User talk:Josher8a

Nomination of Paulina Larocca for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paulina Larocca 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/Paulina Larocca 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. SmartSE (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nomination is for the COI accusation below. Josher8a (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Hello Josher8a. 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

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, and if it does not, 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:Josher8a. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Josher8a|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. SmartSE (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being paid in bitcoin does not mean you have no COI and if you do not know who the employer is, you cannot edit on their behalf. Your current disclosure does not meet the requirements of WP:PAID and consequently you risk being blocked if you continue to edit for pay. SmartSE (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SmartSE! My bad, when I started at wikipedia a few years ago I read the terms and conditions of use but I think this was not established yet. But the rules are the rules and I should be aware, tell me if you are satisfied with the statement on my user page. Josher8a (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the dalay, connection now is not the best. Whoever employs us is unknown to me completely, contact us for a forum in reddit and pay, this what I know.

And my partner's fool must have warned me of the situation before he got scared (I guess) and lied (which is the worst thing he could have done), I think he doesn't know the culture of trust and dialogue that is handled here, but that can be corrected under my tutelage. Josher8a (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Josher8a. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Josher8a, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Joel.Miles925 (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]