Disclosure[edit]

PopTalk, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Global Positioning Services on behalf of Ethan Johns, Mark Howard, Joey Raia, Billy Bush, Noah Georgeson, Ryan Freeland, Vance Powell, Damian Taylor for their contributions to Wikipedia.

I, PopTalk, acknowledge that this account is associated with Global Positioning Services. While I am not directly compensated for making Wikipedia contributions or edits, it has been brought to my attention that, due to this affiliation, there may potentially be conflicts of interest. In an effort to address such reasonable concerns, as brought up CUPIDICAE, I make a full disclosure here. Common questions are listed below, along with client affiliations. I encourage, and am open to, discussion on any further edits and contributions.

Common Questions[edit]

Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion, yet you are affiliated with a management company that has an interest in promoting its clients - explain? This is a reasonable concern; a full disclosure is provided here to address conflicts of interest. The intent is not to use Wikipedia as a medium for advertising nor promotion, but to make up-to-date and factual contributions to articles of noteworthy persons.
You have made numerous uploads of images with file permission problems, how do you intend to address these?. The files in question have been removed. Those which have been removed that I own, I will be emailing permissions-en@wikimedia.org to give evidence. Those which have been removed that I uploaded under the incorrect copyright license, I will not dispute. I will make a better effort of reading the (many) copyright options when uploading in future.

Discussion[edit]

See something not addressed? Please add below your question and I will be happy to discuss it with you. PopTalk (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been doing this for years and denied your conflict of interest and status as a paid editor multiple times, even going so far as to degrade, insult and vandalize other editors talk/user pages. What is your explanation for this long term abuse of Wikipedia and why should you be trusted to return? How many people have used or currently have access to this account? I want to note for the record that I am not an administrator and can't unblock you but I think the community is owed an answer given your egregious, over the top responses when confronted with undeniable facts, that you yourself provided and your continual denial of them. VAXIDICAE💉 18:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And a note for any admins reviewing this, please see this account. VAXIDICAE💉 18:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion below to address your concerns. PopTalk (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing User:Praxidicae's continued Concerns[edit]

"You have been doing this for years and denied your conflict of interest and status as a paid editor multiple time"

It is correct that I have been doing this for years, yes. I would like to point out that Wikipedia has been, and continues to be, for me, very difficult to navigate and untuitive to use. Thus, my past actions might not meet your standards. However, I have always made edits in good faith and continue to learn how to best use, and contribute to, Wikipedia. I continue to listen to users, such as you, and revise my understanding. For example, my understanding of a "conflict of interest", up until recently, was being directly paid to edit Wikipedia articles. I see your point, though, and have made disclosures.

"your continual denial of them (accusations)"

I am not denying your accusations, and have made considerable changes to address your concerns. I am trying to engage with you reasonably. Are you open to that?

"How many people have used or currently have access to this account?"

It's just me, one person. I provide a full disclosure here.

"I think the community is owed an answer."

I agree. I have made good faith efforts to answer your questions. For example recently here, here and [1]. I am doing so right now, again. How might I do this other than through discussion and action?

"... even going so far as to "degrade, insult and vandalize""

This is not true. I made a single blank edit in haste. I shouldn't have but it was easily reverted. Your tone, however, continues to be unconstructive, aggressive and hostile towards me. For example: "Enlighten me." "playing games will get you nowhere" "Is this direct enough for you?". I actually must tell you that I feel bullied by you; I would like to try keep this conversation cordial and am trying to engage with you.

March 2021[edit]

Hello PopTalk. 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:PopTalk. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=PopTalk|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message.

Hi there, I appreciate your concern in the spirit of maintaining the integrity of the Wiki community. However, you are mistaken. I am not being compensated for my edits whatsoever. PopTalk (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. CUPIDICAE💕 16:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You previously claimed no connection with the subjects you've written about but have never addressed why you are creating promotional articles or how this is your own work. CUPIDICAE💕 16:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are not promotional but factual. If Wikipedia prevents users from editing articles with factual information, please point me to the policy. Thanks. PopTalk (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, again, how is the image your own work if you've got no connection? Enlighten me. CUPIDICAE💕 18:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the exact conflict of interest to which you refer in this message? Your initial message is generic, yet this seems specific; choose one and address it adequately. Thanks. PopTalk (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

