User talk:Mcrumbine

The article you submitted to Articles for creation has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sadads (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Scott Holden 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/David Scott Holden 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. Chuka Chief (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Piper D. Griffin 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/Piper D. Griffin 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. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paid Earned Shared Owned model, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Tagishsimon (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mcrumbine! 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! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mcrumbine. 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 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 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:Mcrumbine. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Mcrumbine|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. MrOllie (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @MrOllie,

I am not being paid to promote or edit any articles. Mcrumbine (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case please top making promotional additions. MrOllie (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MrCrumbine may I ask if you have any relationship, whether financial, personal, or otherwise, with Gini Dietrich? It seems odd that you created exactly two articles in the past three years, one about her and one about an acronym she coined, and that just days after that an account claiming to be Ms. Dietrich was created and then uploaded a graphic to complement one of those articles. Coincidences happen, but this editing pattern seems to call for an explanation. Look forward to your reply. Oblivy (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Oblivy, I met Gini Dietrich a 1 1/2 ago. I was a client of hers for a short time. I knew little about her full story at the time. Soon after I learned about all she has contributed to the PR industry - a free Slack community, famous blog, book and most importantly a strategic framework (PESO Model), that she created and trademarked. Also a college certification based on the PESO model taught at over 200 universities. The PESO Model is used by agencies all of the world, and is often referred to by industry experts in articles, blogs, and websites. But sometimes others take credit for the PESO Model. I thought a Wikipedia article would help to inform people about how it came to be and discourage others from taking credit. After I created the article, I told Gini Dietrich about it. I told her that while I wanted to upload the graphic of the model itself I was unable to because I didn't own the copyright. She then obviously uploaded the graphic herself. She did not ask me to post the article or offer to pay me, and I have not asked to be paid.

In addition to these articles, I created two additional articles in 2020 (for the first time) and wasn't paid for those either. One those articles was taken down because he was a political candidate that didn't make it past the democratic prinary. Not sure if the other is still up. Mcrumbine (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mcrumbine thanks for your prompt reply. My sense is that according to the spirit of the conflict of interest rules you should have disclosed a conflict of interest and followed the rules that would suggest refraining from creating or editing articles relating to Ms. Dietrich or PESO. That's true (or at least a gray area) whether you are a paid editor, merely an ex-client, or something in between.

However, based on my own understanding and searches of scholarly material citing this model, I also think the article has merit and would survive an articles-for-deletion vote. The article has some independent citations, and other sources might help show notability, but it's not very neutral in tone. Therefore I would propose to do the following:

• remove the paid editing template from PESO Model but also tone down some of the hype-type language especially at the end of the lead paragraph
• at Earned media re-link this article, without citing her book - a user who wants to know more about the model can click through to the PESO article
• do nothing with Draft:Gini Dietrich which, in my opinion, does not meet the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. As it's in draft form and already rejected there's nothing to be done but if you do think it can be improved then you should disclose your relationship at that talk page and follow the WP:COI guidelines

With due respect to your explanation of why you created the article, I also respect @MrOllie's judgment and agree with them your conduct at least raises a suspicion of paid promotion. It's entirely possible I'm missing things that suggest greater impropriety. I'd be happy to have them weigh in on this before I proceed. Oblivy (talk) 07:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblivy: This is a situation where a simple google search turns up information that is inconsistent with what we are being told on this talk page. MrOllie (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious search results seem equivocal to me. That is, suggesting recent interactions but not anything like being someone's employee. And not evidence of sockpuppetry (although the sudden Gini Dietrich account has caught my eye). As I said I have respect for your judgment on these things so perhaps you are seeing something beyond "fan" material that I'm not pulling up.

Separate from that I think it might be helpful to focus on what to do with the pages. While I understand there's a strong possibility we aren't being told the entire story, unless the PESO article is going to be deleted it should be improved, and it's possibly tainted origins don't have to determine its destiny. Oblivy (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. I don't think it's bad enough to need WP:TNT or anything, but editing will have to proceed without the help of conflicted editing. MrOllie (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

100%Oblivy (talk) 13:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A google search will reveal my LinkedIn page + association with Spin Sucks. We are working on a future project together though nothing to do with paid promotion or public relations. I am not an employee. I am NOT being paid for the Wikipedia articles or edits. No one at Spin Sucks - including Gini Dietrich - asked me to create or edit articles. I will discontinue editing or creating articles about Spin Sucks / Gini Dietrich if that is recommended. @MrOllie@Oblivy I applaud your diligent work to keep Wikipedia a factual and truthful resource. Mcrumbine (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the changes as outlined above, which I hope will be acceptable to everyone at this thread. I also did a page move, just for capitalization reasons. I appreciate your candor @Mrcrumbine and your reasonableness @MrOllie. The editor community can be quite sensitive to the problem of paid and conflict-of-interested editing, but I think the result here is net favorable for Wikipedia. Oblivy (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect PESO Model™ has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 13 § PESO Model™ until a consensus is reached. Tagishsimon (talk) 09:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mcrumbine. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Gini Dietrich".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 14:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]