I'd love to hear from you!!!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, CitizenNeutral. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! -- Trevj (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you tag these pages with the banners? Precision guided firearm and TrackingPoint have seen plenty of budding interest. Which is how I found out about their existence, but I do not see what is wrong with the information presented, including the edit you made about removing promotional spam which noted TrackingPoint's development. Please advise me. I got an eye on those articles now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its been a while. I know you may not be on at all times. I am removing them because it seems invalid and the coverage of this subject is high, so rather then cast unnecessary doubt when there is none, I'm going to remove the tags and do as best I can to address matters from then on. Contact me if you disagree. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I've received a notification that you reviewed one of my created pages (Red carpet fashion in 2008), but can't find anything in the page history or elsewhere to see what exactly this involved. Just wanted to say thanks for reviewing it, and ask whether I could find out more about what exactly your review involved? Given the lack of tags/flags etc, I'm guessing no tags is good news. Best wishes, Mabalu (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just had a blinding flash of realization. It's been SO long since I created the page that I'd forgotten it was still up in the New Articles log without a review - which is what you did. Thanks for passing it! (Still morning-bleary...) Mabalu (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I note you have removed the April in the Afternoon prod with the comment that is has some notability. I can't find anything locally (in NZ) that points to that and wondered what you may have found. NealeFamily (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like a response please as you seem to be reversing PROD's simply because you don't like prod's rather than any other reason. NealeFamily (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry I think I made a mistake. CitizenNeutral (talk) 06:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Another editor has set the article to Speedy delete. NealeFamily (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you removed the PROD from Deportes Rengo arguing that the Spanish language wiki has enough content with sources. I checked the page in Spanish and noticed--that yes--there was some substantial text but there were no citations and its references section was empty. Their only external link was a website with a splash that had words of encouragement. --MicroX (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CitizenNeutral! I see you un-CSDed the already-AFDed "Wanderful Media" in this edit.

1. Please see Wikipedia:CSD#G11. Do you agree or disagree that the article is "exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic"?
2. Why should an article not be tagged for CSD and AfD at the same time?

When you reply, please remove my message from your talk page and insert it on mine. I can do the same when I reply to you. Thank you!

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CitizenNeutral. You have new messages at Rybec's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dasein Executive Search, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brazilian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CitizenNeutral,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Bernstein Crisis Management for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can , but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Nathan Finch Ballard, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Nat Gertler (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CitizenNeutral. You have new messages at NatGertler's talk page.
Message added 19:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Nat Gertler (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, with all due respect, and taking into consideration the messages above and the discussion on my talk page, if you simply continue recreating deleted pages or moving userfied pages back into mainspace, they will probably be deleted again just as quickly, and even be prevented from being recreated at all. We generally have a 'fail safe' for/against deletions: an experienced editor tags the pages for deletion while an admin reviews that tag and decides whether or not to do the actual deletion, or help the creator to find another solution. In the case of at least one of your articles, both the tagger and the deleter were admeins, so it's very likely that their combined decisions were appropriate. The Bernstein article is of particular concern because its recreation is persistent (it was already previously created by another account, and then deleted). Once an article is tagged for deletion, there is not requirement for admins to allow the creator more time to work on the article. [[WP:CSD|Speedy Deletions] are , well, speedy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kudpung: Thanks for taking the time to explain your point of view on deletions to me. The reason I decided to recreate these deleted pages was b/c I found the subjects to be notable and of some encyclopedic importance. After a discussion with a user named Rybec and another IP editor in July, I was introduced to a substantial list of articles that have been deleted under the G5 criteria as a result of being created by a banned user named Morning227. You can view the whole list here: User:Rybec/CSD_log, User:Rybec/PROD_log, User:Rybec/sandbox and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Morning277.

I reviewed the G5 criteria and the article on recreating deleted pages, and it's not mentioned anywhere that an article deleted as g5 can't be recreated by an editor in good standing. If these notable subjects cannot ever have Wikipedia pages again for a reason I don't know, please do let me know and point me to where I can review that, and I'll happily stand down. Any articles I recreate will be well-sourced and neutral. Thanks again for taking the time to respond to me. CitizenNeutral (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's my version of the background to this: 24.23.151.188 (talk · contribs), who I had thanked for finding promotional articles, made some harsh remarks toward CitizenNeutral. When 24.23.151.188 made a G5 request on Steve Kuhn (Executive), CitizenNeutral removed the tag. I restored it because I perceived the removal as incorrect. CitizenNeutral wondered whether I was the same person as the IP editor [1]. CitizenNeutral took a wiki-break of about five weeks, and apparently was annnoyed to find another comment from 24.23.151.188 upon returning [2]. We had a discussion about the new/restored articles [3] (continues in the "Dasein" section). CitizenNeutral asked for my help, but all I did was to provide partial lists of articles I've nominated for deletion. I don't have the "master list" that was requested, but the roughly 180 files I did list in my CSD log, PROD log and sandbox ought to be enough to keep CN busy for awhile. —rybec 19:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,

