User talk:WWB Too/Archive 5

Replied

Hello, WWB Too. You have new messages at Silver seren's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, WWB Too. You have new messages at Talk:Eric C. Anderson.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, WWB Too. You have new messages at Jweiss11's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, WWB Too. You have new messages at Pine's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Pine^✉

Whisperback

 Hello. You have a new message at Ɱ's talk page.
 Hello. You have a new message at Ɱ's talk page.

Merry Christmas and happy new year

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Merry Christmas and happy new year. (:

--Pine^✉

DRR involving you

DRR involving you 101.63.168.177 (talk)

Are you breaking the law?

Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Deceptive_advertising,_FTC_on_Native_advertising (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

What is your purpose in asking me this, TQP? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, @Smallbones: wrote: "So any posting of text by a business or its paid editors in a Wikipedia article is deceptive advertising, a violation of FTC rules, illegal under the FTC act and a type of fraud". I assume you disagree so I was hoping for another perspective. I do not live in the United States and I know little about U.S. law. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

From what I understand from WWB he and his business only edit talkpages, never articles. If so they are likely to be following FTC rules as I understand those rules. Not that I'd guarantee this. I stand by the quote from me above. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Smallbones. And I appreciate hearing your perspective; you're correct, my colleagues and I use talk pages and draft space only. We never edit live articles, even for minor maintenance purposes (to the annoyance of some editors who'd prefer to give us the OK to go ahead). Still, the questions you raise at Talk:COI do seem to call into question whether an interested party can even join in talk page discussions that result in new material being added to live articles. If that is not your intention, I hope you can clarify this point in that discussion. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft space? Who said anything about that? Are you legally allowed to edit in the draft space? It seems unlikely that someone would be allowed in draft space, but not be allowed to edit live articles. Have you asked a lawyer? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

My efforts on behalf of clients carefully follow Jimmy Wales' advice from 2012 that editors with a financial COI avoid editing articles directly, but instead disclose their connection so volunteer editors are aware of the fact, and stick to making suggestions on talk pages. That's what we do. It should go without saying, but since you are asking: no, I don't believe this is illegal. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Like many people here I am not a huge fan of Jimbo. I don't hate him but I don't love him, its somewhere in between. You wrote: "...stick to making suggestions on talk pages. That's what we do." (15:50, 15 December 2017) but you also wrote: "...my colleagues and I use talk pages and draft space only" (15:13, 15 December 2017, emphasis mine). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Jimbo said: "never edit article space directly". Back then there was no draft space afaik... (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I am speaking informally; see the draft at User:WWB_Too/Michael_J._Saylor, which is in my userspace. However, I'm pretty sure we've also used draft space since it came into being. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Someone should probably ask the WMF to clarify how to interpret this FTC act. I followed the TmarTn controversy a while back, it was very interesting. I am not a lawyer, and my local laws are different (I live in the Netherlands). @Smallbones: Have you asked the WMF legal team for an opinion (e.g. via JimboTalk?). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I've answered WWB's question at WT:COI, though I really wasn't clear what he was referring to. I'll limit my discussion on COI to that page for awhile (but did anybody note that Christmas is fast approaching). I'm not at all comfortable with The Quixotic Potato's tone on this page. Wishing everybody "peace on earth, goodwill toward men". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

So, first you make a vague accusation (too vague to be confirmed or denied), and then you wish everybody peace. Not sure how to interpret that. I am allowed to ask questions, WWB Too is allowed to respond if WWB Too wishes to respond. I think that WWB Too understands that I am not accusing anyone, I am simply asking questions because in my country there is no FTC and I am curious about paid editing and disclosure (but in case you were worried about that then I'll point it out for the record). I am worried that currently the situation is unclear, even for those who are trying to do the right thing, and I wish there was a WMF lawyer who explained how this decision affects our encyclopedia, if it does. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The question was posed to WMF Legal, and Slaporte (WMF) has responded to say that he doesn't know the answer either, though they may look into it next year. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, interesting stuff. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I checked, and according to 1 and 2 this account has made hundreds of mainspace edits. Why did you write "my colleagues and I use talk pages and draft space only. We never edit live articles"? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Smallbones wrote: From what I understand from WWB he and his business only edit talkpages, never articles. but that clearly isn't the case. That means that, according to Smallbones, that the FTC act does apply to you. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The idea that you can claim to be non-responsible for your edits if you edit by proxy is simply false btw. Anyone can easily convince a young inexperienced newcomer to move a page from draftspace to mainspace, even if the page is very very bad. QED. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hope you are well-rested. I'll start writing. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, that was quick. Writing what? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

