User talk:207.242.232.74

September 2020
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Eucharist. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Ecotheology, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for promotion or advertising, as you did at Howard Thurman. Elizium23 (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. 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:. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Hi, I'm new to editing on Wikipedia and wasn't trying to be disruptive; my apologies. I work for a publishing company and am trying to include some recently published books on the "Further Reading" lists of appropriate articles. Could you help me understand how to do this non-disruptively?
 * Hi. Please read, WP:NOPROMO, WP:COI, and WP:PAID. I also suggest that you sign up for a WP:ACCOUNT. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. It looks like it would be strongly discouraged for me to edit articles due to a COI, but could I just add books to "Further Reading" sections that are directly relevant to the article? (For example, a primer on ecotheology on the "Ecotheology" article, or a biography of Howard Thurman on the "Howard Thurman" article?) Because these were among the additions that were rejected. Would it work if I created an account and disclosed my affiliation when doing the edits?
 * No, it's spam. Elizium23 (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey, not sure if you saw my questions. Reposting them here: Could you explain why it's "spam"? What makes those books less helpful than other books listed on the Further Reading sections? If a third party added the same books, would it still be considered spam?

Could you explain why it's "spam"? What makes those books less helpful than other books listed on the Further Reading sections? If a third party added the same books, would it still be considered spam?
 * Yes, it's indiscriminate posting of the same publisher's books on a large number of articles. You posted 17 of them in disparate subject areas. Any editor doing that would be called out for spam, but good-faith editors don't do it, because they do not have your COI. Elizium23 (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Got it, thank you!

November 2020
Hello 207.242.232.74. 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 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:207.242.232.74. 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. MrOllie (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.