Talk:Brandon Friedman

paid editing

@Nmd1978, please do not remove tags other editors have placed without at minimum discussing at talk pages. The article has a history of what looks like paid editing. It doesn't have to have anything to do with you. I'm replacing the tag, which I believe is appropriate. If you disagree, let's discuss. valereee (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nmd1978, you removed this again with an edit summary of Removed "undisclosed paid" tag again because it looks like simple vandalism; haven't seen any evidence or discussion. I started a discussion here and pinged you to it, so I'm not sure what this edit summary means. The edit history shows very clear signs of multiple paid contributors. For the second time, please let's discuss. valereee (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

What looks like paid editing? Nmd1978 (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Editors who have barely edited before then create/edit an article about a current business entity or living person are often paid editors. There are multiple instances of this on this article. Paid editing isn't forbidden, but it does need to be disclosed per WP:UPE. And frankly I now do wonder whethere you're a UPE w/re Brandon Friedman and therefore Rakkasan Tea Company. valereee (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

In that first edit I said you were accusing me of being a paid editor and I said I wasn't. Then up above here you wrote "it doesn't have to have anything to do with you." And now you're back to accusing me of being a paid editor. I am not a paid editor. I wish I was, that would be great. If I posted something untrue or that's not up to wikipedia standards, please edit it or request citations (like I saw you did). What other editors do you suspect? You said multiple. Nmd1978 (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nmd1978, I'm not going to get into which. And I wasn't actually ready to even start wondering about you -- as I said, it didn't have to have anything to do with you -- until you removed the paid editing tag twice without answering a ping to the talk page explaining why I added that tag back and offering to start a discussion. That's what made me start to wonder, as most well-intentioned new editors will answer pings and discuss. If I were going to accuse you, I'd be doing it at a noticeboard. But FWIW this is behavior that is unusual in a well-intentioned new editor who doesn't have some sort of a COI.

Maybe you could explain why you don't think the editing history shows signs of UPE? valereee (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, the article is only lightly edited over the last decade, there seem to have been lots of editors, and I don't see any of the puffery or peacockery that you edited out of the Rakkasan Tea entry (which I didn't contest!). Nothing is jumping out at me.

But back to the original disagreement or whatever: You said there was evidence of an unpaid editor (or editors). I said there's no evidence of that. So you took it to a discussion which seems reasonable. So I once more asked for evidence. You said there are "very clear signs" of it and "multiple instances of this" but haven't offered any. Seems like if you're not going to offer examples of suspected paid editors or examples of paid editing in the discussion, you probably shouldn't tag the article. Nmd1978 (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually the next step for me is COIN, to see if others agree with me, if you're still objecting. valereee (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I have added the COI tag, as a review of page statistics shows 3 editors who have added substantial content over the years focused on this article alone. The tag is not necessarily reflective of current events but a call for uninvolved eyes to look at the entire article given the facts. Slywriter (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I've taken a scalpel to the article to remove any unverifable claims, as well as remove redundant information about the book that can be properly found on the Book's wikipedia page. There was definitely old questionable editing, but think it's cleaned up now. Slywriter (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources removed from vague profile statement

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/08/AR2010040805128.html https://www.govexec.com/advice-and-comment/thinking-ahead/2012/05/all-about-face-time/55474/

These are sources that should be incorporated into article, not used for a vague line about subject being profiled Slywriter (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)