User talk:Gepa

Geoffrey Edelsten Representative

I'm Dean Walters and I will be working as Geoffrey Edelsten’s Wikipedia public affairs. I'm here to contribute information and media that will improve the quality and balance of the Wikipedia Geoffrey Edelsten article.

I will endeavor to work with Wikipedia to enhance this article.

If you wish to contact me, please email me at dean@geoffedelsten.com.au, or leave a message here.

Could I suggest you peruse Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before any further editing of Geoffrey Edelsten? Thanks, WWGB (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWGB, I have read the behavioral guideline; conflict of interest, please be assured that I aim to bring balance and quality to this article. If ever in doubt don't hesitate to email me or write to me here.--Gepa (talk) 04:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this article has been a long-term problem because of non-neutral editing by Geoffrey's representatives. As an administrator (and not the only one watching this article) it's my job to ensure that Wikipedia policies are adhered to. There are several clear instances in which the website being linked (see also external links guideline, also self-published sources within the Verifiability policy) has been found wanting in a factual sense - I suggest reading the talk page of the article and its archives. Orderinchaos 05:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orderinchaos, I am Geoffrey Edelsten's PR Representative and I nor Geoffrey have been editing this article in question until this day. I wish to make edits to the Geoffrey Edelsten article to bring balance. Geoffrey Edelsten is concerned with this article's inaccuracy which reads to defame. Please advise how I may edit this article successfully, that is without having it reverted. If I can not make edits then what would you advise? Defamation is serious concern.--Gepa (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at my talk page. Orderinchaos 06:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Gepa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Matilda ^talk 07:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just repeating much of my message from the article talk page:

The policy on Conflict of interest does not state such editing is prohibited but does state it is strongly discouraged. It is important to note the advice under the sub-section dealing with defending interests - we will support removal of material that contravenes our policy on Biographies of living persons - ie unsupported defamatory material or any material that is unsourced or poorly sourced. On the other hand the removal of reliably sourced critical material is not permitted. Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Wikipedia's coverage.
Consulting other editors on the article talk page about material that you believe lacks quality or balance will definitely help to progress improvements to the article.
Note that any material added to the article needs to comply with our policy of verifiability (and of course other policies) and must be supported with the citation of reliable sources.
Thank you for letting us know of your role in relation to Dr Edelsten's affairs. Regards --Matilda ^talk 07:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image release confirm ple

I have a difficulty with the image you have uploaded. It is a professionally taken photograph of Dr Edelsten. Can you please confirm that you are authorised to release it under Creative Commons? I think the best way to do that would be to have a page on Dr Edelsten's website which includes that photo (same size resolution) and it is also released there under the same Creative Commons license and then we link the image page to that page on the website. Does that sound to you a useful way forward? Thanks --Matilda ^talk 04:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

single purpose

You might want to read about single purpose editing. If you've come to Wikipedia to edit one and only one article, that really is not encouraged. I advise you to edit a wide variety of articles and learn more about Wikipedia. Please also read WP:COI. thanks. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you actually breach conflict of interest guidelines as you are being paid for by the article subject (Edelsten) to "bring balance" thus you have a vested interest. This article has had a number of sockpuppets (all now blocked)in recent times connected with the company zeumic who have aimed to push [[WP:SPA|single purpose editing]. Wikipedia strongly discourages single purpose editing. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle, I have read the essay; Single-purpose account, please be assured that I aim to bring balance and quality to this article. I’ve browsed your user page; User:Michellecrisp and understand that you appreciate quality references. I offer quality references from the likes of The Sydney Morning Herald. I hope you appreciate my diligence to the quality of the subject matter. I have also read the behavioral guideline; conflict of interest, please be assured that I aim to bring balance and quality to this article.--Gepa (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being paid by Edelsten and directed by Edelsten to edit here? Michellecrisp (talk) 05:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Geoffrey Edelsten, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you.

