User talk:Right Great Wrongs

Righting great wrongs[edit]

See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Right Great Wrongs (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023[edit]

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: {{paid|user=Right Great Wrongs|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. 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)[reply]

@Scope creep: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

GeneralNotability (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]