User talk:David Best Reader

October 2019

Hello David Best Reader. 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 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:David Best Reader. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=David Best Reader|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. bonadea contributions talk 18:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bonadea. I have reviewed your claims, and declare that my opinion is not bought. This is completely my opinion. I have noticed inaccuracies in this article. I am familiar with this organization and I can say with confidence about the correctness and unpaidness of my version of the article. Please accept my changes as an independent opinion. I thank you beforehand for your full cooperation. David Best Reader (talk) 10:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Europe Business Assembly, you may be blocked from editing.

Note that this could equally well have been a warning against adding promotional language. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform and cannot be used for companies to improve their image.

Wikipedia is not biased and our own opinions should never be added to articles. What is your connection to User:Mykola Shestak, User:Editthisandthat, and User:Truth and honour, all of whom have also been trying to use Wikipedia to promote the EBA, using arguments and phrasing that are almost indistinguishable from your edits? bonadea contributions talk 10:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of indefinite duration for spam and advertising, most likely block evasion and paid editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. User:Ymblanter (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Europe Business Assembly

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

David Best Reader (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was banned for changing this article. The reason was the alleged corruption of my opinion. In facts I really have a relationship with a user: Nikolai Shestak, a user: Editthisandthat and a user: Truth and honor, all of whom also tried to use Wikipedia to promote EBA, using arguments and phrases that are almost indistinguishable from my editing. That's true. We all worked with this organization, but we do not defend its ideas. We do not do this for money. We just want to correct the inaccuracies. This is what I said in response to a letter from Bonadea. But we are not trying to arrange vandalism, we are just fighting for the truth as you. Information about this organization does not match reality. I please you, if you do not want to change the article, please delete it, because the article does not contain even a grain of truth. This article consists only of the false information that came up with detractors. Please accept my changes as an independent opinion. I thank you beforehand for your full cooperation. And notice, we fight for the truth. David Best Reader (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Thanks for letting us know. Please tell everyone else at this organisation to stay away. Your edits are a violation of WP:COI, WP:PAID, WP:PROMO, WP:SOCK, and WP:EVADE and are deeply inappropriate. Yamla (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.