User talk:Philosophysubboy

Hello, Philosophysubboy, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as User:Philosophysubboy, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

• Article development
• Standard layout
• Lead section
• The perfect article
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Flounder fillet (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Another editor has accused you of bad faith tagging, and I'm trying to decide whether to restore the article. Personally, I'm finding it very hard to figure out the history of it all. I can see there has been COI editing but I'm not really sure that I understand, so I would like to know what your reasoning was for tagging it for speedy deletion. Deb (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Deb Hello Deb!

The article in question was about Danny, who described himself as an investigative journalist and a crypto scheme avenger. These were the words originally used in the article. I had no prior knowledge of him before seeing the page. I came across it last week as part of a newcomers task. My initial action was to add a notability tag because most of the citations were self published sources, and Danny was editing his own article. All of this activity is visible on the article talk page.

After I added the tag, Danny responded by revealing my personal Reddit username on the talk page and publicly accusing me of being a Pakistani scammer and a self proclaimed ghostwriter. He also posted about me on his social media accounts. I emailed several administrators about the harassment but received no reply. These are examples of his posts:

x.com/dehek/status/1994013157132783768

linkedin.com/posts/dehek_operation-grey-under-reported-us-pressure-activity-7399775889984544769-rwug

Shortly after this, several new accounts began adding positive material to the article in a way that strongly suggested paid editing. This appeared to be an attempt to portray Danny in a favorable light. A section titled Allegations of coercive behaviour and disputes with journalists was added three times and removed three times. That section summarized reporting that Danny contacts employers to pressure individuals into interviews, then publishes their personal information. One of the references was this article:

gurumag.com/danny-de-hek-accused-of-reckless-and-abusive-behavior-when-reporting-on-scams

There are also multiple comments on the talk page from accounts that appear to be sockpuppets or associates attempting to influence the article. This is clear manipulation of the editing process and a violation of Wikipedia policy.

I have no personal interest in Danny or any organization connected to him. My concern is that he has harassed me and leaked my private information online. Because of his actions, I have changed several usernames and hidden multiple accounts to avoid further doxxing. My edit history shows that I do not engage in paid editing and have never manipulated any article. Meanwhile, Danny and those acting with him appear to be reviewing my past contributions and removing unrelated edits, which harms the integrity of my account.

I also have evidence that Danny used a black hat Wikipedia editor and paid them to publish content about him, but I do not believe that part is central to this discussion. My edits are fully transparent, and you can review them to assess my intentions yourself.

For additional context, Danny published a detailed article on his own website describing his attempts to influence his Wikipedia page:

dehek.com/general/scam-fraud-investigations/inside-my-wikipedia-page-how-it-works-why-it-matters-and-the-reality-of-being-a-scam-buster

My tagging was based on notability, self published sourcing, and clear conflict of interest concerns. The harassment and doxxing only began after I added the template. Philosophysubboy(talk) 11:11, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'll put it back, but I'll protect it from SPAs and I'll put a big COI template at the top. Deb (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

@Deb Thanks. I understand the reasoning but I do not agree with restoring it as of now. Due to the history of manipulation by SPAs it is very likely that the same behaviour will return if its restored now.

It maybe better to consider restoring the article only after some time has passed and once the COI and behavioural issues have clearly settled. Philosophysubboy(talk) 12:28, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Best thing is if you nominate it for deletion, then I won't end up being slated for deleting it. The rights and wrongs can be argued out on the discussion page. Deb (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

This user acted in bad faith. Please look into the many accusations other editors have posted to this talk page that he has deleted to hide his suspected paid editing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Philosophysubboy&oldid=1326325365

He is also often using LLM's to generate response.

Removing the COI tag from the page would be good given that the page was created by a user who has no connection to the subject. M20294135122 (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Iiii I I I. An edit that you recently made to This Is Football 2 seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is usually unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and may contain factually inaccurate statements, fictitious citations, or other problems. You should instead read reliable sources and then summarize those in your own words. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Iiii I I I (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to the article Rev (drink). However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. You have recently used citations which copied, or mirrored, material from Wikipedia. This leads to a circular reference and is not acceptable. Most mirrors are clearly labeled as such, but some are in violation of our license and do not provide the correct attribution. Please help by adding alternate sources to the article you edited! If you need any help or clarification, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. Sam Kuru (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi there!

I couldn't find any sources to cite the paragraph that had a tag but I did found that the previous citations were talking about the same things so I redid the tags. No worries about it. I'll remove them. Philosophysubboy(talk) 11:18, 28 December 2025 (UTC)