User talk:108.30.14.148

November 2021
Hello 108.30.14.148. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Marcelo Claure, 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:108.30.14.148. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. 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.  scope_creep Talk  14:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I assume this message is largely because I made a bold change to a well-trafficked BLP while not signed in to a named account? I make that assumption because my edits were pretty small and straightforward, bold or not - just a revert of clearly iffy content and some awards deletions. Either way, happy to state for the record I'm not paid. 108.30.14.148 (talk) 07:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Coolio. Thanks for that. Then why the comments, you seem to be a brand new editor who is so intimitely familiar with editing standards and the removal of a whole bunch of content, of 14k across 5 edits, to remove content. You seem to a conflict of interest, connected to this?   scope_creep Talk  10:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What is due to the fact you found it non-neutral.   scope_creep Talk  10:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So the suspicion is because I did a BLP rollback? Gotcha. I personally wouldn't see that as weird. I'm intimate with BLP guidelines because I've been editing since 2006, which I don't try to hide - I use MoS shorthand in edit summaries, a sign of experience. Also, you can see in my contribution history how I found the topic - and removing the 14k only took a few minutes, since revert, so not sure how/if that is bothersome? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment, tho. 108.30.14.148 (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Right. That is major faux pas on my part.   scope_creep Talk  22:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)