2605:E000:141C:C878:909E:719D:AA25:6CD

January 2020

Hello 2605:E000:141C:C878:909E:719D:AA25:6CD. 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 Jeff Greenstein, 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:2605:E000:141C:C878:909E:719D:AA25:6CD. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=2605:E000:141C:C878:909E:719D:AA25:6CD|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) 17:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I am Jeff, I am not paid to be Jeff, and adding an entirely appropriate citation to replace a now-disallowed IMDB link is in no way a violation of Wikipedia's policies on neutrality. By contrast, you are a troll.

It isn't. It's a violation of the legally enforceable WP:TOU. Someone who stands to benefit economically from edits in the article is not allowed to edit it. Having an article on Wikipedia is a PR plus as Google weights Wikipedia very high in its algorithm. That's not debatable, it's fact. So clearly you can derive an economic benefit from the article. Therefore, you are not allowed to directly edit the article. This is our playground, Jeff. If you want to play here, you've got to follow our rules. You are in violation of the TOU. You won't be warned again. You're not even in compliance with the rules that apply to general editing. You do not get to unilaterally decide the content of an article. Nobody does. Several days ago, when I first reverted your changes and you put them back...that is a violation of policy. Content is decided by consensus. If you are reverted, you have two choices. You can either stop, or you can go to the article talk page and attempt to gain consensus. You've edit warred from the get go. I am most certainly not a troll. I am a Wikipedian, and a damn good one. Been here 8 years, have the respect of most editors, have created several articles and improved thousands. I've also been blocked twice, both times for edit warring with charlatans like yourself that have the mistaken impression that they have a "page" on Wikipedia like they do on LinkedIn. No one has the right to have an article on Wikipedia. So please, change your viewpoint on this. If you make an edit, any other editor has the right to change or even remove it. If you dispute that, then you follow WP:DR, the first step of which is, discuss it. Clearly the only interest you have in Wikipedia is how you can use it to benefit yourself. You cannot even be bothered to find out how to properly leave a message for someone. I'll be leaving you a level two warning for violation of PAID, just for the record. Do not make any further edits until you comply with all its requirements. If you dispute your status as PAID, take it to WP:COIN. And stop calling people names. Are you 6? John from Idegon (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

As previously advised, your edits, such as the edit you made to Jeff Greenstein, give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:2605:E000:141C:C878:909E:719D:AA25:6CD, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=2605:E000:141C:C878:909E:719D:AA25:6CD|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

---