User talk:Poeticscripture

January 2020

Hello Poeticscripture. 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:Poeticscripture. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Poeticscripture|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. Praxidicae (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to help look through the article and not paid for the assistance. I reviewed the article and check through the citations, hence the reason for my edit.

Apologies if that doesn't sit well with you. Thanks Poeticscripture (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

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 ~~~~}}. MER-C 20:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Once again, apologies if my contribution seems paid or promotional. I was only asked, not paid to review and maybe approve the page if I can which after I've gone through the draft, I felt its okay to publish it and that was why I pushed. Once again, sorry about that and I promise to refrain from such form of editing going forward Poeticscripture (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Even this unblock request still lacks the required disclosure. Asked by whom? It makes no difference if the paid editor writes the content off-site or in userspace and then another editor moves the material into mainspace on their behalf. Both editors are required to make a disclosure. You will furthermore not be unblocked to continue editing with a conflict of interest. If you are interested in contributing in ways unrelated to your affiliations, please say so and provide examples. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2020 (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.

I was going to decline this unblock request, but ToBeFree beat me to it. I concur, there's nowhere near enough information in this unblock request. Who asked you to review the draft? What exactly is your relationship with the person who wrote the draft? What exactly is your relationship (however indirect) with the subject of the draft? Are you employed by a PR or marketing company? etc. --Yamla (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I don't have any direct relationship whatsoever with the original author although I was reached out to via another channel outside here and I don't know where he/she works. If I have any COI, it takes nothing away from me to disclose that on the article and I'll likely go through the "talk page" if I wanna make edits. Poeticscripture (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. You are still refusing to fully answer the questions. What other channel? Who reached out to you? etc. As you are not yet willing to answer these questions, there are no grounds to consider lifting the block. Yamla (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2020 (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.