Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:A&P Talk:David Adjaye Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Speech–Language–Hearing Association Talk:American Water Works Talk:Timothy Archambault Talk:Avia Solutions Group Talk:Bastion Collective Talk:Bell Bank Talk:Boku, Inc. Talk:Doug Bremner Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Martin Casado Talk:Cboe Global Markets Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Character.ai Talk:Brian Chesky Talk:Cheyne Capital Management Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:City of Whittlesea Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Cyberattack Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Edmund de Waal Talk:Derby della Lanterna Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Discovery Land Company Talk:Michael Douglas Talk:Edelman (firm) Talk:EF Education First Talk:EMarketer Talk:Engine No. 1 Talk:ESAB Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Steven Furtick Talk:Gibson Dunn Talk:Global Strategy Group Talk:GLX Digital Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Graph database Talk:Evan G. Greenberg Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Gulfstream Aerospace Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:Roy Hamilton III Talk:Richard Harland Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:HOK (firm) Talk:Hong Kong Free Press Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Infillion Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:Barry Irwin Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:Labaton Keller Sucharow Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Alison Lawton Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Lemelson Foundation Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Anthony Marinelli Talk:Mascot Books Talk:Masdar Talk:Michael Meldman Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:Milwaukee Electric Tool Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Omaha Steaks Talk:Operating system Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Overseas Development Institute Talk:Pacific Equity Partners Talk:Lubos Pastor Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Poster House Talk:Programming language Talk:PureTalk Talk:Qiagen Talk:QIAGEN Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Quarter Pounder Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Marc Rowan Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Security AppScan Talk:Diana Senechal Talk:Simprints Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Software Talk:Software license Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SoundExchange Talk:Stichting IKEA Foundation Talk:Stikeman Elliott Talk:Subway (restaurant) Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:Tencent Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:The Inter Faith Network Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Titmouse, Inc. Talk:Tricentis Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Bradley Tusk Talk:Union Pacific Railroad Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Bulat Utemuratov Talk:Versapay Talk:Romesh Wadhwani Talk:Dan Wagner Talk:Wasserman (company) Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator Talk:Maya Wiley Talk:Andy Wright (music producer) Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Zearn Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Alice Zorn

Greta Berlin and Free Gaza Movement

The Greta Berlin and Free Gaza Movement articles have been subject to advocacy in the past. The account Truegreta was indefinitely blocked after a discussion here.[1] The COI and was further discussed at an admin's talk page.[2]

A COI concern was addressed here regarding user:Tecspk@aol.com.[3] The email address shows affiliation with the subjects.

I believe the account should be blocked due to evasion. The advocacy concerns are secondary.Cptnono (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It might have been a drive by attempt because the account is inactive again. Should this be closed? Does the user still need to be blocked?Cptnono (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

QCoal

• QCoal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 103.5.212.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 203.174.180.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IPs have been removing criticism of the company from the article. The hostname of 203.174.180.226 is mail1.qcoal.com.au (here). Furthermore IP103 said in an edit summary: "This has been requested by Q Coal" (diff).

Stickee (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• blocked both IP's very clear these have no intention other than to white wash content related to QCoal by the removal of reliably source material Gnangarra 01:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Old Buckenham Airport

• Old Buckenham Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• PrioryFlyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 453rdenthusiast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has only ever offered contributions in relation to the subject article. The username, Priory Flyer, may we refer to an affiliation with Priory Farm, a nearby airfield in competition with the subject of the article. The user added a section called Accidents and Incidents which details a list of occurrences at Old Buckenham Airport. No such similar section exists at other small airfields similar to Old Buckenham. Further, none of the reports cited infer at all that the accident or incident was as a result of the airfield's wrong doing, infrastructure or otherwise. When read, however, it appears that this section was deliberately designed to give the impression that Old Buckenham is unsafe, when that has not been found to be the case in any of the cited incidents. I have tried dialogue using their talk page, but no response has been given. It appears that this account has solely been set up to create this misleading section and edits to remove or change the section are undone by PrioryFlyer with no discourse. I believe that they are essentially attempting to use Wiki to benefit a rival organisation and therefore this is a COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 453rdenthusiast (talk • contribs)

