User talk:Emirdy

COI guidance

Hi. Thanks for disclosing your COI. For more guidance, please give Wikipedia:Conflict of interest of interest a read. Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia. JSFarman (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @JSFarman,

Thank you for your message and the guidance. I’ve already taken the time to read through the Conflict of Interest guidelines, but I’ll gladly review them again if necessary, I appreciate the reminder and your welcome to Wikipedia. If I need any help with edits in the future, may I reach out to you for guidance?

Best regards. Emirdy (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I created the talk page for Rick Yvanovich; if you were paid to write the article, you should add the COI template below:

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Username of the paid editor (talk · contribs) has been paid by Name of person/organization that is paying for the edits on behalf of Name of client. Insert diff to disclosure on your User page.

Feel free to reach out if you have questions. Happy editing. JSFarman (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @JSFarman, I will proceed to add the template now. Emirdy (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You state that you are a paid editor, but that some of your edits are unpaid. Have you disclosed every topic for which you are a paid editor? Note that the paid editing policy requires you to link to any external website where you advertise or offer your services as a paid editor. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @331dot,

Thank you for your message. Yes, I have disclosed every topic for which I am a paid editor on both my user page and the talk pages of the concerned articles, in line with Wikipedia's paid editing policy.

I appreciate the reminder, and I’ll make sure to link to the external website where I advertise my services as soon as possible. Emirdy (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Peter Speare (January 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Peter Speare and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CNMall41 (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Emirdy! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CNMall41 (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Ridge RV moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Highland Ridge RV. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because you may have a possible Conflict of Interest and I would highly advise against moving anything to the mainspace in which you were paid to create. This page is an example of why not. The sourcing is not good and you have an entire section of industry awards which is highly promotional. . I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CNMall41 (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Wolfenden moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Rich Wolfenden. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and This is another example. The references do not show how this person meets notability. In addition, it was preiovusly deleted for being created by a SOCK. I realize you disclosed, but disclosure does not exempt you from following guidelines such as notability. You really need to submit these through AfC. . I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CNMall41 (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

Hello, I'm Dclemens1971. I noticed that you recently removed content from Priven Reddy without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. In particular, you removed reliably sourced content that reflected negatively on the subject without reflecting this in the edit summary. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, and thanks for the heads-up, @Dclemens1971

I’ll be more mindful of providing detailed edit summaries in the future. Appreciate you reaching out. Emirdy (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you also uploaded a photograph of Reddy without appropriate licensing to Commons. This will be deleted as a copyright violation. If you are editing on behalf of Reddy? If so, please disclose this as you have done with other edits. If Reddy wishes to release a photograph of himself to which he holds the copyright into the public domain for use on Commons, please follow the steps at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, and I appreciate the clarificatio,@Dclemens1971. I had already disclosed this paid edit on my user page, and now disclosed on the concerned page talk page also. I will ensure the appropriate licensing is followed. If a new photo is provided with proper permissions, I’ll follow the necessary steps outlined in the link you shared. Thanks for pointing this out. Emirdy (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rich Wolfenden for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rich Wolfenden 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/Rich Wolfenden 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 until the discussion has finished.

CNMall41 (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Pervis Taylor for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pervis Taylor 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/Pervis Taylor 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 until the discussion has finished.

Kylemahar902 (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A question relating to editing Draft:Ted Giovanis

Hello, Emirdy. I see that you have posted a paid editing disclosure at Draft talk:Ted Giovanis. Thanks for that. Can you clarify the details of the payment arrangements? You say that you are being paid by "Margarita"; who is that, and what is the nature of the business relationship between Margarita and you? JBW (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:JBW

Thank you for reaching out. I recognize the importance of transparency regarding paid contributions.

To answer your questions, Margarita is an employer who hired me through a freelancing platform to work on Draft:Ted Giovanis. My role in this project is strictly editorial. I was tasked with aligning the page with Wikipedia’s content guidelines.

Emirdy (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? I don't think just giving your client's first name and saying that she is an "employer" can be regarded as full disclosure of who is paying you, as required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use and Wikipedia's policy on paid editing. Also, what "freelancing platform" do you refer to, and what is your account on it? Have you provided a link to your Wikipedia account on your user page on that site, as required? I haven't been able to find any freelancing platform with a link to this account, but obviously I may be missing it. If you have posted the necessary link, please let me know where, and, of course, if you haven't then please do. JBW (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @JBW,

To clarify, the freelancing platform I refer to is Upwork, and I have indeed linked my Wikipedia account name on my profile there.