I've removed maintenance tags from Crisis communication‎ and Digital Chocolate. The {{POV}} tag is supposed to be accompanied by an explanation or a discussion on the talk page, but I saw none. The work of the obvious COI editor DChoc was promptly reverted years ago, and you didn't put {{connected contributor}} on the talk page so the reason you added {{COI}} wasn't apparent to me. —rybec 21:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the heads-up.The POV issue I saw on the Crisis Communication page pertained to how the article spoke about CC in the context of the Clinton administration without presenting other historical examples. Anyway, I appreciate the message. CitizenNeutral (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CitizenNeutral. When you add references to an article, please do not just mention a month and date: also mention a year. There are various acceptable styles: see WP:MOSDATE. My favorite is "9 September 2013". Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up on the dates. I made that mistake a few times unfortunately. CitizenNeutral (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CitizenNeutral. Would you mind elaborating on your reasons for eliminating the technical capabilities section of the New Relic article? That section has been in the article for some time, though I recently updated it a little. The section seems relevant to me in explaining the company and what it does. I would also like to understand the removal of the fact that the CEO has 19 patents, as well as the removal of its clients, both of which I feel help establish the company's notability. Thank you very much. JNorman704 (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does the number of patents that the CEO holds affect the company's notability? If this article was about the CEO then that might be the case (though holding patents is not source of notability typically). However this is an article about New Relic. Much of the information you added, such as a list of company's clients, is typically not included on a company Wikipedia pages. The long list of technical capabilities was largely unsourced, and better suited for the company's website. CitizenNeutral (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback! JNorman704 (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

ClassDojo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Paul Graham

Heliospectra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Swedish

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article GatherSpace (company) 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/GatherSpace (company) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on GatherSpace (company), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. —rybec 04:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Unique Squared requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Randykitty (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "bulk deletion request". Thank you. --—rybec 00:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Telly (website) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. LGA _talk^edits 06:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pogoseat 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/Pogoseat until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Tiptoety ^talk 07:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CN -

I noticed that you were a very prolific editor for quite a while, initially working on removing promotional content, and later working on salvaging content from G5'ed articles, but have since retired. If you don't mind sharing, what made you decide to stop editing Wikipedia? Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Innoz 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/Innoz until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. —rybec 06:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although this user is already inactive, I have blocked them indefinitely. User:Kevin Gorman asked me to take an independent look at their history, and my conclusion is that they're clearly a sockpuppet of User:Morning277, employee of Wiki-PR (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277). This has been suspected before on this very page (old revision).

1. First and foremost, they have extensively re-created articles created by socks of User:Morning277, including many of questionable notability, and almost all their article creations fall in this category. They recreated them as stubs, which has been claimed to be part of Wiki-PR's MO ("When the page was finally created again, it contained only one sentence. Rather than apologising, French told Rahim to raise his media profile, and connected the academic to Scarsdale media, who offered 30 days of "media relations efforts" for another $800.") The following are all re-creations of articles originally created by suspected or confirmed socks of User:Morning277:
   • Helsinn, ClassDojo, Bizible, Innoz (second creation), Heliospectra, RxWiki, Unique Squared, Telly (website), Vungle, SouthWest Energy, Splash (company), Inflection (company), Pogoseat, Centrify, Tom Kemp (entrepreneur), Chris Hobart, BillFloat, Jason Kanner, DDC Advocacy, The RLJ Companies, Hannah Bronfman, Gordon Kahn (architect), PeopleSmart, Boundary, Inc., Steve Kuhn (Executive) (substantially edited), Hotel Urbano, David Rusenko, Rick E. Schaden, GatherSpace (company), Dominique Molina, Timo Weiland
2. The user had a good understanding of policy and jargon from their first edits on 8 Feb 2013, with edit summaries including "unreliable sources", "notability tag", etc.; they are clearly an experienced editor, most likely using a new account to evade scrutiny.
3. Although they professed to be "anti spam," they radically shifted their behavior from deletion/tagging of content to saving content from deletion and detagging and recreating deleted content on corporate entities and professionals on 21 July 2013. This kind of radical behavior and worldview shift is unnatural and most likely part of a Wiki-PR strategy (first tear down articles to generate more clients, then build up other articles based on who is paying you).
4. They've engaged in repeated user talk page blanking and purging, most likely to cover their tracks.

To play defense lawyer for a minute: The user consulted with rybec about their re-creations, and was aware of User:rybec's CSD log and PROD log which they could have been using as their source of article titles to re-create, and they openly noted them as G5 re-creations (and of course rybec had been working the Morning277 case). The stubified articles don't appear to share content or style with the original deleted articles. It's possible that their experience with Steve Kuhn (Executive) - in which they tried to clean up the article by making it less promotional and were accused of sockpuppetry - is what led to their radical behavior changes. And the talk page blanking may have been a purely emotional reaction. But I don't find these arguments very plausible compared to the alternative - particularly considering the radical shift in worldview that their change in behaviour would represent.

I think the evidence points to sockpuppetry beyond a reasonable doubt. Dcoetzee 00:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]