User talk:Esqmark922: Difference between revisions

 

Line 110: Line 110:

== request ==

== request ==

{{unblock|reason=Your reason here [[User:Esqmark922|Esqmark922]] ([[User talk:Esqmark922#top|talk]]) 20:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC) I believe me reply in the previous request was not clear, and the reviewer did not understand it. I am replying to the same reviewer:

{{unblock|reason=Your reason here [[User:Esqmark922|Esqmark922]] ([[User talk:Esqmark922#top|talk]]) 20:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC) I believe me reply in the previous request was not clear, and the reviewer did not understand it. I am replying to the same reviewer:

@Anachronist! I am not making a request for the rejected draft. I am making the request for the topic, so I could created a properly sources and formatted draft and submit it for evaluation. I added appropriate paid editing notice on the page, as was suggested by editors on the thread and di not have the time yet to make the article.}}

@Anachronist! I am not making a request for the rejected draft. I am making the request for the topic, so I could created a properly sources and formatted draft and submit it for evaluation. I added appropriate paid editing notice on the page, as was suggested by editors on the thread and di not have the time yet to make the article.}}

Hello, Esqmark922, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you created or edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, which will be reviewed by other editors. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don’t hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, visit the Teahouse, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 00:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Esqmark922. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia’s mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a “black hat” practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Esqmark922. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Esqmark922|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. 331dot (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being paid for this task. Should I place {{paid|user=Esqmark922|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}} on my page, or should I state that it is a conflict of interest? I know the individual, not closely, but in a professional setting. Esqmark922 (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the terms of use, with special regard to WP:PAID. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 00:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You said “I am part of the marketing team”, so you are a paid editor as editing Wikipedia would fall within your job duties. 331dot (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve read the terms. To be more precise, this usually does not fall under the job duties of our marketing team. Should I use this tag from the terms, or the one you provided?

{{Connected contributor|User1=Your username|U1-declared=yes|U1-otherlinks=(Optional) Insert relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts, or diffs showing COI contributions.}}

Esqmark922 (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You should use the one provided in the first message. This goes on your user page

The one you have provided above is for the talk page of articles you edit and is optional, though I recommend it for transparency. Transparency is very important. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 00:26, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt

• {{Paid}} with all parameters filled out, one for each article that you edit where reward could comnceivably be attributed to you
• {{connected contributor (paid)}} optional but recommended for the talk page of those articles

🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 00:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Where exactly on the page should it be inserted? For the record, the page was created a few months ago, not by anyone from the firm. Esqmark922 (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It goes at the top of your user page. Not this page, which is your user talk page.

If you open the ‘history’ tab you can see every single edit on any article user page, draft, etc. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 00:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

given the above and the Teahouse discussion, I do not believe it will be productive for you to edit on Weinberg. You’re welcome to make use of edit requests if you have independent, reliable sourcing for changes. It does not matter how many page views an article has. Star Mississippi 03:13, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi I believe this is what I said I was planning to do. I have read through and removed all the unsourced or poorly sourced information. However, there is still more that needs to be done. Why do I need to make edit request? Esqmark922 (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

because you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing the article directly especially given your role. You are welcome to edit literally every other article except on Weinberg and potentially Harvey. Star Mississippi 04:11, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi Just to note, companies are allowed to have someone edit their page. I have openly stated that I have no interest in any other pages within the project. I’ve explained why this is productive. The current version is a rejected, poorly edited draft that hasn’t been reviewed by anyone qualified. I’ve already revised it, removed some sources, and have not reviewed it further. Harvey’s main competitor, similarly, has a paid editor managing their page- Draft:Legora.

