User talk:Sprocvler
Sprocvler, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
|
Hi Sprocvler! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC) |
Mandatory paid editing disclosure; other forms of COI[edit]
Hello Sprocvler. 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:Sprocvler. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Sprocvler|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.
Please disclose any connection you have with Marc Bell or his companies. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hello. There is no conflict of interest. I noticed that there were companies mentioned in the article and the person mentioned on their board but the companies no longer existed. It lead me to update the article to reflect what was now the case. However, there is no promotion in there. All my edits are based on reliable references I found on the internet, not of my own. You should also note that the content edits I made are all explained. There is no unexplained editing. And so you should not plainly undo everything in a single edit. If you have concerns with any part of the new version, you can edit it, ok? Thanks. --Sprocvler (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- You did the same sorts of things as every other person working for Bell has done to that page, including downplaying the porn where he made his money. There is a place for people with a conflict of interest in Wikipedia but there is a process to manage it. Please reconsider your answer. Jytdog (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Let us not stereotype each other with any previous bad experiences. If you have any problem with a part of content, sure, add it. But you have undone every edit I have made, references that I added, you have reinstated him as a board director of a company that no longer even exists and is proven by reference. I'm certain wikipedia does not want that. You should stick to new edits on the draft to add something you feel is relevant instead of reverting completely to a poor version. Sprocvler (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'll give you a last chance before I escalate this and seek an indefinite block. The situation is not ambiguous. Please disclose your relationship with Bell or his companies. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Question, why are you unwilling to discuss content and reverse the article to a version that is not sensible? I have already answered your question, but if my answer was any different, will saying that he's director of javelin (which doesn't even exist anymore) start to make any sense? I think, no! --Sprocvler (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Disclosure is mandatory. You are not here in good faith so there is no foundation for good faith discussion. I'll be requesting you to be indeffed in a moment, and will give you notice of that. Jytdog (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
- Javelin thing fixed Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Edit war warning[edit]
Your recent editing history at Marc Bell (entrepreneur) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Noticeboard discussion[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jytdog (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)