interests. Why can't it be added? Ali Pirhayati ( talk) 14:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
It is not a poor argument, because they are "good" articles and they are confirmed by several users. I'm ready to discuss them, but there can be no discussion when the other user uses insults to push his POV. We need a third party. Ali Pirhayati ( talk) 15:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Are you ready to discuss without insults? Ali Pirhayati ( talk) 16:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Did you insult me or not? Ali Pirhayati ( talk) 16:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
What does it mean? Ali Pirhayati ( talk) 16:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The article states that the director is Kyle Schlesinger. This person also created Kyle Schlesinger earlier, using the account Kschlesinger, and worked on it with a third account, KyleSchlesinger. Daphne Lantier 23:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Straightforward COI. See, for example, Nathan L Brown. 104.163.144.60 ( talk) 04:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)