Harvey should be allowed the same opportunity to have someone qualified edit a page that publicly represents the company and negatively impacts its public image, with 500 views. The block prevented me from making further edits before I even started. Esqmark922 (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• • I’m obviously not going to action this request, but noting for any reviewing admin that this is a rejected draft. Esqmark922 has access to literally every other page in the project. It is my opinion that nothing in their unblock or discussions make it clear why them editing this draft would be productive to the project. Star Mississippi 04:21, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Edit Request wizard, which can guide you through the process of making an edit request. The request should be in the form “change X to Y” or “add X after Y” or “delete X”, include a rationale for making the change, and citations to reliable sources supporting the change. The sources you cite, ideally, should be independent of the article subject. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist I have already placed the tag {{paid|user=Esqmark922|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}} I was requested before, and WP:Edit Request wizard is requesting me to do that again. What is the purpose of that? I am supposed to add it twice? Also, why do I need to make request, if I was editing it just fine a few hours ago, and removed plenty of things that were not necessary? I read the article, sources, and know what to remove. Esqmark922 (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi I’m sorry, but I cannot make sense of your reply. I have placed the tag on my user page as someone asked me to. I also clearly stated that I am editing the page about Weinberg and have no interest in making any other edits. I mentioned that I am not employed by Harvey itself and placed {{paid|user=Esqmark922|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}} on the page. Please feel free to let me know if I’m missing anything, but paid editing is allowed.

What exactly do you mean by a conflict of interest that should prevent me from editing the article? And what do you mean by ‘directly, especially given your role’? I’ve already described my role in the discussion above, which does not prevent me from editing either the Weinberg or Harvey page. Esqmark922 (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding that a rejected draft is not going forward. There’s no upside to you editing this draft either for you personally or the project. Please follow the excellent advice @Timtrent gave you. Star Mississippi 04:26, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are misunderstanding my point, in case you did not read my discussion here.[1] A poorly sourced and poorly edited draft with 500 views negatively impacts the company’s publicity. I can create a new draft myself with verified information and request to delete the existing one. It is clearly wrong to say there’s no upside to me editing this draft, even if you personally disagree. Esqmark922 (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even Weinberg’s full professional name is not used, and the article is under the wrong name. I saved the page as a PDF. You are more than welcome to delete the current draft immediately, so I can create a proper one. I’d like to request its deletion if possible. Esqmark922 (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with me personally. The community in addition to the unqualified reviewers, as you say: poorly edited draft that hasn’t been reviewed by anyone qualified has decided that Weinberg is not sufficiently notable. You as someone paid to promote him and Harvey do not get to overrule that. You are still not allowed to edit about Weinberg in any capacity on the English wikipedia. The deleted draft does not resolve that. Star Mississippi 13:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi regarding my comment, in case you take it as an offence, I meant that the article hasn’t been reviewed by an editor with proper qualifications. The body of the article does not look like it was edited by anyone qualified at all.

As I mentioned before, it is not prohibited for a company to have a representative to submit a propre Wikipedia article about them. You did not see the draft or sourcing of the article that I made on Weinberg.

I do not see any Wikipedia guidelines prohibiting the creation of a draft at any given point, as long as it makes sense and is properly sourced Esqmark922 (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the draft. That should solve the problem of exposing possibly misleading information to “500 views”. The topic has been determined to be insufficiently notable for Wikipedia, so don’t waste your valuable time, or the time of volunteers whose time is collectively more valuable than yours, in creating another draft on the same subject. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 07:46, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! @Anachronist That is greatly appreciated. It’s not just the 500 views, but also the talk page and other comments. Esqmark922 (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist Do I need to make another request if I create my draft on the subject? I also do not appreciate your assumption, such as ‘people who are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia are not welcome.’ What are your grounds for that? I am creating a page on a well-discussed subject in the media, Weinberg, which is a topic of public interest, not in a promotional way, but with reliable and verified information.

I mentioned 500 views on the draft as a clear indication of public interest in the subject, and I didn’t debate notability with you on an article I haven’t even created yet. I’d prefer to make a draft and let the AFC decide on it’s notability. I believe that is allowed. I also added the disclosure tag for full transparency, the one I was asked to, in accordance with the rules. Esqmark922 (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please pull your horns in. This is not a battle ground. It really is time that all the heat went out of this.

The 500 views were likely during the drafting process by editors, one of whom, the then creating editor, got themselves blocked. Google and other search engines have no access to drafts, though may find them sometimes by pure serendipity

It happens that you have not added the paid editing disclosure for Winston Weinberg but only for the company.