I believe this satisfies the requirement for disclosure under both the Wikimedia Foundation’s terms of use and Wikipedia's paid editing policy. Emirdy (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to find which Upwork account links to this Wikipedia account. However, that problem will be over when you comply with the paid editing policy's requirement that "you must provide links on your user-page to all active accounts on external websites through which you advertise, solicit or obtain paid editing". (Presumably you didn't notice that when you read the policy.) Please do that before you do any more editing.
With the best will in the world, giving someone's first name and saying that she is "an employer" cannot be taken as satisfying the requirement that "you must disclose who is paying you, on whose behalf the edits are made, and any other relevant affiliation". Disclosing who someone is means providing sufficient information for that person to be identified. Please comply with that requirement before doing any more editing. JBW (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have continued to edit without responding to either of those points. Provide answers before you do any more editing. JBW (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will. Thank you so much for the reminder. Emirdy (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JBW

I appreciate your guidance on this matter. However, after so many thoughts, I’m a bit uncomfortable publicly attaching my Upwork profile link to my user page. Given that Upwork is my primary freelancing platform, I’d prefer to avoid any unnecessary attention that could lead to unwanted reports or misunderstandings about my work there.

Would it be ideal if I provide the link privately, perhaps via email or another appropriate channel? I want to ensure full compliance while also protecting my professional standing. Please let me know if this works. Emirdy (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak for JBW, but the paid editing policy says "Paid editors must provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise, solicit or obtain paid Wikipedia-editing services." I interpret that to mean you cannot do this privately. 331dot (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

331dot is absolutely right. It is absolutely fundamental both to the English Wikipedia's policies on paid editing and conflict of interest and to the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use relating to paid editing that paid editing is tolerated only if there is total openness about every aspect of the paid editing and how it is obtained. If you are "uncomfortable" about complying with the requirements then for your own comfort you should probably stop editing Wikipedia for money; continuing to do so without fully complying with the relevant policies is not an option. JBW (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest, & related matters

Hello, Emirdy. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. I see that you have acted contrary to the conflict of interest guideline by posting a page which you are paid to edit as an article. It will really be better not to do that. JBW (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, @JBW. I appreciate the guidance and will be more mindful of these guidelines moving forward. Thanks again for the reminder. Emirdy (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ted Giovanis (February 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gheus was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ted Giovanis and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Gheus (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rick Yvanovich for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rick Yvanovich 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/Rick Yvanovich 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 until the discussion has finished.

MediaKyle (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because of your persistent failure to comply with Wikipedia policy and the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use regarding paid editing. After being told that just giving someone's first name and describing them as "an employer" is not full disclosure of who is paying you, far from giving fuller information you have given less: your latest edit says "I disclose that I have been paid by my employer" You cannot possibly have believed that constitutes disclosing who your employer is. In response to requests to comply with the requirement "Paid editors must provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise, solicit or obtain paid Wikipedia-editing services" you have linked to somebody else's Upwork account. Nor have you, as far as I can determine, complied with the requirement "Paid editors must provide links to the user page(s) of their Wikipedia account(s) on each website on which they advertise, solicit or obtain paid editing services".

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. JBW (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Emirdy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello JBW, thank you for your time and for the work you do on Wikipedia.

I understand that my account was blocked due to a persistent failure to fully comply with Wikipedia’s paid editing disclosure requirements, specifically regarding the link to my Upwork account. I now realize that the link I added was incorrect, and I genuinely apologize for that oversight.

This was an honest mistake stemming from a fear of unknown, and not an attempt to mislead. I take full responsibility, and I want to sincerely assure you that I am fully committed to following Wikipedia's policies moving forward.

If unblocked, I will promptly update my user page with the correct disclosure and ensure that my userpage reflects the accurate and complete paid editing information, including linking the proper Upwork profile and adding my Wikipedia username to that profile for verification.

Please consider giving me the opportunity to make things right. I truly value the platform and the standards it upholds, and I’m more than willing to cooperate in every way possible. Thank you. Emirdy (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Hello [[User:JBW|JBW]], thank you for your time and for the work you do on Wikipedia.

I understand that my account was blocked due to a persistent failure to fully comply with Wikipedia’s [[WP:PAID|paid editing disclosure requirements]], specifically regarding the link to my Upwork account. I now realize that the link I added was incorrect, and I genuinely apologize for that oversight.

This was an honest mistake stemming from a fear of unknown, and not an attempt to mislead. I take full responsibility, and I want to sincerely assure you that I am fully committed to following Wikipedia's policies moving forward.

