User talk:Strokermax

Nomination of Jaff Foundation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jaff Foundation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaff Foundation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 07:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mandatory paid editing disclosure

Hello Strokermax. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that 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:Strokermax. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Strokermax|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, please do not edit further until you answer this message.

Please disclose your paid editing relationship before you do anything else on Wikipedia, or you will likely be blocked as an undisclosed paid editor. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing war and respecting a third opinion

Hello Strokermax, it seems that you repeatedly edit the article on Hanna Jaff regarding her educational credentials. I do not understand the purpose of your edits, but if they are done in order to promote truth then I would expect you to engage in the talk page of the wikipedia article and/or respect third opinions that have been issued on this topic. By deciding to undo all the edits regarding Hanna's education without any sort of dialogue you are purposely pushing for misinformation and creating an unwelcoming environment in Wikipedia. Regarding the specific changes you are making you have not back them up with reliable sources, engaged with other reliable sources, or have been open to discuss the merits of your claims. Wikipedia is no place for an editing war, it is place for an encyclopedia. If you are so interested in the article at least explain your changes, read what has already been throughly discuss, and promote truth instead of consistent misinformation. Given the fact that the individual at hand is a politician and could be inflating their credentials, it is important to only use outside verifiable sources and not depend on self-stated sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepelani (talk • contribs) 23:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You were warned 2 months ago, and failed to respond. Therefore:

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for undisclosed paid editing and edit warring.

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 ~~~~}}. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]