User talk:Aareod

May 2024[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Patrick Treacy. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MrOllie, no I am not engaged in any dispute, I am just updating pages here and there. Also, I see you reverted one of my edits but I removed that info because the source added there doesn't exist and is not notable source.Aareod (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a long history of sockpuppets trying to turn that article into a promotional piece, you are not fooling anyone. MrOllie (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/arid-40133231.html

This source doesn't exist. Please provide other source for the info you are inserting. Aareod (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppets may not edit the article. Stop. Also, the archive link works. Stop deleting it. MrOllie (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joyland2017. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sockpuppet. I am a graphic designer. I am being compensated by Patrick for fixing his website. While linking his Wikipedia page to his website. He said there is some unsourced material who he didn't want to show. So I am just removing unsourced material. Aareod (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use as explained at WP:PAID. MrOllie (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please guide me what to do next. I am just removing unsourced material. As you are admin maybe I can message you and you can check my edits. Aareod (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are deleting properly sourced material for no legitimate reason, in obvious violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. What you can 'do next' is to cease doing that. MrOllie (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aareod. 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 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 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:Aareod. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Aareod|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. MrOllie (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sockpuppet. I am a graphic designer. I am being compensated by Patrick for fixing his website not wikipedia page. While linking his Wikipedia page to his website. He said there is some unsourced material which he didn't want to show. So I am just removing unsourced material. I don't have much editing experience. I am a graphic designer who designs websites. Aareod (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be editing that article. Patrick and his representatives have been blocked from Wikipedia editing. He knows this and has apparently misled you. You are not removing unsourced material - the citation plainly has a working archive link. You must stop. MrOllie (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I know it has archived link but Patrick send a legal notice to echolive.ie for spreading false information. Echolive accepted their mistake for verifiability and remove the link on the basis of it. If the source website itself is removed we should also fix it on the Wikipedia. I hope you understand now. Aareod (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please fix it? I don't want to myself as you instructed. I know there are rules and I should follow admins like you for right guidance. Your help will be greatly appreciated. Aareod (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to fix. MrOllie (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not supportive. I have requested on dispute resolution board. Not sure why are you so much emphasizing on adding unsourced content. We will be forwarding complain to wikimedia organization and will tag your user name too as you are engaged in this dispute. I hope its ok with you. Aareod (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I am quite used to getting 'reported' by paid editors and sockpuppet accounts. MrOllie (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are adding unsourced content. Care to explain why? Aareod (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content is obviously sourced. Since you are now just repeating obviously false claims, I will not be responding here any further. If you keep this up I fully expect your account will be blocked. MrOllie (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per I said that source is being taken down. It can be clearly seen it is deleted. You are just adding its past cache. Are you planning to used that same deleted source. Please either add a new source or remove unsourced material. You are experienced editor and well aware every claim need source and especially which are dishonesting a person. Aareod (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to demonstrate that the original newspaper article was wrong: no retraction or apology. There is a long history of looking to turn Treacy's wikipedia page into something promotional. The original newspaper report would be a remarkable thing for a newspaper to have got wrong in such a detailed account of proceedings and - if if was wrong - it’s even more incredible both that it stayed live for so long (seems to have been available for archiving in 2021) and that the claim that it was wrong is only being advanced 5 years after the newspaper article was written. Brammarb (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]