If unblocked, I will promptly update my user page with the correct disclosure and ensure that my [[User:Emirdy|userpage]] reflects the accurate and complete paid editing information, including linking the proper Upwork profile and adding my Wikipedia username to that profile for verification.

Please consider giving me the opportunity to make things right. I truly value the platform and the standards it upholds, and I’m more than willing to cooperate in every way possible. Thank you. [[User:Emirdy|Emirdy]] ([[User talk:Emirdy#top|talk]]) 19:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello [[User:JBW|JBW]], thank you for your time and for the work you do on Wikipedia.

I understand that my account was blocked due to a persistent failure to fully comply with Wikipedia’s [[WP:PAID|paid editing disclosure requirements]], specifically regarding the link to my Upwork account. I now realize that the link I added was incorrect, and I genuinely apologize for that oversight.

This was an honest mistake stemming from a fear of unknown, and not an attempt to mislead. I take full responsibility, and I want to sincerely assure you that I am fully committed to following Wikipedia's policies moving forward.

If unblocked, I will promptly update my user page with the correct disclosure and ensure that my [[User:Emirdy|userpage]] reflects the accurate and complete paid editing information, including linking the proper Upwork profile and adding my Wikipedia username to that profile for verification.

Please consider giving me the opportunity to make things right. I truly value the platform and the standards it upholds, and I’m more than willing to cooperate in every way possible. Thank you. [[User:Emirdy|Emirdy]] ([[User talk:Emirdy#top|talk]]) 19:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello [[User:JBW|JBW]], thank you for your time and for the work you do on Wikipedia.

I understand that my account was blocked due to a persistent failure to fully comply with Wikipedia’s [[WP:PAID|paid editing disclosure requirements]], specifically regarding the link to my Upwork account. I now realize that the link I added was incorrect, and I genuinely apologize for that oversight.

This was an honest mistake stemming from a fear of unknown, and not an attempt to mislead. I take full responsibility, and I want to sincerely assure you that I am fully committed to following Wikipedia's policies moving forward.

If unblocked, I will promptly update my user page with the correct disclosure and ensure that my [[User:Emirdy|userpage]] reflects the accurate and complete paid editing information, including linking the proper Upwork profile and adding my Wikipedia username to that profile for verification.

Please consider giving me the opportunity to make things right. I truly value the platform and the standards it upholds, and I’m more than willing to cooperate in every way possible. Thank you. [[User:Emirdy|Emirdy]] ([[User talk:Emirdy#top|talk]]) 19:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I doubt that any administrator who checks the editing history of your user page will believe your claim that linking to someone else's else's Upwork account was "an honest mistake".
You say that if unblocked you will comply with the requirements for disclosure. Why wait until you are unblocked? Right now you can post on this page a link to your own Upwork account, and on that Upwork account you can post a link to this Wikipedia account to confirm that this time it really is your account. You can also right now provide the required information about who is paying you and who you are working for. JBW (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response and for clarifying the expectations, JBW.

First, regarding the Upwork account, here is the correct Upwork profile you asked for: https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~010d0879f6801c2fbd?companyReference=1694224579959148545&mp_source=share. I’ve also added the name of my Wikipedia user account on my Upwork profile bio section for verification purposes. My username was stated because an external is not allowed on upwork profile description.

To clarify the earlier point, I had indeed attempted to update my Wikipedia user page to fix the link after receiving the block notification, but I believe the block restricted me from making that change.

As for the disclosure of “who is paying me” and “who I am working for,” this has been a bit tricky, as I typically only receive a first name and the article subject. For example, I may know I’m creating or editing a page for “Rick Yvanovich” or “Ted Giovanis,” and the client name might just be “Mo” or “Farida” via the Upwork messaging system. I want to ensure I comply, so could you kindly clarify what specific details are considered “required information” in this case? Would it be enough to state the page name I am being paid to edit and the platform (e.g., Upwork), along with the first name of the client, if that is all I have access to?

Again, I truly want to get this right moving forward and am open to making all necessary corrections transparently. I appreciate your guidance and patience.Emirdy (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up on unblock request

Hi @JBW, Just leaving a gentle follow-up regarding the unblock request I submitted and the clarifications I provided earlier concerning the paid editing disclosure.

I completely understand you might be busy, and I truly appreciate your time and attention to the matter. Whenever you're available, I'd be grateful for any updates or further guidance.

Thanks again. Emirdy (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The generally accepted practice is that an unblock request is reviewed by a different administrator than the one who placed the block, so that the blocked editor gets an independent review. Also, waiting for a review can take a long time; there are currently 75 pending unblock requests, and there's only a small number of administrators who regularly review them. JBW (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]