In general, accidents and incidents sections should be added to more airport articles. Palo Alto Airport of Santa Clara County should mention the crash involving three Tesla employees who took off in heavy fog and hit high tension lines.[4]. As for this article, it's starting to look like edit warring. Both editors, please don't do that. It won't help. John Nagle (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I put a note on both user's talk pages about edit warring and how to avoid it. Let's see what happens. John Nagle (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This edit [5] to James Stewart looked rather promotional, so I undid it. Putting links to Buckenham's site into other articles with a tenuous connection to the subject looks spammy. I left the edit to Martin Shaw [6]. John Nagle (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Dow Corning

• Dow Corning
• Talk: suggested edits and citations

Hi, I have a few suggestions for edits to Dow Corning, which I've shared in a Talk page post. In addition to suggesting that one sentence be removed or reworded, I have citations for some unreferenced information currently in the article and suggestions for a few other basic facts to add. I'm not making any edits myself because I have a COI; I work for a communications agency that represents Dow Corning. I'd be very grateful if someone could take a look and offer feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Responded and made changes to satisfy most of the requests. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Craig Walendziak

• Brifmishico (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 76.119.12.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Craig mack378 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dilbert Grapes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I just found this article and it seems to be almost entirely written by one user who only used the account to create the page. They did a really nice job too. Then another user who has the same first name as the page itself uploaded some pictures of the person who the page is supposedly about. As far as I know having two user accounts on Wikipedia and Wikicommons is not allowed but I also suspect it's not allowed to write an article about yourself (is the user "Craig mack378" is actually the same person as the person in the article). Anyway, this isn't my field of activity on Wikipedia so I simply wanted to bring this to the attention of more experienced editors who can decide if anything should be done about this. Thanks!Monopoly31121993 (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, this is Craig Walendziak -- I did not write the article, but I did add the pictures. I did so for the sake of completeness, I did not think this was a conflict of interest.

Thanks,

Craig — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig mack378 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

that was 'so obviously a piece of paid editing or completely conflicted piece of COI work. disgusting. look at this first draft by the article's creator: [7]. how the hell do they know his birthday, place of birth, wife's name etc etc. Blech. Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, now we have what appears to be a sock who just reverted most of my changes. Added that account above, along with the other two and the IP address as well. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I am the drummer of Fear Tomorrow. Went to check Craig Mack's wiki page. Saw someone removed half the things? Craig Walendziak is a very popular musician in the hardcore scene. A lot of people know where Craig was born and his wife's name... I'm not sure why Jytdog is so confrontational? Thanks. Dilbert Grapes (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You are the one being aggressive by editing and leaving no edit notes, and not talking. I am glad you finally started talking here. Thanks for doing that. And thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. Please read and follow WP:COI - you should not directly edit the article of your band mate. And please read WP:VERIFY - things in articles, especially articles about living people, need to be based on published, reliable sources. Think about it -- I could say, just as easily as you, that I am the bass player for Fear Tomorrow and I know for a fact that Craig has a very tiny dick. Should that content be added to his article, on that basis? Really, think about it. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

talk Hey I'm new here. I was in a band with him 15 years ago... that has long since disbanded. You are being very aggressive. You took a well written article and deleted half the content and replaced it poorly written sentences. Your edits were heavy handed. Those albums WERE verified in the post. (Check the discography links). You removed his whole education history? That seems weird. Many other people have their education listed. I'm just curious why you were so aggressive. And are still being aggressive. I'm not trying to be confrontational - just keeping an open source article enjoyable and accurate. Do you do this to every article? Dilbert Grapes (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

hmm i know you are knew and i am trying to explain things clearly to you now. i explained every one of my edits. Most of them were removing unsourced content. again, i point you to WP:BLP and WP:VERIFY. Please read them. Those are both Wikipedia policies and you agree to follow them every time you edit Wikipedia - they are in the Terms of Use that you agree to, just by editing here. It is fine to be new, but you have to follow the rules here. Editing is a privilege (freely offered to all) but people who don't learn the rules and follow them get banned. that is just how wikipedia actually rolls. it is not a garbage dump where anybody can write anything -- content has to be sourced, especially in a biography article. Jytdog (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Steve Gibson (computer programmer)

