User talk:Dominic.persinger

This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Commonwealth Markets ($20 USD per hour) on behalf of Dominic Persinger for their contributions to Wikipedia.

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Dominic.persinger. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Commonwealth Markets, 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 organizations 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);
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, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Cabayi (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Commonwealth Markets[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Commonwealth Markets, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Cabayi (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Cabayi,

I don't believe this page was created to solely promote the Commonwealth brand. These sources and facts about the athletes/horses were gathered to inform the reader about the history of the company and it's relationships formed. Many sports fan lack a transparent understanding of Commonwealth's connection to the athletes/horses, making this article very useful. Dominic.persinger (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) They never do.' It is unlikely that you will be able to write about Commonwealth Markets non promotionally at first, if ever. "Experience has unfortunately shown that most (but not all) people with experience in PR cannot be taught to write a proper article, because they are so completely oriented to writing advertisements or quasi-advertisements that they honestly cannot see the difference between that and a proper encyclopedia article." -- User:DGG You will need therefore to describe what constructive edits you would make to help build the wonder of the world that is Wikipedia. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Got rid of a flag that was already resolved."[edit]

The undeclared paid editing has not been resolved. You have not made the declaration required under the WMF's terms of use and the English Wikipedia's policies despite it being flagged in the #Managing a conflict of interest section above, and in our email correspondence. I am reverting your removal of the tag. Cabayi (talk) 11:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:

Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Commonwealth Markets for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Commonwealth Markets 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/Commonwealth Markets 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.

Cabayi (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I understand why I was blocked and have disclosed my relationship with Commonwealth Markets to Wikipedia. I wish to be unblocked so I can continue improving the Commonwealth Markets page, as well as other pages that require editing. I'm aware there is some biased language in the Commonwealth Markets article that I could work on, once unblocked. In the future, I'll follow guidelines better and avoid deleting suggestions/flags from other editors. The Commonwealth Markets page isn't a form of advertising, rather it's a lone site that educates the world about the history of the company. I would love to be able to still admin this site (for improvement) and obviously welcome other contributors. There are many other companies with Wikipedia pages and Commonwealth Markets has enough third party sources to remain a page. If I’m unblocked and able to eliminate some biased wording, such as “industry-leading,” it will be less promotional and more informative. I would like to do anything I can to not make this page appear as promotional. Thank you! Dominic.persinger (talk) 17:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There are two issues here. 1) You're using Wikipedia for advertising. Saying that something "isn't advertising" and then describing advertising using different words is known as special pleading. The number of spammers who say "I'm not advertising; I'm just educating people about my brand" is mind-boggling. 2. You're engaging in sock puppetry via User:Mitchell.Simpson44. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I will follow all guidelines moving forward and will continue to contribute quality content to Wikipedia. I believe I was unfairly blocked because I was never given a chance to improve the Commonwealth Markets page, and I obviously had a late disclosure for my form of compensation for my writing. There were three main violations that will be eliminated in the future if I’m unblocked. 1. I will cut down on promotional language and biased tone. I wish to recreate the Commonwealth Markets page, but edit it greatly - along with any community help. 2. I was accused of “Sock-Puppetry” and did very little for this offense. I changed the logo of the company on Wikipedia with another account (after I was blocked). After the lone change, I realized I committed the violation, and stopped editing. In the future, this won’t happen again because I’m aware of it now. I also didn’t use the Sock-Puppetry to do any harm to Wikipedia. 3. Lastly, I deleted a page deletion request from another admin when I wasn’t knowledge about what it effected. If I’m unblocked, I would love to help create a better page in the future, and help the community with other articles. I promise these were all common mistakes and I would love a second chance on Wikipedia. I truly believe I was blocked very early in the process and wasn’t given enough time to fix any violations. Thank you for your time! Dominic.persinger (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I would suggest that you read WP:BOSS. You are not understanding that you editing about your company/brand is itself a violation of the conflict of interest policy. You won't be unblocked to, in the near term, do that. That's not permanent, but we will want to see a good edit history of edits in other areas demonstrating your understanding of relevant content policies before permitting you to indirectly contribute about your company. You seem to suggest that you might be interested in editing in other areas- please tell us what topics or articles you want to edit about. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

"I was never given a chance to improve the Commonwealth Markets" - You had all the time in the world while the article was in draftspace. You forced the pace by unilaterally moving it to mainspace which started the clock.
"I obviously had a late disclosure for my form of compensation for my writing" - You were warned about this issue at least three times and did nothing about it. To the contrary, you removed the UPE (undisclosed paid editing) tag from the article twice. You made every effort to conceal your paid editing.
"I was accused of “Sock-Puppetry” and did very little for this offense" - Sockpuppetry is not a question of how much. The issue is that you tried to avoid scrutiny.
"After the lone change" - It was not a lone change. You made 5 edits to the article using your sock account. I suspect the IP commenting on its deletion discussion may also have been you.
"wasn’t given enough time to fix any violations" - please don't gaslight yourself.

- Cabayi (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]