Hi. 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/Jwall335, 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.

Jack Frost (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a new user. I've wanted to sign up for a while. I signed up to see if I could help a friend (JWall335) with some table and note formatting he asked me if I knew how to do. After a lot of trial and error (the reason why there were so many edits), I figured out the notes but not the table. I didn't mean to cause a problem. If my edits are in violation of policy, please feel free to roll them back. I won't make any more. Pogobryan (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pogobryan, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username ThadeusOfNazereth, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Hartley R. Rogers, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hartley R. Rogers.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|ThadeusOfNazereth)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 06:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hartley R. Rogers, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hartley R. Rogers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pogobryan. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hemant Taneja (2nd nomination), 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:Pogobryan. The template ((Paid)) can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: ((paid|user=Pogobryan|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. scope_creep^Talk 11:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi scope_creep: I am not being paid for my keep vote for Hemant Taneja and have no personal or financial connections to him or any of his companies, and I made no edits to his biography. I broadly have an interest in financial services, especially alternative assets and VC because I used to work in the space (e.g., DLJ, Bear Stearns, KKR). I first joined Wiki years ago to help a friend with some formatting issues in a table; then thought it would be fun to edit and potentially contribute to pages. I do it much less than I thought I would but occasionally run across people or topics that are interesting to me and are not currently covered by Wiki or that could use an update or edit. I have been surprised at the pushback I've seen on notability guidelines for people with significant reputations and impact in the financial services by editors who seem to know little about the space. Just because someone is not a household name doesn't mean they are not notable or significant. To be honest, it's a bit discouraging to attempt to make a contribution to Wiki and be met with resistance, suspicion, and hostility. Pogobryan (talk) 08:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

coolio. scope_creep^Talk 14:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]