User talk:274humblerpie

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, 274humblerpie. 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, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 15:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any relationship with the subject and therefore no conflict of interest. However, I found it strange that the profile about the subject was being questioned when he is clearly a White House correspondent quoted by many reliable sources. I am wondering what the real motive of the editor who questioned his profile was. Every statement in the profile is true and backed by reliable sources. A google search will also give you more about his work from the World Health Organization to the International Monetary Fund and from the World Bank to the State Department. The key factor about Wikipedia is that every statement should be true about someone and backed by reliable sources. I sincerely question the person who questioned their profile. I believe it was out of malice or other external factors. 274humblerpie (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I understand the journalist in question is Black, has an African name and so to that editor, he certainly cannot be prominent, which is strange. In the recent altercation between Will Smith and Chris Rock, the journalist was the only reporter who connected the White House with the rest of the country on a trending topic. He was quoted by New York Post, The Daily Beast, Insider, Mediaite, Salon, and also featured in the Jimmy Kimmel Show. If such a journalist does not deserve to be on Wikipedia, who does? I believe it was out of malice and not based on reliability and prominence of the journalist in question. 274humblerpie (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. You said "To me, it appears that the editor who flagged the profile did so out of malice or other personal or biased motives", despite having been told (twice) exactly why I placed the templates, despite having just been informed of the WP:AGF policy, and in the same post that you claimed to "always assume good faith". Hence this warning, since your accusations of bad faith are unacceptable. bonadea contributions talk 20:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that this has to do with racism. First, you believe that The New York Post, Fox News and other media outlet on the right are fake news but The New York Times, The Washington Post and others who claimed that the story of Hunter Biden in The New York Post was fake only to acknowledge many months after that it was correct are the credible media outlets. It's crazy when someone with such a mindset is allowed to edit other people's profiles. You are the only 'editor' online questioning the credibility of a journalist who simply does his job. You put a label on his profile and claimed that he may not have been prominent and went on to explain who you think should be prominent based on media outlets that continue to get things wrong. From what you have tried to do, I can conclude that first, you are not qualified yourself to edit the profile of the journalist in question, second, you're biased toward news publication on the right and therefore believe that when they write about an African-born journalist, that journalist who covers the White House, may not really be prominent, because according to you, being prominent is when The New York Times, The Washington Post and probably CNN write about you. It's a shame that you are allowed to edit others when I question your own biased mindset. 274humblerpie (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Simon Ateba. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. bonadea contributions talk 15:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Simon Ateba, you may be blocked from editing. bonadea contributions talk 06:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Simon Ateba. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. bonadea contributions talk 12:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks, promotional editing, and ignoring Wikipedia policies

In this edit summary you said There is one editor here who does not believe that news publication on the right, including the oldest publication in America, The New York Post, are not credible and the editor who who hides behind a computer claims Mr. Ateba may not be prominent. Two fundamental misunderstandings in one sentence there. As you already knew (but have perhaps forgotten, we are not allowed to use New York Post as a source in Wikipedia articles. It wouldn't matter if it was ever so ancient, the only thing that is relevant is that Wikipedia policy forbids it. Please refresh your memory; you were given the information, with links to the relevant policy, here and here. (You have also ignored the request to strike and apologise for the ridiculous attack you made on that talk page, instead choosing to double down on it in the edit summary linked above.) Secondly, the claim that somebody has said that Mr. Ateba may not be prominent is fabricated from thin air, as far as I can tell. What would "prominent" even mean in this context? A person is or is not notable, and that has nothing to do with "prominence".

Finally, you have to stop promoting Simon Ateba; you say above that you have no connection to him, but that does not mean that you are free to use Wikipedia to promote him. How many user accounts have you registered? --bonadea contributions talk 12:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you could make your own profile public and see what makes you prominent to edit the profile of others. You believe that adding that the journalist Simon Ateba is Chief White House Correspondent for Today News Africa is wrong, even though that's his daily job. You prefer to say that he runs an online publication covering the White House, but not that he covers the White House and is the Chief White House Correspondent for the publication and is not the only one covering the White House for the publication. It's strange how you believe that you are prominent enough to edit the profiles of others when you yourself may not even be prominent. It's also crazy to believe that The New York Post, the oldest media outlet in the United States is not credible but The New York Times is, it's almost offensive to claim that, that's what Wikipedia says, it's a foolish argument to claim that media outlets on the right are not credible but those on the left are. If that makes sense to you, I am so disappointed. What you needed to do was to check whether there was anything false about Simon Ateba on his profile. But there was nothing. He is a journalist. He is a White House Correspondent. He is the Chief White House Correspondent for the Publication. The Publication does not only cover the White House, it covers many beats across the United States and Africa. It's myopic what you are trying to do and I can only blame racism for your actions, the belief that someone who was born in Africa and who covers the White House should not be described as a journalist and chief White House correspondent for their publication. 274humblerpie (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia article is not a "profile", it is an encyclopedia article. I am very, very far from being notable, and there could never be a Wikipedia article about me – and if there were, I'd be the last person to edit it. So that's the end of that discussion. May I ask which part of the opening sentence "Simon Ateba is a journalist working in the United States. He runs the online news outlet Today News Africa, covering the White House." fails to present Mr. Ateba as a journalist who covers the White House? Your writing is not quite coherent, so I may be misunderstanding you, but when you say he covers the White House and is the Chief White House Correspondent for the publication and is not the only one covering the White House for the publication do you mean that the publication employs reporters other than Mr. Ateba, and that multiple journalists employed by Today News Africa report from the White House? Where did you find that information, since it's not in any of the independent sources? No, it does not make sense to me to say that "media outlets on the right are not credible but those on the left are"; I have never made any such claim, and there is nothing in Wikipedia policy to support it, so that's a non-argument. Do you intend to apologise for your repeated personal attacks and withdraw them? --bonadea contributions talk 15:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed to Thewashingtonimmigrant.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]