You need to be very clear, though. Star Mississippi has blocked your ability to access Draft:Winston Weinberg, and has told you “given the above and the Teahouse discussion, I do not believe it will be productive for you to edit on Weinberg. You’re welcome to make use of edit requests if you have independent, reliable sourcing for changes” but you are now in a bind. You cannot create this draft without your block being lifted. Trying to work around it will be viewed by any reasonable editor as underhand practices and will expand the block (0.95 probability).

What you need to do is to read the guide to appealing blocks first, and then make a well reasoned, well constructed, humble appeal. However WP:NOTHERE means what it says. A fast emerging consensus is that you are not here to create an encyclopaedia. Indeed it has already emerged. And this is a situation you have created.

It seems very much to be your decision on how this moves forwards. I predict that your having anything to do with Winston Weinberg here is not going to be possible. My prediction is based on having been here a ling time and seen all sorts of variations on this theme. But you may convince an uninvolved administrator, and are more than welcome to seek to do so.. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do have some positive news for you.

I checked your block settings, and you have access now to Draft:Winston Weinberg; it has been changed to block you from Winston Weinberg instead.

Technically this means that you are free to create a new, well constructed, well references, neutral draft. However, you must ask yourself if it is wise to do so.

Me? I’d find other things to do. You, however, may have been tasked by your boss, remember WP:BOSS, and feel you are mandated to do it. No-one wants you to be in a career difficulty over this. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent they do not have access to the Draft, but I believe it does not show since the draft does not currently exist.

@Esqmark922 responding to you here vs. above. I am someone with a few extra sets of tools so I do indeed see the drafts and the deletions. You believe we are not qualified, and that is your right to believe that. However we operate under consensus here and the community came to agreement that Weinberg was not notable, and that the draft was not acceptable. If you request an unblock and it is accepted, you are welcome to try and create an improved draft but you have no special standing vs. any of the others editing about Weinberg or the community. Star Mississippi 20:10, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Esqmark922, @Star Mississippi, my aqpologues to you both for my misunderstanding. I hope it has not caused undue annoyance. I misunderstood with good will. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should I undelete the draft? I have a complaint on my talk page that the deletion was out of process. I considered it a G7 deletion although I screwed up with the rationale for a G6. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist While it was an appalling draft created from an aid discussed article by a determined editor now indeffed, I doubt un-deleting it will do any harm. I think you did a good thing intended to defuse argument, but not necessarily the right thing (I am ambivalent on that last). That draft may either be picked up and edited by an interested editor or may wither on the G13 vine. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:52, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi I think you missed my comment above. I did not say that you are unqualified, and you should not take this as an offense. I meant that the draft has not been edited by an editor with the appropriate qualifications. It is the contribution of one editor and nothing more. I saved it as a PDF, with original sourcing, to edit.

I am also not asking for any special standing and made an appropriate request.

Again, Harvey is an $8 billion company, an industry leader, and it has received a lot of publicity, you are free to use Google to see that yourself. That is why it is important for the company that information is properly sourced and formatted, even if it is only a draft. I am not here to add any controversial information, and paid editing seems to be a common practice. It usually falls under the marketing team to handle an issue like this, even if it is not formally their responsibility. Esqmark922 (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the deleted draft, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 February 9. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the disclosure about Harvey. As I told you previously, yu need to make the same disclosure for every area. You have not made a similar disclosure for Weinberg.
Since you are blocked form eating the now deleted draft the point is moot, however it remains incomplete and requires your attention, please. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I wasn’t aware there was a time deadline for this. I put the tag on my page but didn’t have time to do the rest. That was the last edit I made before logging out. I will add the same tag to the draft I create, so you don’t have to worry about that. Esqmark922 (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please just put the disclosure correctly on your user page. The time limit is stated cleary enough in the message suggesting that you are a paid editor. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Timtrent! I corrected the disclosure to include the full official name of the company and the individual. Esqmark922 (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Esqmark922 (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]