User talk:Right Great Wrongs

Righting great wrongs
See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Right Great Wrongs (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023
Hello Right Great Wrongs. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Rich Gossweiler, 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:Right Great Wrongs. 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. ''Removing prods. UPE.''   scope_creep Talk  00:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi – I don’t know Rich Gosweiller and never heard his name until I saw his article today when I went through the entire prod backlog. A quick Google search shows there may be some notability with his scholarly output, but better to be sure, right? I’m happy to participate in an AfD. Please ping me if you nominate his article. You’re much quicker than I am with the stuff, since I look for other sources that aren’t in the article. Right Great Wrongs (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Why are you going around removing these prod's which is disruptive? You seem to have some kind of agenda on-going, so I'm taking you up to the coi noticeboard.  scope_creep Talk  00:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The ones I selected are not clear prods. I looked at every prod and picked out the controversial ones. Happy to have more eyes here. I think on the other hand, routinely picking decent articles and prodding them is more disruptive. I’ll have to look at your edit history to see if this is your normal behavior. Right Great Wrongs (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Two were not clear Prods and were valid. There was a actor, that has a prod2 tag on it, which is wide of the mark on your part. The rest are junk and I've sent them to Afd.   scope_creep Talk  00:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)