User talk:Pbest99

July 2022
Hello, I'm Lord Belbury. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Elisa Jordana have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Lord Belbury (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Lord Belbury (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * It's not disruptive. It's a current photo of Elisa Jordana. The other photo is 5 years old. I work with Elisa. Pbest99 (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The previous photo was from her Facebook in 2018, uploaded here with permission. The new photo appears nowhere else online and is, you know, an unpleasant, low quality image of a dog licking her mouth. Going to need some evidence that she's requested this, yet isn't going down the "dog licking mouth" angle on social media. --Lord Belbury (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm on her Discord, we're associates. Would a screen shot suffice? Pbest99 (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No. See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team for how to confirm licensing permission of an image. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

May 2023
Hello Pbest99. 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:Pbest99. 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. Per your edit summaries stating that you are Jordana's producer, you are considered a paid editor on this topic and need to follow the disclosure instructions. signed,Rosguill talk 06:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello Rosguill, I wish I was paid. Her podcast is not for profit, there are no sponsors, no commercials, nothing. Most of her contributors are fans. We're just out here doing it for the love of making something. Every Sunday :) Volunteer producer and friend of 16 years. I'm sorry if there was any confusion. Pbest99 (talk) 06:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, in that case you still have a conflict of interest and the process for disclosure is similar, although the guidelines are less strict. signed,Rosguill talk 16:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)