• Steve Gibson (computer programmer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have my doubts whether this editor is editing objectively. The article is full of primary sources affiliated with the subject, and seems to be rather fluffed up beyond what is really needed for an objective Wikipedia article. A "controversy" seems to have been manufactured out of thin air. What reliable third-party source has labelled this a "controversy"? Possible promotional intent? Skyerise (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Skyerise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have my doubts whether this editor is editing objectively. The "controversy" section was not my creation. My additions are all Googled citations. Skyerise's contribution's comments clearly indicate negative bias towards the subject. ~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

That was a very poor article. I worked it over today and have it on my watchlist. Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That was exactly what it needed. Skyerise (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Coats PLC

• Coats PLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gingerjuice123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gingerjuice, which has been editing Coats PLC, is a social media company with Coats PLC as a client [8]. Yet it has not declared this conflict here, violating the TOU. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

That is one embattled article! Now blanked and listed at WP:Copyright problems, numerous copyvios added by at least two different editors, one in 2010, one in 2013. I think it is fairly safe to assume that Coatsuk, who made four edits in 2010, also has/had a COI. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Adam Blitz Charlie Hebdo Shooting

• Charlie Hebdo shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Adam Blitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

@Adam Blitz: added his self-published blog post as a source to Charlie Hebdo shooting. Can an admin warn him about COI, and why general Wikipedia articles are not the place for self-published criticism of Wikipedia articles? -- Aronzak (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC) Note - I'm concerned about the doxing of User:Zero Serenity by media outlet The Federalist - low quality journalists may try to antagonise wikipedia editors (WP:NOTHERE) to then dox them and make a "story" out of how they disagree with Wikipedia. -- Aronzak (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

That's Adam Blitz's own blog on the Times of Israel site. [9] (Disclamer there: "This post has been contributed by a third party. The opinions, facts and any media content here are presented solely by the author, and The Times of Israel assumes no responsibility for them. In case of abuse, report this post.") Linking to the Times of Israel at first seemed OK. But linking to one's own blog is usually considered a COI. Someone already undid the relevant edits.

The "doxing of User:Zero Serenity" issue seems to be unrelated. It's discussed here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-09-24/In the media and has to do with Neil deGrasse Tyson, the director of the Hayden Planetarium. What's the connection to Charlie Hebdo? John Nagle (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I undid his changes when I saw them. I'll contact an admin involved with the NDT issue. I think there is an issue of canvassing, by taking Wikipedia disputes and broadcasting them exclusively to people who are likely to share his political ideology, and I'll take it up with an admin on their talk page. -- Aronzak (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Aronzak --Adam Blitz (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Sir, I have no idea what the reference is to Zero Serenity or the inflammatory remark about "low quality journalists may try to antagonize Wikipedia editors". The facts are very simple: there is no reference within the Charlie Hebdo Shooting article to the killing of Jews at the Kosher Supermarket by A Coulibaly. This has nothing to do with my "political ideology", as you write, or "broadcasting them exclusively to people who are likely to share his political ideology". The omission of these facts, that the killing was inspired by Charlie Hebdo related events is, if anything, ideological. There is no reason to exclude this additional tragedy from the story. I am not very accustomed to editing Wikipedia pages. Perhaps you would advise me as to how I may proceed.

Promoting your own blog on Wikipedia is generally not acceptable. Please read WP:SOAP. The other shootings are covered at 2015 Île-de-France attacks, which is the parent of the Charlie Hebdo article. John Nagle (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(Note comment from Adam Blitz on my user page. Moved to my talk page: User talk:Nagle#Charlie Hebdo) John Nagle (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Adam Blitz (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Sirs User:Aronzak and John Nagle I received a response from Mr. Nagle. (Thank you). I have attempted to explain that the other shootings merit coverage within the body of the article, "Charlie Hebdo Shooting", at least a line to convey the context. Île-de-France subsection is not the parent but the child. Mr. Nagle is mistaken, I believe. And the shootings at the kosher supermarket of Porte de Vincennes do not appear visibly within the sub-heading or the main article. There is no reason to exclude these especially when there is reference to other incidents such as Dammartin en Goele. I have no particular interest to promote my blog on Wikipedia. What I am interested in is illustrating that the causation of these subsequent anti-Semitic killings by A Coulibaly is clearly missing in the "Charlie Hebdo Shooting" article. My focus is academic scrutiny - not "political ideology" as User Aronzak writes. I would appreciate some help with the editing process. Please would you be kind enough to assist? I can be contacted at adam.blitzATcolumnist.com Thank you. Adam Blitz (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