Comment on SPA and COI

Hello Mr. Walters - I'm another administrator who's had some involvement at the Geoffrey Edelsten page. I want to emphasize a few points:

Neither a conflict of interest nor being a single purpose account prohibits you from editing any page; there is sometimes confusion on this point.
I appreciate your declaring your conflict of interest; I view it as a sign of substantial good faith.
If you find your reception a little bit rocky, it's because there has been some sockpuppetry and other abusive editing going on at the Edelsten article from accounts trying to tilt the article in Mr. Edelsten's favour. I take you at your word that you haven't had any involvement in this.
Given the delicate situation surrounding the article and given your own position as admittedly non-neutral, I think it would be best—but is by no means required—that any potentially controversial edit you want to make at the article first be proposed at the article talk page for discussion among other editors. I think doing so will foster a more harmonious editing environment and also avoid edit wars.
I can't speak for anybody else involved in this dispute, but I'd actually never heard of Geoffrey Edelsten before becoming involved in this dispute. I have no preconceived notions about him, and I can promise you a fair hearing in any disputes.

As long as you abide by our core content policies (chiefly WP:V and WP:NPOV) you're welcome here. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Edelsten is well known to anyone living in Australia in the 80s and early 90s particularly if you followed Australian football. Might I add that although this user has claimed not to have edited before, Edelsten's own website has previously made legal threats and named several Wikipedia editors on his website. The website has also previously stated that Wikipedia is totally unreliable in general. This is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. My concern is that these edits are being done by close direction from Edelsten himself. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I state clearly the wording from WP:COI:

you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes)...then we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that would make your edits non-neutral (biased).

Michellecrisp (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are fair points, Michelle, but let me respond with a few of my own:

If youforbid people from editing under declared conflicts of interest, you're going to get a lot more people editing under undeclared conflicts of interest. Which would you rather have?
Believing that Wikipedia is totally unreliable does not disqualify you from editing here. I believe that Wikipedia is largely unreliable, and I'm a freakin' administrator.
Let's pretend for a moment that the previous edits - which I agree 100% were problematic - were from Edelsten. Hell, let's pretend they were from Dean Walters. So what? All that would mean is that they've decided to go about this honestly this time, and open themselves for scrutiny - power to them.
Geoffrey Edelsten's obviously controversial; that much, I've figured out. In the case of controversial living people, I actually feel more at ease if they're actively participating in the editing of their own article, provided they do so within all policies and guidelines. It prevents defamation and hatchet jobs. If Gepa starts disruptively trying to turn the article into a hagiography, then we have a problem, but that hasn't happened yet. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasticidealist, thanks for your comments. Well it's often obvious when someone has a conflict of interest due to single purpose editing or continual censorship of articles. If you're a member of a sporting club and want to edit your club's article here that is fine. But if you're being paid to edit and "correct" here, then that creates an issue. Wikipedia would be far from balanced if it was full of individuals and companies who were being paid to edit articles... Elonka Dunin is an example of an article that User:Elonka never edits herself even though it's about her. And plus, people become better editors and learn more about the rules by editing a variety of articles. Michellecrisp (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be assured that I aim to bring balance and quality to this article. I understand this comment is becoming repetitive so allow me to elaborate. I have looked into all other references on the Geoffrey Edelsten article; except for Edelsten website source inclusions they are all internet references, none have been sourced from printed material and none date back to the time period. This is a cause for concern, it presents a source bias and this kind of media sensationalism is the catalyst for defamation against Geoffrey Edelsten. The media has popularised myths and regurgitated copycat falsehoods - the facts exist, but alas, at this time, they are not internet sources. Popular media dominates the internet on this issue. Despite Geoffrey Edelsten successfully winning defamation action against a number of media outlets, including Matilda (the magazine) the subsequent retractions have not counteracted the subsequent propagation of (illegal founded) inaccuracy and/or lies by other copycat media. I aim to bring balance and quality to this article. References during the time period, without sensationalism, factual information, will assist an information resource as truthful as possible. The notion that conflict of interest exists is unfounded, it is not an issue of conflict - as very simply the reference inclusions speak for themselves. Because they exist, they can not be ignored. I’ve read WP:V and WP:NPOV, and understand quality reference inclusions are in close synchronisation. There is nothing to hide - as at the same time: nothing should be hidden.

