User talk:212.7.159.74

January 2019
Hello, I'm DanielRigal. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Daniel Radcliffe (entrepreneur) have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. DanielRigal (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Let me explain...
When you reverted my cleaning up of Daniel Radcliffe (entrepreneur) you reverted to a version made by a user who has been indefinitely blocked for having a username that appeared to represent an organisation. Furthermore you used the edit summary "the article was edited and important facts taken away". What made you think that those facts are important? If you want those facts to be known on behalf of Radcliffe then that is a conflict of interests. We only want information that conforms to our policies on what content is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. While Radcliffe may feel that the large number of companies he has formed is "important" to him personally, they do not belong in an encyclopaedia unless those companies have a notable connection to him. Proof of company registration does not demonstrate any notability in itself.

If you are the blocked user then you are welcome to log back in and request a change to a non-promotional individual username (which does not have to be your real name), and then you can be unblocked. However if you only want to edit to promote Radcliffe and his organisations then you will quickly find yourself blocked again for that. What you can not do is edit as an anonymous IP based editor while your account is blocked. That is considered block evasion.

So, let me give you a few pointers about what Wikipedia is not:
 * Wikipedia is not for posting CVs/resumes: WP:NOTRESUME
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not free general web hosting for anybody who wants it: WP:NOTWEBHOST
 * Wikipedia is not for posting indiscriminate lists of non-notable things: WP:INDISCRIMINATE
 * Wikipedia is not a means of promotion (including but not limited to blatant spamming) WP:NOTPROMOTION

Now, I can imagine that you might think that this might not apply if the promotion is that of a charitable organisation? The answer to that is no. Some of us may give a charitable operation a little more benefit of the doubt but the same rules still apply. Using the charities as a proxy to promote Radcliffe is definitely not acceptable.

Radcliffe seems to me to be on the border of notability at all. Attempting to overextend the article about him could lead to the whole thing getting deleted. Please do not continue to push your luck. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)