User talk:Obornp

Hello, Obornp, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
• Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Simplified Ruleset
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Glossary

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :) _-M ^o P-_ 21:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem! But you showed good initiative and signed up at the New User's Log. You also seem very enthusiastic. Anyway, if you ever have any questions at all (heck, they don't have to be related to Wikipedia :P), just zip down to my talk page and fire away. _-M ^o P-_ 21:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I was wondering, what kind of stuff did you think you'd be doing on Wikipedia? As a reference point so I know how to help.

Hi, I reverted your edit to the Level 3 Communications page. WP:MoS#Bulleted and numbered lists doesn't like lists if they can be avoided, and I don't know if the additions were really that relevant. Let me know if you disagree! Thanks, 17:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind that you replaced it, but can you word it sans jargon? I have no idea what an "indirect channel partner" may be. A client, perhap? Fleetham (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I replaced 'channel partner' with 'sales agency' per your request. - Obornp (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but could you make more substantial changes? I still don't really understand what an "indirect sales agency" is, or why listing the top ten is important. I think we should remove the list and replace it with a description of how Level 3 Communications sells its products. That will be more durable and better inform the reader than a list of companies that may become outdated. Fleetham (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

No worries. An indirect sales agency is an official sales company that is contracted with Level 3 (or any carrier) to sell their products to businesses. The main difference between employees (inside or 'direct' sales) and outside agencies (indirect sales) is that the outside sales reps don't earn any salary or benefits. We work 100% for residual commission. Typically, carriers move about 50% of their products through their own employees (direct sales) and 50% through the indirect "channel", or group of outside sales companies. Both receive product training from the carrier, as well as internal sales engineering support resources. I'm thinking a page for "Indirect Sales Channel" may be warranted. You're not the first person who has asked about this. The Cisco indirect sales channel, for example, accounts for over 90% of the company's sales revenue. It's akin to outsourcing your sales department - because if the outside sales reps don't actually sell anything, the companies don't have to pay.

With regards to the Level 3 page, I can do additional research and probe my contacts within Level 3 to learn more about their specific sales channels. As I am the most well versed on the indirect channel, as evidenced by my contribution, I'll need a little time to investigate the others. (ie: gov't, wholesale, etc.) -- Obornp (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Correction - I did find the appropriate indirect sales link. But it could use a LOT of work. That will be my

next project. -- Obornp (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. And I wouldn't recommend doing original research, as WP:No original research is one of the main tenets of Wikipedia. 18:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Once I found out what structure is in place at Level 3, I'll do my best to find already-published works to support the findings. -- Obornp (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Airespring do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Squeeze media is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squeeze media 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 address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

tony 02:56, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Tony, thank you for the heads up, letting me know that the article I authored has been nominated for deletion. As you might imagine, I strongly disagree with this proposal on many fronts. However, I admit the first draft that was published needed a lot of work and as is, would most likely be a candidate for removal. I have done some further editing to remove hyperbole and undocumented naratives, significantly strengthened the reference pool, and brought it up to the highest of Wikipedia standards. Having been a part of this community for over 20 years, I understand the desire to keep the system clean from junk or topics of little interest. However, this company is a major employer in my hometown, employing over 400 people and winning multiple awards, and merits inclusion. If you believe more editorial work is required, please post it here and I will address with the other contributors. Obornp (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Dr vulpes. An edit that you recently made to Squeeze media seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is usually unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and may contain factually inaccurate statements, fictitious citations, or other problems. You should instead read reliable sources and then summarize those in your own words. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or ask your questions at the Teahouse, a friendly place for new users. Thanks. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:06, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello Dr Vulpes. I appreciate the note and have re-written most of the article myself. AI was used merely as a tool to gather information and organize thoughts, not as a copywriter of original content. As such, the entirety of the document was edited to more clearly state facts, remove editorial or information not backed by a third party resource. My apologies for not making these changes in a sandbox setting. However, the vast majority of final edits are complete. With 20 years of tenure here, I believed I could author a worthy document without the use of a sandbox. Again, please accept my humblest apologies. Obornp (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello Obornp. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Squeeze media, 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 employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. 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:Obornp. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Obornp|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. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern here, but I've been part of Wikipedia for 20 years, with hundreds of successful edits to my credit and I have never, and will never, accept payment for my services. I look for and make edits to topics and companies that interest me, that I feel are worthy of inclusion, and in all circumstances follow the Wikimedia Terms of Use. Obornp (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

As previously advised, your edits, such as the edit you made to Squeeze media, give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Obornp, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Obornp|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. Please note this message says "please respond before making any other edits". Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello Magnolia. Again, to reiterate, I am not a paid actor or copywriter. I do have experience in creating and editing content on Wikipedia and, as I previously stated, I write about and contribute my time to topics, companies, and issues that interest me. This company, in particular, is one of the top 20 largest companies in my community, employing over 400 people. As they continue to grow, to hire, to provide local jobs, more and more people are looking for real, verifiable, information about them. I believe that is the real purpose of this platform; for actual human beings to vet, document, and provide a beacon of truth to all the spam/AI content we all deal with each day. I'm happy to provide additional information or anything else you need to ease your conscience. Keep up the great work - if it were easy to publish information here, the overall value would be diminished. Obornp (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Obornp, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections before editing further. Thank you. Jumpytoo Talk 21:02, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Jumpy - With respect, I work alone, but do know other editors (one to be specific, and he hasn't touched this article). We like being editors and would never jeapardize our standing by breaking rules we've all sworn to uphold. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and for all your hard work. Obornp (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is Squeeze media. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

It looks as if you're the original author of the Telarus article. Based on your userpage, you're also an employee of that company. As such, you should NOT be editing that article. Any suggested edits should be posted to the article's talk page. See WP:PAY for the rules regarding this. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Obornp. I hope it's OK that I respond to you in this section instead of the one above. I think we can agree that your connection to Squeeze Media, as well as with the subject of Telarus, might influence how you think about (and write about) the subjects. I know that I wouldn't be able to act neutrally about something so close to me. As you know, Wikipedia has a special Wikipedia-specific definition of "notability". Part of that definition says that subjects, including companies, need to have multiple reliable independent sources giving them significant coverage. It's not about whether we can find press releases or sponsored articles that talk about a company or its products, but instead it's about how many times the New York Times, Reuters, etc. have written articles specifically about the company. 99.9% of companies in the world don't meet this very tough requirement and do not qualify for Wikipedia articles -- even companies which are clearly important to their community. You are obviously passionate about this subject, and the information you've added here should definitely be on the Internet, but it might be better suited for the company's website or a dedicated company Wiki website. --tony 16:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

@TonySt, I appreciate you taking the time to engage and clarify. I'll abstain from making future edits to these pages, and focus on other areas that I feel I can add value to the WP community. In full disclosure, I do not work for Telarus any more, nor am I employeed by Squeeze, but I do have prior business dealings with both entities. Even still, I appreciate your feedback and look forward to participating in other productive ways on other non-related topics. Obornp (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)