Be assured that I aim to bring balance and quality to this article.

--Gepa (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gepa, since you clearly believe in balance and quality, you might suggest that Mr Edelsten revisits this page which is highly critical of Wikipedia editors who have contributed to the article in good faith and without malice. WWGB (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clear of conflict of interest here. Gepa, you work for someone that wants to make legal threats to Wikipedia users. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edelsten's view of Wikipedia

For the record, and I wonder what Dean Walters thinks: http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/Wikipedia-Discredited-Wikipeedonya/

Edelsten constantly protests his innocence of the charges. So how offensive is the wikipeedonya article about him.
Wikipeedonya has been repeatedly discredited as a source of reliable and factual information particularly when high profile living persons are involved. Efforts to obtain factual corrections are hindered by those with prejudiced views who edit the article in order to cause harm. This is compounded by the wikipeedonya management’s failure to take appropriate corrective action and their failure to abide by their own policies which, if followed, would not permit such defamatory articles to come into being.
See the history of the Bill Gates entry.
This site, www.geoffreyedelsten.com, endeavours to put together a factual dossier which, by comparison, highlights the clearly prejudicial, inaccurate and biased entry that wikipeedonya has published.
Readers are invited to attempt legitimate correction of the wikipeedonya article (but its likely you won’t be able to – the wikipeedonya editor team is a closed shop) and to disseminate the increasingly prevalent view of wikipeedonya’s lack of honesty, reliability and impartiality. The wikipeedonya article results in an unjustified invasion of privacy, and has resulted in actual identity fraud and other misdemeanours against the target.
It is requested that readers petition wikipeedonya for the removal of the article.

Michellecrisp (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your request to block other users for editing an article you have a very close interest in

For this request that is not a basis for blocking a user. We work by consensus here, not because you don't like it we block a user for a few edits (that's unless it's blatant harassment). nor do we block people because you don't like the location of the IP. this suggests you lack neutrality on Edelsten. suggest you edit a few articles to learn more about Wikpedia. your attitude is bordering on breaching WP:COI. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Geoffrey Edelsten, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to a comment on another Wikipedia user’s discussion page. See below--Gepa (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasticidealist, thank you for your recent comments. I have looked into your references and thoroughly researched the WP topics of discussion. Your insights have been helpful, your impartiality and conduct is commended and is recommended to all other Wikipedia users.

I understand that an IP (210.56.73.107) has removed properly referenced, on topic information that is required to un-bias (bring neutrality to) defamatory statements/references/information. Such editing has left the article defamatory biased, defamation should not tolerated. IP 210.56.73.107 has also introduced unreferenced information. I propose to revert this latest editing. And suggest that the Sydney based IP be blocked from editing as there is no audit trail for contentious editing. Your thoughts? --Gepa (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

have you considered editing other articles?

for the moment you are clearly a single purpose editor with a clear agenda to add information to defend Edelsten. You will learn more about Wikipedia by editing other articles especially WP:NPOV and style and appropriate content for inclusion. I'm assuming good faith here and hoping you will take the chance to prove that you are not merely here because someone is paying you to edit. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Also, calling every edit that does not work in your client's favour "defamatory" is not a good way to win favour. Indeed, if you believe Edelsten's website, I (along with several other good-faith editors) have been labelled a "perpetrator of defamatory lies" and implicit (and unspecified) off-wiki threats to do harm have been made to me (and others), even though I have never written a word on the page - not a good way to ensure co-operation! Less of the hyperbole and more co-operation would be good. Orderinchaos 13:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have passed on your comment to Dr Edelsten. I should have a response soon.--Gepa (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Gepa, my comments are directed at you, Dean Walters, or are you here to solely act for Geoffrey Edelsten? Can you speak as an individual or a paid employee? Michellecrisp (talk) 10:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gepa has already made it very clear that he handles Geoffrey Edelsten's Public Affairs, so of course he is here to act solely for Edelsten. That said, Wikipedia:Coi#Declaring an interest does not preclude him from participating in editorial discussions and non-controversial editing. WWGB (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the editing is bordering on censorship now. Gepa recently asked an admin to block an anon IP who edited the Edelsten article simply because the edit was defamatory (which it clearly wasn't) and the editor was in Sydney. this kind of lack of neutrality is noticeable. Michellecrisp (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation

