Jamie Maynard

November 2024

Hello, I'm PersonAccount. I noticed that you recently removed content from Wagerweb 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. PersonAccount 🐉 (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Wagerweb, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Joyous! Noise! 20:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Wagerweb could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Tessaract2^Hi! 20:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Jamie Maynard. 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 employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. 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:Jamie Maynard. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Jamie Maynard|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. 331dot (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I am not getting paid for this, but the person editing clearly has been either a customer or an employee, which is excatly a conflict of interest Jamie Maynard (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, with your edit summaries ("9. WAGERWEB reserves the right at any time to adjust or refuse any wager or transaction, in the interest of correcting a human or technical error, or any fraudulent intent of the member as interpreted by WAGERWEB") it sounds like you work for them. If you have evidence that someone has a conflict of interest, go to the conflict of interest noticeboard(but be mindful of WP:OUTING). 331dot (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

it's on their website! Jamie Maynard (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

So, you don't work for them? 331dot (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll also note that you were reverted by three different editors, are you saying all three of them have a conflict of interest? 331dot (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

apparently, but no worries leave the missinformation, eventually you'll figure it out

Would be nice to ask proof of what you publish Jamie Maynard (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The passages you are attempting to remove are cited. If those citations are not being summarized accurately, or if you have other citations to offer, please discuss your concerns on the article talk page. Frankly, I'm not seeing what your edit summary has to do with the edit you're attempting to make, but I'm not here to get in to your concerns; simply to ask a question, which I guess you've answered(though a yes or no would be nice). 331dot (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

331dot, the issue I see is the unreferenced claim that the company stole $37,000 from one of its customers. I Googled "wagerweb jds" and found a blog post from the alleged victim reporting that the dispute had been resolved and JDS (the gambler's handle) had all their money. Accordingly, I removed the unreferenced and likely false claim that is damaging to the company. Another issue is notability. The current references are a gambling directory listing and a company press release. Cullen328 (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

please add citations from reputable souces, it's a shame that such a reputable page misleads their readers Jamie Maynard (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

We can't do what you want done for you. You haven't even identified the specific issue. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused by this. Are you saying that the sources cited are both reputable and not reputable at the same time? /etc/owuh $ (💬 | she/her) 22:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I think they're saying Wikipedia is reputable, not the article. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)