User talk:Mercenf: Difference between revisions

Hello there @Mercenf. I saw that you have placed an undisclosed payment tag on my page. I would like to tell you that i am not charging anything from anyone. I respect the wikipedia guidelines. I noticed that the article Draft:Aanal Kotak was previously deleted and when some searched her name on google, her wikipedia page was on top and when opened, it wasn't there. I requested the undeletion which was subsequently accepted. I added reliable references of her news articles as per the list provided Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and Wikipedia:News sources/India. The page was already present, i just did minor edits to it by adding references and adding an award to the page. I have removed more material from the page. Kindly check. Feel free to contact me in case there is any other problem related to the page. AustinTravis27 (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work. You didn't make many changes after requesting undeletion, and then moved it to the mainspace. As a result, we had an article that was citing paid brand posts, which aren't reliable and gave an impression of undisclosed paid editing. Even in the current version, there are two paid references, namely [1] and [2], which aren't reliable at all. Please remove both of them. Mercenf (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mercenf,

I'd like to discourage you from making personal comments about other editors in AFD discussions. AFDs are adversarial enough with editors often take potshots at those whose position they disagree with. Implying that another editor is phoning it in and not doing proper investigation will be apparent to other editors without anyone pointing it out. Those of us who spend a lot of time reviewing AFDs know those editors who do their due diligence and those editors who just show up with a "per nom" comment. My goal is not to silence anyone but just lower the temperature of these discussions because as soon as things turn personal and the focus is off the article, then they can get toxic and go off-track. I appreciate your contributions on the project and would love for you to continue but without the side comments. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, thank you for sharing your thoughts. I don't think I commented on anyone's character. In my understanding, it is important to challenge the rationale of arguments; otherwise, administrators might consider them valid, and they would end up being kept/deleted. Please let me know if I am wrong in this regard. I will then avoid it. Mercenf (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]