User talk:Steinbergjo

September 2021
Hello, I'm HaeB. I noticed that you recently removed content from Sandvine without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. HaeB (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, do not use misleading edit summaries, as you did here. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm CosmicJacuzzi. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Sandvine seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. CosmicJacuzzi (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm steinbergjo. I sent you an email about the edits. Unfortunately, the current Sandvine page does not provide a neutral view of the company. Specifically: - It has several unproven allegations that are presented as facts, and factual statements that refute the allegations are being removed - It does not accurately portray what Sandvine does based on the company's website and public information - Factual information e.g. the product section, the acquisition of Teclo in 2016 with references are being removed
 * True neutrality on Wikipedia is impossible, and the closest we can get is a representation of the facts as supplied by reliable sources. As is the case on the above mentioned article. Wikipedia is also not an advertising website. As such only certain information off of a company's website would be admissible into the article. CosmicJacuzzi (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
Hello Steinbergjo. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Sandvine, 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:Steinbergjo. 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. HaeB (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)