Talk page[edit]

Nomination of VIDA Select for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article VIDA Select 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/VIDA Select 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.

Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your nominations for deletion[edit]

I know it is upsetting to have an article you wrote deleted. However it is not appropriate to immediately nominate for deletion seven articles written by the first editor who commented in that discussion. You have not edited here long enough to understand Wikipedia's requirements - the nomination of Michael J. Freedman was badly mistaken, and the action smacks of revenge. Please go back and withdraw all those nominations. StarryGrandma (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't nominated all of their pages for deletion. Just the ones that aren't notable and I'm applying the exact same hardline interpretation of notability as they did. I am also contacting the subjects of the pages off Wiki to gather information on the paid editing operation behind these pages. I am declaring a cyberwar on the Indian paid editing operation behind all of this. The war isn't going to end. The war is going to rage on. I've already spoke to journalists from the New York Times and Slate, both of whom are watching and taking notes.Ferkingstad (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that if you have any evidence of a "paid editing gang" you should forward it to the arbitration committee, who have experience in handling such situations. Pahunkat (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm sharing the evidence with the mainstream media who are going to expose the Mumbai Mafia for what they are.Ferkingstad (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The mainstream media do not have any power to impose sanctions on users here, whereas the arbitration committee does. Any information fed into the mainstream media will likely find its way to arbcom before it is acted upon. Pahunkat (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm PamD. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alanah Pearce that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You say "A paid editing gang from India created this page for money.", which is a very serious accusation to make about a page created by a long-standing editor. What evidence do you have for this accusation? If none, please retract that comment. PamD 11:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm very disturbed by the bad-faith deletion nominations and the casting of aspersions. Please see WP:POINT - you're very blatantly violating it. Any more of this will get your account blocked, so please rethink your approach to editing Wikipedia right away. Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]