User talk:Gfrostaxos

April 2020
Hello Gfrostaxos. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Axos Financial, 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

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, and if it does not, 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:Gfrostaxos. 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. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 00:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Gfrostaxos (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC) Gfrostaxos (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Please reread WP:MEAT. You are editing the same article from the same IP address. Both accounts violated WP:COI and likely, WP:PAID and WP:PROMO. --Yamla (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request
Yamla, what do you make of this? It seems fair enough, and the editor has declared their COI. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for considering (and granting) my unblock. Some of the BLP issues I raised at BLPN were addressed, but the page was considered too boring to look at the rest of the suggested changes. Naturally, as a financial institution, our business is not very exciting to a typical consumer. I was wondering if either of you have a minute to consider the changes I’m requesting? Gfrostaxos (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Did I say it was boring? Tsk tsk Drmies, that wasn't nice. Having said that--yeah, sorry, that's not exactly my, eh, style of prose writing, and I have to say that I am probably the last person to ask advice on how to write a business article. Removing the Garrabrandts thing about that "failure" seems fine to me. The April 2019 sentence, that's a different thing--I think the current "despite Axos being..." is a bit silly and skewed. The additional "context", about it being tied to stock, that sounds like a somewhat weak justification to me, but I get the attempt at balance. (BTW, if that's you, nice work, i guess--I'll need to work until 2070 to get that, but I'll PM you my Cayman bank account number. Can't you just buy Wikipedia?) I agree with cutting "excluding his own", and adding "oh Axos refused to comment on etc" is silly--it's really not relevant though I'm sure the Bloomberg writer enjoyed writing it and the Wikipedia author enjoyed sticking in the claim, which is of course not verified. So I suppose I mostly agree, though maybe Yamla won't mind having another look., we didn't block the editor from editing the article, and I suppose we don't need to as long as they're playing by the rules, but to play it safe we could have one of us implement the change. To keep it all on the up and up I'll wait for your comment, and then put our comments on the talk page. Sound good to you? And thanks for unblocking. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks . I’ve corrected the proposed changes for the Axos Financial page so that it no longer shows the BLP issues that have already been addressed. Of particular note is the criticisms of mining personal data cited to the company’s own investor presentation and a very confusing sentence inferring Axos’ E-Trade services were closed (rather than the acquisition that was closed), also cited to Axos’ own materials. If you are willing to implement or reject the changes, it would be greatly appreciated. I don’t think anyone else has an interest. Per my unblock request, I have promised not to edit the page. Gfrostaxos (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)