2604:2000:E010:1100:7C05:FDF3:C711:D726

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Why in the world would you think I have a conflict of interest? There is no basis for that. And it is untrue. Zero truth. Are you editing and deleting material as you suggest above, based on that incorrect and completely baseless belief? That is not good. You say you hope I enjoy editing here. But completely baseless accusations do not accord with the hope you say you have. 2604:2000:E010:1100:7C05:FDF3:C711:D726 (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Hello, I'm CentralTime301. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. CentralTime301 (talk, contribs) 19:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

What edit are you referring to? Thanks. 2604:2000:E010:1100:7C05:FDF3:C711:D726 (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Previous account/ conflict of interest

IP, just curious, do you have any other accounts? Your mastery of Wikicode is impressive. COI-wise, I also notice you (presumably, under this morning's IP address) are working on Draft:Hunt & Fish Club, which is roy Nachum's latest interior design client (as stated in the article). Please do explain the coincidence. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I only edit from my IP. If I see art or go to a restaurant or watch a ballplayer I may edit their article. I had a drink at the restaurant, so I wrote the article, and in writing it - not a coincidence at all - the name Roy Nachum came up, I never heard of him before in my life, so I went to look at his article, which I had never looked at or edited, and saw it was a mess, so I engaged in some rather minor cleanup to add some bland facts and add some refs and take out the puffery (take a look at my edits!!!) - all the puffery that was there was a qualitative reference to the album, which I replaced with a fact. And then I saw these strange edits, saying that mine were COI or puffery (including the 14 year old's accusation) - which is absurd, just the opposite! Can you explain why people would make such accusations when the facts are the opposite? It is weird. And it is not good for WP for editors to assume bad faith without a basis, and make baseless accusations. It is not a good way to encourage proper editing, it is the opposite of that.--2604:2000:E010:1100:7C05:FDF3:C711:D726 (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

There's a basis, you are editing within a specific range of articles that promote Nathum. It's worth asking because people do not independently do what you are describing: creating large promotional articles on businesses, adding Nathum to multiple lists, and editing with such skill from an IP. There's your explanation. Unfortunately trust runs low for IP editors as paid editors give similar answers as above. Get an account and it gets better.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no basis. LOOK AT MY EDITS here. You misrepresent them. You say I added material that I did not add. Look again at all my edits here - they are not at all what you said. And there is nothing promotional about the article I created - that is another piece you made up. It is purely factual, not promotional in the least. Very weird accusation. People do create thousands and thousands of articles all the time that are not promotional. If you think that the rule for IPs is "assume bad faith," then you are part of the reason people - and women in particular - stop editing wikipedia. That is not a good policy. And imagine an IP editor writing on a restaurant he had a drink at who runs into your type of incorrect statements when he helps fix up (look at my edits!!!) the article of the artist mentioned in the first article. This is very bad behavior in it's impact on editors, who wp wants to encourage to edit. Really bad. Plus - I am sure that any editor who wanted to include more positive statements about the artist could find them - just in the articles already cited. All I did was clean it up. Sheesh - open your eyes please to my actual edits, because it is not nice or thoughtful to make baseless accusations that clearly make no sense. 2604:2000:E010:1100:7C05:FDF3:C711:D726 (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Extremely high-level editing with knowlege of advanced wiki techniques; single area of interest; multiple IPs over one day; creation of promotional article under first IP (Draft:Hunt_&_Fish_Club); Hunt and Fish club article prominently mentions Roy Nachum; addition of Roy Nachum to multiple lists of artists etc. There are lots of reasons to be suspicious. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I edit a lot so I learn how to edit. My edits are not in the least promotional. That's untrue. And mentioning Nachum makes sense - if you read all articles on the restaurant, his name is in may of them - so of course one sentence on him makes sense, it would be odd not to mention him. You say that article "prominently menitions" the artist - are you kidding??? All it says is that he designed the restaurant. How bland can one possibly BE??? I think you are not encouraging editors, you are doing the opposite, and your thinking is not consistent with the edits that were in fact made. You seem to be against IPs, or against whoever made earlier edits - but that was not me, and there is no reason for you to make baseless statement about me because someone else did something. 2604:2000:E010:1100:7C05:FDF3:C711:D726 (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The fact is that paid editors act exactly the same way. Not saying you are one, just an observation. For experienced editors like yourself, we have a solution that encourages trust. It's called an account. Having an account allows other editors to see that you are not just here to promote Roy Nachum, as your edit history would show other interests, presumably. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not a paid editor. And my edits are all consistent with a good editor putting in bland non-promotional facts and supporting references. Don't you think a promotional editor would reflect all sorts of positive references to him by this Vanity Fair article, for example? Or the "genius" reference in this article? All of which would have been fine, actually, because it is all reliable sourced. But I was just engaging in the mildest of cleanup, and good sourcing - and (if you still have not looked at them, look at my edits) - did not make ONE SINGLE edit any responsible person could call promotional, or coi, and yet you made all sorts of incorrect and insulting and unfriendly accusations that had ZERO basis. And make NO SENSE. Think about it. Really - look at my edits, and think about what I just said. 2604:2000:E010:1100:7C05:FDF3:C711:D726 (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, the pattern matches promotional editing because you do not have an account. get an account, you are a good editor but we appreciate long term transparency through the edit history. Have a nice evening.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

---