User talk:Pizzafax

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Pizzafax. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Longhair\^talk 19:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzafax: As explained I do not have any connection to Reed Smith and do not get anything in return for my contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzafax (talk • contribs)

December 2018[edit]

Hello Pizzafax. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

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, and if it does not, 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:Pizzafax. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Pizzafax|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, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Longhair\^talk 19:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzafax: "If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message." I do not get any compensation for my edits and I am not linked to the company, my occupation is not in the legal sector and I do not know anybody from the company. Pizzafax (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by pizzafax

I do not have any personal connection or affiliation to the law firms I write about, incl. Reed Smith. I have read "The Price of Justice - A True Story of Greed and Corruption" by Laurence Leamer and stumbled upon Reed Smith. As a hobby historian I added information on the firm's history which includes some of America's industrial tycoons such as Carnegie, Frick and the Heinz company. I work at a NGO in Berlin and do not know anybody at Reed Smith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzafax (talk • contribs)

I note you've removed the conflict of interest and advert maintenance tags from the Reed Smith article. My concerns were due to the somewhat promotional wording used throughout, such as "most groundbreaking", "record-breaking", "dominating the lateral market" and similar. Press releases are also used as a reference which is unsuitable as they are considered to be primary sources. Articles at Wikipedia must adhere to the policy of neutral point of view and not include puffery. I trust this helps explain why I added these maintenance templates in order for these issues to be noted and tidied up. -- Longhair\^talk 22:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just learned where to read your latest comments, pardon me. Here we go :) :

Regarding the wording record-breaking: Law360 uses the very same wording for the categories of its annual awards Global 20, please see example https://us.eversheds-sutherland.com/NewsCommentary/In-the-News/212761/Law360-Reveals-the-Global-20-Firms-of-2018

Dominating lateral market: exact same wording in the caption of a leading media outlet in the legal sector https://lawyerfirmnews.com/2018/05/04/the-us-law-firm-dominating-the-london-lateral-market-is/

You haven't replied to above mentioned examples that prove that the wording of third party sources were used and not advertisement. Please remove the advert template. Thank you. Pizzafax (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Pizzafax, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Longhair\^talk 20:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by pizzafax

Thank you for your welcome LongHair, I did not want to cause any issues with my edits, but I feel like the page changed a lot over the last months since I made effort to create many new chapters and information on the firm. I like the history of it and do not want to seem like I work there. Best wishes from Berlin :-)

Pizzafax (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Reed Smith. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Longhair\^talk 22:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on the removal of the templates, all content is backed with third party sources. Please explain why you added the template. In addition, I explained there is no COI. Please explain why you added the template. Thank you.

Pizzafax (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzafax

Please compare this page to Reed Smith

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Quinn_Emanuel_Urquhart_%26_Sullivan

Pizzafax (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to also read over WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I've replied on the template removal at your talk page above. I find your explanation of conflict of interest issues to be doubtful due to the promotional style of editing and your narrow focus of topics edited, beginning with an edit to the One Penn Plaza article [1] and with a large focus on New York based law firms leading me to believe you've possibly been employed by these firms at one time or another. I also note you introduce content to law firm related articles such as the precise number of employees, something which no book would mention and also something somebody without a connection to the firm would be unlikely to be aware of or have an interest in such. -- Longhair\^talk 23:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I edited One Penn Plaza shows that I am interested in the world of law firms after reading the book I mentioned above. I unfortunately never had the priviledge to live in New York or work there. As mentioned already I live in Europe and not involved in the legal world. Your argumentation is not coherent and it is not clear why the number of employees, one important fact usually easily found on all law firm profiles, would suggest I have a connection to the firm. The number of employees is always of interest, just like other figures like date of foundation and net profit. This critic seems arbitrary. All sources and references used at my edits are from third parties, no press releases by the firm were used. 01:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)