BayviewVillageSC

• Bayview Village Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bayview Village (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• BayviewVillageSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Self-apparent COI, in both name and in choice of articles to edit. Epeefleche (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a user name policy violation, but the edits to the articles seem OK. They just uploaded a picture of the mall and linked that to the article. They also put a smaller version of the image into Bayview Village, which has had a mention of the mall for years. The picture was uploaded at very high resolution, tagged as "own work", and carries the camera data, so that does not appear to be a copyvio, although smaller versions of that image appear elsewhere on the Web. No promotional text was added; the "upscale mall" line in Bayview Village is not new. I'd suggest informing them of Wikipedia's policy on user names - individuals only, no group, role, or company accounts. WP:BITE would seem to apply; this seems well-intentioned. John Nagle (talk) 06:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The Doctors (2008 TV series) and promotional account.

TheDoctorsPR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A user called TheDoctorsPR has shown up at the article and other related BLPs. It definitely goes against WP:ORGNAME, but what's the best course of action in cases like this? Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

tagged the articles. watching the article and watching the editor's talk page to see if/when they come clean. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This edit [10] is a concern. Deleting a reference to a New York Times article is unusual, but the article linked to is completely irrelevant to Travis Lane Stork. It's about a security breach in Target's credit card processing system. Looking further. John Nagle (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the Travis Lane Stork article was vandalized about a year ago by an anon, 173.15.232.237 (talk · contribs), in this edit.[11]. Removed insertion by that anon. There's other plausible-looking vandalism from that anon in other articles.[12][13]. Both of those edits have been reverted by others. Appears to be unrelated to COI issue. John Nagle (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

User:EditorialatOMFIF

• EditorialatOMFIF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Examples with Diffs (there are 10+ edits like these):

Steve Hanke https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Hanke&diff=prev&oldid=646638513

Jean-Claude Bastos de Morais https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jean-Claude_Bastos_de_Morais&diff=prev&oldid=646525739

Paul Judge https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Judge&diff=prev&oldid=646648079

User EditorialatOMFIF has been rapidly adding sentences about involvement with OMFIF to Blp pages. Given the user name, this appears a clear conflict of interest. In any case these are unreferenced blp changes, and the username doesn't appear to comply with the username policy. EditorialatOMFIF was warned by AllyD on his/her talk page, but has not responded and has continued to make OMFIF-related edits. Also, the existence and editing history of OMFIFlondon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and OMFIF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked) show a pattern of behavior.Dialectric (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Coffee has blocked EditorialatOMFIF, the user reported here, so I believe this issue is now resolved.Dialectric (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Q.leroy and Lendico

Q.leroy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a coi with respect to Lendico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He appears to deny this, but given the WP:SPA status and a trivial Google search I think that stretches credulity. He reverted a pruning of spam on the article. I doubt he'll stop. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

watchlisted and tagged. also provided notice on editor's Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not work for Lendico and do not have a conflict of interest with this article. I wrote it in cooperation with other authors and I also wrote other article concerning their competitors in other language (French, Spanish and German). I believe this entries does not appear in my log of the English WP. I used to study peer to peer lending at a global stage and believed the organization deserved its own page. As you can easily see, Lendico is NOT present on any English speaking country and that article cannot therefore be considered as an advertising. I deplore again the attempt of Guy to interfere with my person since I submitted one of his article for deletion. I truly believe he is the one that should be considered for having a POI with Universal Medicine (negative one in that case). And I would like to gently ask him not to harass me anymore on WP Q.leroy (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Q.leroy please state if you have ever had an affiliation with Lendico and if so, tell us what that affiliation was, and when. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Landmark Worldwide

• Landmark Worldwide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• DaveApter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AJackl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Two editors with conflicts[14][15] have repeatedly pushed an advocacy PoV relying on original research to blank sourced statements and revert to a version tagged for puffery last July; wiping out nearly all edits since. The talk page hectoring pushing the Landmark PoV and destructive reversions have been and are unproductive in moving the article forward. • Astynax ^talk 20:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)