User talk:Brslxyl

February 2021

Hello Brslxyl. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Blake Ridder, 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 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 serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

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. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely 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:Brslxyl. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Brslxyl|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. Template:Z159 Jack Frost (talk) 12:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Frost: Hi, thanks for the message. However, I can confirm I am NOT in any way being paid to edit/create articles for Blake Ridder, nor is this a COI. Simply came across his work like I have of others in the past that I have edited. I think the page should be at least up for discussion for deletion, rather than moved to drafts without clear evidence, as there were various reliable sources I had provided.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. While I have seen you previous denial that you have no affiliation with Blake Ridder, your editing history simply doesn't tally with that. Despite your claim about 'others you have edited in the past', your entire edit history related to Ridder and his work. In particular, why were you so concerned that his page be 'patrolled' i.e. show up in search results? If you were simply adding the page in good faith, why would that matter? Dexxtrall (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dexxtrall: Please stop attacking me and the way I edit, but instead defend if the subject is notable or not. There is no violation on Wikipedia by editing and creating articles for one person alone. It is also not a violation by asking about the page being patrolled, this is all speculative. Blake has many people that loves his work, you can see that from the comments on his social accounts, I am just one of them who came across that and putting it on Wikipedia. That's all, I avoided using biased words in the article. So I don't see what I am doing wrong here. As this is not paid editing or COI. Tomorrow I may decide to edit on another person that I like the work of, does that mean it is disruptive editing? To delete a page based on the behaviour of the person who created the page isn't the right, you should concentrate on looking at the sources, his work, and the awards he's won from his work, these are not seo spam and pr.