User talk:LeonCoulon

Hello LeonCoulon. 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:LeonCoulon. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=LeonCoulon|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. Blablubbs|talk 22:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Blablubbs, I'm really surprised to find that you reverted the content I published yesterday on Gunter Pauli page. I'm absolutely not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits. The only goal of my publications are to improve the public content available on Wikipedia on a topic that I know and I'm passionate about. Is there any reason that the content I uploaded yesterday could not appear on Wikipedia ? If so, I would be glad to know what to improve. Best, LeonCoulon (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for blatantly promotional editing, as you did at Gunter Pauli.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

LeonCoulon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In the last publication I made on Gunter Pauli page, I don't find any content that can be considered as "promotional". I only added fact about his education and his career, with a neutral point of view. Could you please explain me which content you judge was promotional ? LeonCoulon (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You posted in essence his resume(and weren't the only editor to attempt to do so recently, which makes it seem like there is a deliberate effort by him or others to get the article about him to say what he wants it to say); Wikipedia is not for merely telling the world about someone and their accomplishments; Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources have chosen on their own to say about a person. If there are any other topics that you want to edit about, please tell what those might be. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

LeonCoulon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello 331dot, the whole page was deleted because the content was judged too promotional. I agree indeed that a lot of content (that I did not published) was not adapted to a Wikipedia page. That's why afterwards, I published what I consider as the basics on a Wikipedia page (education and career) before adding other information on the page (like his involvement with countries, controversy, etc.). So I don't really understand what is the problem. A Wikipedia page should not include only a description of education and career ? It's the case for plenty of pages but if that's the problem I can add more information to consider this page as acceptable. You consider that I am responsible for all the content published by other people on that page ? That's not the case, people publish by their own and I'm not responsible about their publications. Once again, I confirm and emphasize that I'm not being compensated by any way to publish content on this page. I do it only because I did a lot of researches about him that I want to share in order to increase the public content available on Wikipedia. Best, LeonCoulon (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Someone else will review your request. But regarding "It's the case for plenty of pages", see other stuff exists. As this is a volunteer project, with millions of articles and thousands of contributors, it is possible to get inappropriate articles by us. We can only address what we know about. Is there any particular reason that multiple people might simultaneously attempt to do what you did? 331dot (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 331dot, thanks for your answer. We were indeed editing different parts of the page simultaneously with Freemanbat, because we both wanted to improve its quality. Nevertheless, both of us were acting in an independent way as we published what we had chosen to say on our own. Best, LeonCoulon (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did both of you want to improve its quality at the same time? 331dot (talk) 10:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 331dot, we came into contact after a series of conferences realized by Gunter Pauli in France. And we both wanted to improve his page with what we know about him. Best, LeonCoulon (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to refrain from editing Gunter Pauli if unblocked? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would I need to refrain from editing Gunter Pauli if unblocked? You prefer that I refrain from editing rather than editing in a collaborative way ? LeonCoulon (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer yes or no. It wouldn't be permanently, but you will need to demonstrate your abilities in other areas first. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying that I do not speak for Rosguill and they may have different ideas than I do, which is completely fine. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I could refrain from editing Gunter Pauli if unblocked, but what would be the purpose? Could you explain clearly what you would expect by demonstrate my abilities? LeonCoulon (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think 331dot and I are on the same page: your narrow focus on Gunter Pauli thus far and the non-neutral content of your editing there raise concerns that you are here not to improve the encyclopedia more broadly, but to specifically promote Gunter Pauli and his work. By preventing you from editing content related to him, but allowing you to work on other pages, you could demonstrate that you are here to contribute constructively across other topics (while also minimizing the possibility for damage in the off chance that you're lying to us). Once you've made enough contributions to other topics to establish that you are a valuable, good-faith editor interested in improving Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage, your editing restriction can be appealed as unnecessary. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]