playing games will get you nowhere. What is your connection to Sur (artist) and how did you become the copyright holder of the image in the article? CUPIDICAE💕 19:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have made factual edits to a page. In that page, I have provided an image (for use by the Community) that abides by Wikipedia guidelines of which I am the copyright holder of. What is the problem here? PopTalk (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because as per the terms of use you must disclose your conflict of interest. So how is it that you don't know someone yet managed to take a professional photograph of them? Or are you not, in fact, the copyright holder? CUPIDICAE💕 19:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever taken a photo of someone you do not know? In any case, knowing someone (which I do not, in this case) does not necessarily imply a COI as defined by Wikipedia: being compensated by a person to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Again, I have not been compensated. Are you done now? PopTalk (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've never taken a professional photo of someone and then proceeded to write an exaggerated article about them, filled to the brim with blackhat SEO as sources and then edit warred about a tag without bothering to discuss it. So how is it that you managed to take a professional photo of someone without having any sort of connection? CUPIDICAE💕 19:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The connection is that a photo was taken, but the issue is whether the act of editing a page involves being compensated for editing a page. It's quite clearly possible to take a photo of a subject and make factual *non-compensated edits* to a subject's page, which is the case here. What else would you like to discuss? PopTalk (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You posted on commons that you operate/work for Global Positioning Services . So care to explain how your edits abide by the terms of use while editing articles about artists which your company represents or would you like me to take this to WP:COIN? You created or heavily edited Ryan Freeland, David Sitek, Dave O'Donnell, Billy Bush (record producer) and countless others despite being warned about conflicts of interest and the paid editing policy several times in the last 5 years. Is this direct enough for you? CUPIDICAE💕 20:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not sure what you're referring to but it's possible to make factual edits about a page with which you have familiarity that does not involve being compensated. PopTalk (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Dave Sitek Producer.jpeg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Dave Sitek Producer.jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

That's correct, a valid copyright license tag has been provided. PopTalk (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

I am the copyright holder, but have not myself previously published it elsewhere; thus, the following two points are not applicable.

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

I am the copyright holder; thus, this does not apply. PopTalk (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

A valid copyright license tag has been provided. PopTalk (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. CUPIDICAE💕 16:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All points have been addressed. Please remove this or review Propositional_calculus. Best of luck. PopTalk (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are refusing to abide by the terms of use, you can do so at WP:COIN and make your case there. Here is the thread CUPIDICAE💕 20:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sur (artist) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sur (artist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sur (artist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

CUPIDICAE💕 20:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the notification. That's all right, I don't object to this. PopTalk (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain this edit[edit]

Please explain how this edit can be viewed as anything but pure disruption. —C.Fred (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was disruptive and I was acting out of frustration. I felt targeted and bullied. 20:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021[edit]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:

Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

GeneralNotability (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PopTalk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

We acknowledge that this account is associated with globalpositioningservices, but are only adding factual, verifiable, updates to pages and topics which we are well versed on. What steps may we take in order to comply and reinstate the account? PopTalk (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The steps you are expected to take to comply with ar3e spelled out in the above box. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unblock Request[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PopTalk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

State your reason for requesting reconsideration? The reason for my block is that there are potential conflicts of interest. After reading through the policies, guidelines, and user comments, I ackowledge that this is a reasonable concern. Please see the below points how I have addressed the concerns. I request reconsideration as I have made good faith efforts to address the issues raised.
Address the concerns about your conduct. I have read, understood conflict of interest and made a full disclosure. of affiliations and opened my talk page to further discussion. I have also made best efforts to respond to and engage with users who have brought these issues to my attention.
Give evidence. I have engaged with users who have addressed concerns, for example, here, here and

here. I provided a full disclosure here. It has taken considerable effort to understand the (legitimate) concerns and to read through all of the provided references in Wikipedia. However, I have spent the time doing so. Going forward, I intend to maintain full transparency and make good faith efforts to engage discussion.

Decline reason:

This is a start, but since you seem to suggest that you are only interested in editing about your clients, there are in my opinion no grounds to lift the block. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You don't have to be directly paid to edit in order to be a paid editor- if you have any paid relationship with your edits, you must disclose it. That includes simply if editing falls within your job duties- you don't have to be specifically paid or directed to edit. 331dot (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and it is why I put a paid disclosure on my TalkPage as required here.

Hi, is there an update here?