EduCap

Can you please clean up the EduCap article? You know how references work, right? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Almost all negative information about EduCap has been removed from the EduCap article. Would you be so kind to place it back where appropriate? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Jesse Thomas (graphic designer) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jesse Thomas (graphic designer) 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/Jesse Thomas (graphic designer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Paid editing disclosure

Hi, I looked through some of the articles you have listed on your user page and I noticed that you used {{connected contributor}} to disclose your connection. I do want to thank you for disclosing your COI however, from your user page it seems that you were paid to edit these pages. In that case Wikipedia's ToU and en.wp's Policy on paid editing requires greater disclosure. Specifically it requires disclosure of 'employer, client and affiliation'. In this case employer would be whomever engaged your company, client would be on whose behalf the edits are being made (often the same as employer) and affiliation would be the name of your company.

If you, and your associates, have already made these disclosures please let me know. If not you can make the required disclosures using {{connected contributor (paid)}} rather than {{connected contributor}}. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Jbh ^Talk 19:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jbh, thanks for the note. Indeed, we always do this: note for example at Talk:Hilary Rosen where I list my employer (Beutler Ink) as well as the agency we contracted with (SKDKnickerbocker). Some of the work predates the ToU update, and templates pre-2014 asked for less information. However, we did go back and make updates after the fact. And finally, it's worth underlining a key point: we do not edit articles directly, but rather seek volunteer assistance on talk pages. Happy to answer any other questions if I can. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. What I noted in some of the articles on your page and as I noted on another of your people's page is that the {{connected contributor}}, even when the client's name is added, does not meet disclosure requiremets because it does not make clear nature of the paid relationship. (Also, there were a couple I did not see any disclosure on) I am not sure whether the disclosure requirements are retroactive if all the work was done prior to the ToU change and you are no longer involved with the article but it would be a nice gesture if all your people would bring things up to date with a completed {{connected contributor (paid)}}. Beyond making things clear to other editors on the talk page it helps us gather statistics because CC and CC-paid put the pages they are on in different categories.

Thanks for being upfront about everything. Cheers! Jbh ^Talk 19:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good, Jbh. You're right, I think it is worth going back and making sure the disclosure templates are all up-to-date. And it's entirely possible there may be some pages where the talk template was never placed, as the COI guideline had different recommendations back then. I will look into it soon; it's always my goal to be state-of-the-art on COI disclosure. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 21:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi again Jbh, just wanted to let you know I've completed my project going back to post current {{connected contributor (paid)}} templates on all pages listed. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and I'll redouble my efforts to be consistent going forward. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Jbh ^Talk 21:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

South Beach Diet

This page has a very, very problematic history of people trying to push this diet. Please reconsider taking this client on.

Pages about diets are very hard; it is a field where we have both fans and conflicted editors pushing very hard, over long periods of time, trying to make hay with weak medical evidence.

If you decide you want to take this on, please make sure any health claims have solid MEDRS sourcing. Thanks.Jytdog (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, this is a past client, not a current one—you were even one who worked with me on the discussion page at the time! (Now archived.) Anyway, worry not: I haven't worked with them since the project concluded; the Talk page activity you saw was me updating the disclosure templates with the current version, per Jbhunley's request above. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

ah I see. Thanks! Sorry to have bugged you. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Penn Schoen Berland logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Penn Schoen Berland logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, WWB Too. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Help me!

