User talk:HMPBerwyn

August 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm YorkshireLad. I noticed that you recently removed content from HM Prison Berwyn 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. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 10:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HMPBerwyn. 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:HMPBerwyn. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=HMPBerwyn|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. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 10:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello "Yorkshirelad' not sure of your vested interest in this topic however I can confirm that I do no receive any compensation either directly or indirectly for any edits I have made, I am merely correcting the incorrect info on a topic I know about and felt it would be best to have correct information rather than out of date tat. Now I have explained myself to you yet am still to understand who you are am I allowed to edit the page to show correct info or would you rather the info be incorrect on wikipedia I ask? (Maybe worth asking the question before just reversing someones edits in future especially if you do not know enough about the topic to be an expert enough to warrant any such behaviour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HMPBerwyn (talk • contribs) 11:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no vested interest whatsoever; your edit was flagged on the list of all recent edits as being potentially problematic so I checked it. You're not obliged to declare any specifics, but it does seem you may have a connection to the prison (say, as an employee or as a volunteer) if your username is "HMPBerwyn". In that case, you would likely count as a paid editor and you need to formally declare this, and should not edit the page directly. See WP:PAID for more details.

I didn't revert all of your edits, just the one that removed information about controversies. Regardless of when the events you removed happened, they do seem to be sourced to reliable sources. Per the widely-accepted practice on here of WP:BRD, it's perfectly normal for someone's edit to be reverted prior to discussion; discussion then takes place (as indeed it is now). YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 11:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS even if you're not paid, if you do have a connection to the topic, it's best to propose significant changes to the article on its talk page. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 11:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing because of the following problems: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is against the username policy.

You may request a change of name and unblock if you intend to make useful contributions other than promoting your business or organization. To do this, first search Special:CentralAuth for available usernames that comply with the username policy. Once you have found an acceptable username, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked. In your reasons, you must:

Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure requirement.
Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]