User talk:Smartedits1973

November 2021

Hello Smartedits1973. The nature of your edits 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:Smartedits1973. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Smartedits1973|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. SmartSE (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Note that in this edit you added a link to http://localhost:54806/ which would seem to suggest that you are either working in Parliament or from Allan's office as this link is not publicly available on the internet. Also note that using multiple accounts is forbidden and if you are the same person as Darlingtontory123, you should be using that account. It is possible for your IP address to be checked to investigate this. SmartSE (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for making edits to this page and have no affiliation with the page’s subject. Smartedits1973 (talk) 14:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hmm ok then. What about being the same person as Darlingtontory123? And why are you continuing to copy and paste text directly from the subject's website in violation of copyright? SmartSE (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not access the mentioned link myself - I simply restored the edits of a previous user which seemed well researched in my opinion. I don’t work for Allan nor am based in her office. Smartedits1973 (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

That's incorrect as you can see by searching for that link in this version of the article. SmartSE (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darlingtontory123, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

SmartSE (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Telford child sexual exploitation scandal into Lucy Allan (politician). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Darlingtontory123 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darlingtontory123. 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 ~~~~}}.  ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 02:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)