User talk:Attorney Goldstein II

Paid editing

Hello Attorney Goldstein II. 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 compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. 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 very 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 extremely 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:Attorney Goldstein II. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Attorney Goldstein II|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. Theroadislong (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC) Hello Theroadislong. I have fully disclosed my conflict of interest on the official Wikipedia page of Cervantes right under the comments from a previous editor right on the front page. I am not getting payment from Cervantes or his organization. I am helping out in the best of my knowledge regarding Wikipedia. I hope that clears everything about the conflict of interest on my part.[reply]

Thank you, Corky Goldstein Attorney Goldstein II (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Theroadislong, My assistant just said that you said that my edits were promotional and I made zero improvements. Could you elaborate what you are trying to say please. Attorney Goldstein II (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You added a promotional section called 'Latest News & Future Collaborations" which seems to be sourced to a press release, see WP:NOTNEWS. Theroadislong (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Theroadislong - So, you have just rejected an article just bacuase it "seems to be sourced to a press release" without any proof to back up the claim? Is this correct? Attorney Goldstein II (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, they rejected it because you added a single press-release source and literally every source that was already there was unusable. Press releases are useless for notability as they're written by or on behalf of the subject of the press release. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 19:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We will go back to the drawing board and create a better page. I will continue to add new information as my assitant and close associates provide me with relevant information about Cervantes Attorney Goldstein II (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise reading the Articles for Deletion debate that led to the draft being created. The main issue is that the sources we're looking for just plain don't exist (I just checked again, same string as noted in the AfD, and got nothing usable). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 19:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: George Cervantes (November 15)

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

The comment the reviewer left was:

No improvement since deletion discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Cervantes

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:George Cervantes and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:George Cervantes, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Attorney Goldstein II! Having an article 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! Theroadislong (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only side I am on is Wikipedia's

I hope you can see that I care passionately about article quality here, and do my very best to keep any other issues out of discussions on articles and drafts. I have been disappointed that Cervantes does not yet warrant an article, but it never surprises me when people do not. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! You have been a straigh shooter. I will inform Cervantes of the fact that he does not meet the requirements at this time. Thank you!Attorney Goldstein II (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When he meets the requirements I hope to be among the first to be very pleased that an article has been written about him. If Cervantes is the man I think he is I am sure he will be disappointed, but understand. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure he will meet the requiements in the future. The work will be on hold for right now. Thank you! Attorney Goldstein II (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:George Cervantes has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:George Cervantes. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Marcorubiocali per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marcorubiocali. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]