Geoffrey Edelsten states that the Wikipedia article about him is highly defamatory, and damaging.

There are a number of defamatory and damaging statements. One in particular as followings;

He subsequently spent a year in jail for hiring an underworld figure, Christopher Dale Flannery, to assault a former patient, and for perverting the course of justice.[5][6][7]

- This media statement is greatly different than actual charges seen at http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/the-australian-criminal-reports-1990-vol51.pdf

- The charge was in fact “soliciting” not “hiring” – the use of “hiring” is defamatory, the fact can be found in the charge as follows; http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/the-australian-criminal-reports-1990-vol51.pdf

- The charge does not refer “a former patient” instead referred to as “another”, – the use of “a former patient” is defamatory, the fact can be found in the charge as follows; http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/the-australian-criminal-reports-1990-vol51.pdf

- The alleged “another” as seen in the charges stood trial for the attempted extortion of Edelsten. “another” was the man who in 1984 harassed and intimidated Edelsten and his family to extort money with menaces. This other side is not covered, and by its absence presents a highly biased view. “another” was later sentenced to 3 and a 1/2 years prison for fraud of an Australian Government Agency of more than $330,000.

- Flannery was not considered an underworld figure in 1984 – the date as set out in the charges. Flannery was only considered an underworld figure in media reports (seen above) that date from 1987 onward. There is an absence of such information between 1984 and 1987. Flannery was not considered an underworld figure in 1984.

Recent attempts to correct/unbias the article have been wholly removed.

Geoffrey Edelsten states that the Wikipedia article about him is highly defamatory and damaging.--Gepa (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments also appear at Talk:Geoffrey Edelsten where I have replied. WWGB (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, re the hiring vs soliciting, I've already argued here that it should be fixable, as it appears we now have a source which we can agree on (A Crim R is authoritative for the nature of the charge). I'll see what I can do with it now. Re "another", that's simply legal-speak, I think that comes from the section of the Criminal Code or other act concerned - who the "another" was are additional details and hence not contradicted by the new source. (Whereas "hiring" is contradicted because "soliciting" is a word with a clearly different meaning and has been used precisely.) Re the rest, we'd need pretty good sources to override what we presently have, as the other information comes from sources Wikipedia considers reliable (i.e. media of record). Orderinchaos 08:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed hiring in both the instances it appears. I asked someone to check their copy of A Crim R for me and the page ref and page contents are the same as in the one scanned and provided. Orderinchaos 08:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

editing

do you have any intention of contributing to Wikipedia besides the topic of Mr Edelsten? Are you a paid employee of him? LibStar (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ask again: do you have any intention of contributing to Wikipedia besides the topic of Mr Edelsten? Are you a paid employee of him? LibStar (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gepa has made his position very clear at the top of this page: "I'm Dean Walters and I will be working as Geoffrey Edelsten’s Wikipedia public affairs. I'm here to contribute information and media that will improve the quality and balance of the Wikipedia Geoffrey Edelsten article." That does not prevent him from making reasonable edits, nor require him to edit elsewhere. WWGB (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

some of the comments are not reasonable such as threatening legal and police action of other users even if it's vandalism. I don't see how GEPA is being constructive. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

warning for legal threats

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Geoffrey Edelsten.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Geoffrey Edelsten.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]