User talk:Genevieve Elodie Ottilie
Welcome!
[edit]
Hello, Genevieve Elodie Ottilie, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Your first article
- Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
- Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
- and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Knitsey (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
September 2023
[edit]
Hello Genevieve Elodie Ottilie. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Connex one, 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:Genevieve Elodie Ottilie. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Genevieve Elodie Ottilie|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. Sam Kuru (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- connexone.co.uk: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://spam.connexone.co.uk
- @Kuru: Hi. Im confused. This user never edited that article Draft:Connex One and never did anything like what you're saying, and you didn't even link an edit. This is a new account that has only done newbie tasks like wikilinking. Im curious how you got this idea because this is very serious. Did you mean there could be a WP:SOCKPUPPET? Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 17:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Smuckola: Si. There's a long history; you're missing the account's deleted edits that would connect you to the rest of the story. The user made the obligatory 10 trivial edits (one to another deleted article) and no other edits until the account reached the criteria for autoconfirmed status in order to create a cut&paste move of a promotional draft with a long history. The name of the company was mis-capitalized in order to avoid the page creation protection placed by Daniel Case after several other socks repeatedly moved the promotional, six-time rejected draft into mainspace. The draft has been cultivated by an account that has identified a COI, and all of these accounts are clearly related. I've left the COI account a request to limit their actions to talk pages, and explain the connections to all of the other accounts.Sam Kuru (talk)
- @Kuru: LOL Ya got me! I sniff these things pretty darn hard, and I even curated this user's whole edit history of semi-lame newbie edits. So I thought! It sucks that I can't see any deletions in the edit history. So I guess you're saying you don't have a WP:SPI case to connect this account to? Whatever! How could anybody ever think this onslaught could work?! Okay thank you for your service. — Smuckola(talk) 19:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Smuckola: Si. There's a long history; you're missing the account's deleted edits that would connect you to the rest of the story. The user made the obligatory 10 trivial edits (one to another deleted article) and no other edits until the account reached the criteria for autoconfirmed status in order to create a cut&paste move of a promotional draft with a long history. The name of the company was mis-capitalized in order to avoid the page creation protection placed by Daniel Case after several other socks repeatedly moved the promotional, six-time rejected draft into mainspace. The draft has been cultivated by an account that has identified a COI, and all of these accounts are clearly related. I've left the COI account a request to limit their actions to talk pages, and explain the connections to all of the other accounts.Sam Kuru (talk)
- @Kuru: So what's the name of the suspected WP:SOCKPUPPET? You should link the SPI case and the name of the sockmaster account here for future reference. I wouldn't have bothered you if I'd seen that! Thanks! — Smuckola(talk) 03:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)