User talk:Ben 1979

Hi,

I note you've been adding a bit of advert-style language to the lead of Anne Bogart. Please don't do this, it violates our policy on tone.

Thanks,

StraussInTheHouse (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Bogart image

I see you removed the image with the comment that you will replace it with a more flattering one shortly. That's great! However the main stumbling block is that the image needs to be freely licensed, as described in WP:IUPC. That's not as trivial as it seems, we can't just grab any image from the Internet, we need to have the copyright owner - generally the photographer - release the image under a free license, for example Creative Commons Share-Alike, which the rest of the Wikipedia is licensed under. That's why I put up the admittedly less than ideal image which I did, because that was the best freely licensed image I could get. If you can get an image that you have the rights to, but need help with licensing it properly so we can use it, I would be glad to help, write a note on my talk page, or you can follow the links from WP:IUPC, or ask another experienced editor, I'm not unique.

Meanwhile, though, I see you have been editing here since 2010, with almost all of your edits being to the article on Anne Bogart, during which time no image was added, so I hope you'll understand why I will restore the image until you do find a better one. Thank you! --GRuban (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Bogart chronological lists

Wikipedia Manual of Style for chronological lists is "earliest-to-latest". Please discuss your reverts on Talk:Anne Bogart and gain consensus. Schazjmd (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Anne Bogart does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing →

Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.

This applies all the more where you are undoing edits by other users who had left a clear explanation of the rationale for their edits in the page history.

If you can not justify your proposed edit in accordance with Wikipedia policy, it is probably better not to make the edit. Use the article's talk page to discuss the matter instead. Please see WP:DISPUTE.

Otherwise, it appears that you might be engaging in WP:EDITWAR and WP:disruptive editing, which could lead to you being blocked for a time or indefinitely. – Fayenatic London 14:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest editing

Given your obvious affiliation with Anne Bogart, in accordance with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines you should declare this association and refrain from directly editing the article. If you are paid by Bogart or anyone else to perform these edits, it is a violation of the Terms of Use not to reveal this information when editing. – Teratix ₵ 23:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Hello Ben 1979. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Anne Bogart, 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 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:Ben 1979. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Ben 1979|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. John from Idegon (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. In the future, please reply to messages where they are left for you. Im sorry, but your edit summaries indicate that you have a relationship with the subject of the article. You need to explain the nature of that relationship. Also, articles here are not pages. They are not for the subject of the article nor are they under the control of the subject of the article. Minimally you have a conflict of interest and need to follow best practices outlined at WP:COI. Your edits to her article are completely unacceptable for an encyclopedia. John from Idegon (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John, I do not appreciate the tone of your response. I have said that I am not being compensated for the edits. Your edits show your ignorance and disregard of AB. I will furnish citations in due course, if that is your problem, but you are denying the public of initial valuable research information. Anyone worth their salt, uses Wikipedia as a starting point and nobody cites Wikipedia as their source.