User talk:AdmiralOtter

February 2021
Hello AdmiralOtter. 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:AdmiralOtter. 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. Blablubbs | talk 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Blablubbs: Thanks for the concern and for keeping Wikipedia honest. I am neither being paid directly nor indirectly for my edits. AdmiralOtter (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you have any other, non-financial connection to any of subjects you are writing about? Blablubbs | talk 20:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. If you have a conflict of interest and persist in this manner, you are likely to get blocked. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about removing the template and not addressing the reason in the edit summary. I added additional sourcing, both from the New York Times. Not sure I agree with the charge that it reads like an advertisement. Tone seems very encyclopedic. Can you please point to specific parts that you find problematic?
 * The entire article reads like a PR bio, starting with the excessive praise in the lead. Could you please answer my other question? You have made zero edits that are not to pages related to Tad Low. Do you have any sort of connection to him or his company? Blablubbs | talk 20:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)