Hello, the article about former U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin has a number of omissions and inaccuracies, which is why I was recently hired by an adviser to Mr. Rubin to propose some changes. (My disclosure is noted on the article's Talk page, and I will not edit the article directly.) Over the past two months, I've been trying to find a neutral editor to review suggested additions, but I have yet to find anyone with the time or willingness to do so. As Mr. Rubin is covered by BLP, I thought I would try this tool linked on the policy page. If an editor is willing to look into it, a good place to start would be this request on Talk:Robert Rubin about how his role in the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act is unmentioned in his biography page, even though he is mentioned in the article about the legislation. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC) WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I think part of the reason you're not finding takers is that the topic area of modern (post-1932) American politics is under discretionary sanctions. DS don't get imposed unless the topic area draws a lot of combative behaviour that lesser measures can't kerb, and with the conspiracy theories swirling around the recent election most of the focus is on that at the moment. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 19:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi AlbB, interesting theory. I suppose it's possible, but the DS is now a half-decade old. And surely not everyone interested in U.S. politics is working on election-related articles to the exclusion of all else. I do think there has been less incentive to respond to paid requests since Category:Requested edits was created, although there is now an enormous backlog on that page at the moment, which is why I haven't tried there. Let me try asking this: if you think you're unable to help yourself, is there someone who you might recommend? I'm just looking for a fair-minded editor who is willing to help improve the page. Thanks in advance, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Just because the DS is old doesn't mean it's any less relevant (and I don't edit politics or areas under DS if I can help it). Have you maybe asked at WT:WikiProject Politics/American politics? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 20:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have, and it received no replies, and so was archived. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hum. I dunno what to tell you, then, unfortunately. I don't know any admin or editor working in that topic area off the top of my head (since I don't edit in it), else I'd give you a link to a user talk page. I'll leave the helpme request up in case someone wants to take this up, but I personally am not willing to do so and risk being dragged into the topic area. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 20:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate that. And thanks for offering your perspective, regardless. I'll keep my fingers crossed. Just in case anyone else comes across this, I am still very much looking for assistance! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

WWB Too, in the interim, you can use the {{request edit}} template. I can't make any promises on the speediness of those going through, as the backlog is currently very long. It should though, at the least, get some people to take a look at it eventually. I'm sorry I can't be of any more help though. Perryprog (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Perryprog, in spite of my reservations I have gone ahead and added the template in hopes that someone monitoring the queue will assist. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing on Full Sail University

Hello WWB. I'm doing review work on the Yoodaba sockfarm. An article that stands out is Full Sail University. It is not an article with many substantial edits by them, but it is the one edited by more socks in this group (10). As far as I know, this is a US digital marketing company with outsourced teams in South East Asia. Do you have any idea why would they edit this article? I know you are probably one of the most respected and ethical paid editors, and I know for sure your company is not related to these blocked accounts at all, but I'm totally baffled by this overlap. Thank you! MarioGom (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi MarioGom, I've become aware of the sock network since it was first brought to my attention via a colleague of mine, Inkian Jason. FWIW, Full Sail was a client of ours, though that project ended in the first half of 2019 and I don't think we've spoken with them sense. We have certainly had clients that hired bad actors before working with us, and presumably some have hired bad actors after working with us. I have no reason to think that's the case here, but I can't rule it out. I assume the sock masters believe by having the different accounts make a couple of small edits here and there (usually just one or two total edits per account as far as I can tell) they think they are spreading out the editing pattern. Would that have worked, absent the successful SPI? I'm not sure—I haven't studied the SPI closely, but I agree it's fascinating. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. Also knowing that approximate date of the end of the project certainly gave me a clearer picture here. Best, MarioGom (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Yep, Jason's last talk page comment marked the end of our engagement: May 2019. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Rubin

I'm interested in helping with your edit request at Robert Rubin

However, I first looked at the material in the extended content section which I presumed was the proposed edit, then I looked at the suggested draft in your user sandbox, and it looked very different.

