User talk:Ripcord22

November 2022

Hello Ripcord22. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Chau Chak Wing, 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 serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

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. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged 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:Ripcord22. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Ripcord22|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. Amigao (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense and a ridiculous assumption. The nature of Amiago's edits suggest they are part of an orchestrated campaign to paint a false impression of this man and others for a political agenda. Posting content that is unsupported and unsourced is a breach of Wikipedia's core terms. My interest is in removing blatant political bias from pages such as this and others that is used for propoganda purposes. It makes a mockery of Wikipedia as a credible source for anything. I am not goig to engage in 'talk' with the likes of Amigao who is either a paid or politically motivated lobbyist for dangerous conservative outfits. I will continue to edit unsourced content. Ripcord22 (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You still have not adequately responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying, you may be blocked from editing. Amigao (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}}It would seem you not only have a political agenda but you are also incapable of reading. I am not being paid for these edits. I am removing unsourced claims - the same type of claims that have resulted in three successful defamation actions against news publishers. Ripcord22 (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Amigao. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Chau Chak Wing. However, Wikipedia is not censored. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Amigao (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

March 2023

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Chau Chak Wing, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Amigao (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

All edits were valid and credibly sourced. Your tampering with these edits violates the Wikipedia pillar that anyone can use, edit, and distribute information, and that no editor owns a page. Thank you. Ripcord22 (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.

Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)