User talk:Laniermark

Going forward you should instead make

WP:EDITREQUESTs on the article's talkpage. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi. Please cease from repeatedly recreating the closed ANI report. It is inappropriate of you to continue doing so. Thanks. El_C 18:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:El_C I am not opening the same thread. Just clarifying the questions asked. Laniermark (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your post, again. Please stop, otherwise your block is likely to be extended. GiantSnowman 18:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following up further (after edit conflicts)

Just to quickly address your most recent comment (that I removed), which reads:

Yes, I understand. But it all started when my page got nominated for deletion. I hired this agency for saving my page. They told me their editors are working on this and will save my page ASAP. For which I have paid them a good amount of money. Luckily, they saved my page. After that, They offered me that they will also fix potential COI issues on my page. As a proof, they told me that the Keep vote of [GreenC which you see in the deletion discussion is done by them. I trusted them and agreed to their proposal. Although, Later, I saw that same editor tried to fix my page but seemed like admins reverted their edits. So, As of now I just want to confirm will these edits will stick or can be still reverted. Waiting for an answer. Laniermark (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll note that Wikipedia is not responsible for any off-wiki arrangements (paid or otherwise). You are free to engage the article talk page, including by making any

I see you are trying to save User:GreenC. But as told you he works for the agency which took my money and didn't finish the job. So, I really like action should be taken against them. I am tagging more admins here @GeneralNotability:, @Jake Nelson:, @MER-C:. Laniermark (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laniermark, I have converted your block to sitewide (all Wikipedia pages, save this talk page), and I am warning you right now that any further allegations absent actual proof will also see a revocation of your access to editing this very talk page. El_C 18:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it unlikely that GreenC was paid. I find it more likely that instead the company claimed that GreenC was part of the company to try to make themselves look better. Unfortunately, many paid editing companies are very unscrupulous. Claiming the work of others is a common tactic by such companies. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, CaptainEek. I do not work for any agency nor is my involvement in this article more than volunteer. I learned about it on

WP:ARS where it was recently posted and which I follow. -- GreenC 19:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I have no idea why I was pinged here, but I concur with CaptainEek's analysis (and would like to point out that it would have been trivial to verify that GreenC's comment was in fact theirs - you could have asked them to make a specific minor edit using that account). We routinely see paid-editing companies claim articles as their own work to look good to potential clients. In fact, every couple months or so someone reports articles like that to our conflict of interest discussion board (since they don't realize the company is lying). I can't say that I've seen them claim someone else's !vote at a deletion discussion as their own, but it's entirely in-character. Like the vast majority of paid-editing companies, this company appears to be a scam operation. GeneralNotability (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]