I realize you proposed this back in mid December. There have been a handful of edits since then, but I don't think that accounts for the difference between the two places so I'm a little bit lost. can you fill me in and let me know if your proposed edit is still valid in light of the passage of time and whether you are talking about the addition of the material in the extended content section or the replacement of a larger section using the sandbox material. I won't be working on this today but will try to take a look at it tomorrow if I hear back from you.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick, I appreciate your taking an in interest here. The extended content on the talk page is just the three paragraphs I'd recommend for the Secretary of the Treasury subsection that should follow 1993 Deficit Reduction Act in the current article. The full draft in the user sandbox (beginning here with Secretary of the Treasury) contains additional sections I haven't got around to proposing yet. That section is still valid, and so are the few following, but the full draft is now a bit out of date. I could rework it based on the current article and make follow-up requests if you're interested enough in the topic to consider further edit requests. Let me know what you think. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 06:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

WWB Too, Thanks for the explanation, that helped clear up what was puzzling me. I propose we take this in chunks. Let me first take care of the three paragraphs on the talk page. If that goes well we can talk about doing more but as you noted some of the other material may be out of date.

Let me be brutally honest here – I have done some request edit work in the past, but I find it exhausting at times. I take seriously the understanding (not sure whether it's written down) that if I make an edit requested by someone else I take responsibility for it. that means not only do I have to make sure the statements are supported by the sources, and the sources qualify as reliable sources, but I have to think about potential bias — are these selected sources, and further review might produce a different summary of the situation. However, I'm speaking generically when I'm evaluating and edit proposed by someone I do not know at all. I know enough about you to know that's less of an issue with an edit proposed by you, but I do know that my experience in the past is that I will work on a few requests and then drop out of contributing in that area for months. I'm very much a supporter of the concept of using the request edit approach in the case of COI,, so it troubles me that the backlog is so long and I like to contribute but I don't want to overpromise. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, I completely get that. Volunteer willingness to review COI edit requests is a precious resource, and one in too short supply right now. Once you've had a chance to post Secretary of the Treasury—with any changes that you see fit, of course—I can post a request / requests for the rest of the section, and see what your appetite is for working through more of it. Thanks in advance for your time, and I'll promise not to waste it. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sphilbrick, I've just updated my proposed draft at User:WWB Too/Robert Rubin to reflect changes that have occurred on the article since September; you can see the diff here. I've also posted another edit request on the Rubin Talk page; this is a smaller change, seeking not to add a new section but to tighten up an existing one. I look forward to discussing over there, if you have the bandwidth to consider it. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Good morning Sphilbrick, I posted another draft section yesterday, about the 1997 balanced budget agreement. I wasn't sure if you had the article watchlisted, but I'm assuming now you don't. It is the subsection that I envision to immediately follow 1990s international crises, and this is one of the more "favorable" sections. The next section I would like to tackle after, if you are still game, is the one about derivatives regulation, which will be one of the more "unfavorable". WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I've started looking at the edit request. I'm worried it's complicated but I will respond in more detail soon. I'm responding now to let you know that I'm not ignoring you, the biggest game of the season is in progress and I'm about to watch it. If we win out the celebrating and not on Wikipedia. If we lose you don't want me on Wikipedia. I also see your post about modifications to the process. I hope to contribute to that as well but I want to spend some time thinking about it.S Philbrick(Talk) 00:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Sphilbrick! I hope the new request is not as complicated as it may look, in part because the new section would be mostly formed out of existing content. But it's also a complex topic, no question. I'd also love to have your feedback on the edit request process; I've been working on that Village pump proposal for awhile, and have my fingers crossed—so far I'm pleased it's getting some thoughtful attention. And what is the big game? I certainly would advise: edit happy! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

WWB Too, The big game was UConn - South Carolina wbb #1 versus # 2. And we won. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Aha, congrats Sphilbrick! I follow college football much more closely than basketball, but as an Oregon alum I can't not be a Sabrina Ionescu fan. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi again Sphilbrick, curious if you might be getting around to having a look at the Rubin topic we discussed earlier in the month? No rush, let me know when you find the chance. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

WWB Too, Sorry, it's not likely to happen. You deserve a more complete answer, I'm drowning, which is part of the issue - I'll try to follow up, with more of an answer. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it, Sphilbrick, but I understand. If you change your mind, please let me know; I've appreciated your tough-but-reasonable approach to evaluating these requests. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Washington Journal logo C-SPAN 200.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Washington Journal logo C-SPAN 200.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Global Automakers Logo.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Global Automakers Logo.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)