User talk:Jasonbrents

September 2019
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it.  MrOllie (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Jasonbrents. 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 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:Jasonbrents. 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) 17:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Forgive me, I am not used to this kind of coded writing. I hope this is the right way to reply to your message. This is Jason Brents. It was certainly not my intention to do anything underhanded or sneaky, and to answer your question directly, no, I am certainly not being paid to do these edits. I was not aware of the rules you referred to, so I need to reconsider how I approach the edits. My partner, John Lee, (who does not pay me anything, since we are partners), is the author of a book published by American Film Market (AFM), a premiere LA based film publisher, and his book is considered one of the world's best textbooks on Film Financing. He has published some articles on our website, as well as on his own website not affiliated with our joint venture, that summarize key topics he teaches on regarding Film Financing. I don't get paid anything for it, but I could see how it could appear self-serving. But his book is, in fact, one of the top sources in the world. So how do I properly edit this article in Wikipedia to include the vital information John Lee has to add to the topic of Film Financing...seeing he is my partner? I am not in an employer, or employee, or client relationship with John Lee, the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonbrents (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you for your response. While no paid relationship may exist, you most definitely have a conflict of interest regarding this book, as you have a personal or professional relationship with the author. I would advise that you review Wikipedia's plain and simple conflict of interest guide for further guidance.


 * If this book is as highly regarded as you say it is, you might want to ask the folks on the reliable sources noticeboard if it could be considered a reliable source. Has it been the subject of multiple reviews by independent sources? Is it published by a respected mainstream publisher and not vanity press? The answers to these questions could determine this book's validity as a source. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
 * Add four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png located above the edit window.
 * This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the feedback. I have not had time to read the guide on conflict of interest yet, but I hope to soon. I can answer your question about the book easily. American Film Market is among the world's leading publishers of film school textbooks. I'm not real sure there is another publisher more well reputed. Like I said, his book is used for the business courses in the worlds best film schools: USC, UCLA, NYU, etc. So I supposed I will have to ask someone who is not directly associated with our company to make the updates in Wikipedia? I'll just have to read the guide and figure it out sometime. Thanks. JasonB (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)