User talk:BeansS77

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Searchlight Capital, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "generic title" error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chris Weston (businessman), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Emerson Collective, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Media.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Sphilbrick - I think this might be mistaken, but shout if I'm wrong. Would you mind taking another look when you get a moment, please? I'm not sure what the copyright issue is with the link you flag, so any help would be welcome. Edits I made were extensive to expand & improve the page with more detail, all properly sourced, so lots of improvements have been lost. All the best! @BeansS77 BeansS77 (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I looked at the text you added and it clearly came from a BBC site. I included the link in the edit summary that I can provide it again if you don't see it. I underAre you under the impression that the BBC site is not subject to copyright or something else? It seems straightforward to me but let me know if I missed something. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Sorry - I didn't realise that was an issue, but defer to your expertise! Can I continue to make other edits to the page? BeansS77 (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Sure S Philbrick(Talk) 16:56, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For an unblock to be considered, you must:

• Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
• State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
• Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

--Blablubbs (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

---

Administrators: if this block includes a Volunteer Response Team ticket number, this block was placed as part of the conflict of interest VRT queue and the user must not be unblocked without the express consent of a user with access to the queue.

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).

BeansS77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I can confirm I have read WP's Terms of Use, paid editing disclosure requirement and guide to appealing. I am requesting an unblock because I do not, never have, or will edit in return for compensation, as stated in this case. I have no affiliation with any page I edit, of which there are hundreds over the last few years. I am happy to respond to any particular questions or concerns, but do not understand how I can provide evidence to something I have not done. For clarification, I am on Wikipedia because I enjoy being part of something critically important for the world, contributing to knowledge recording, and because I'm a news junkie; I would never engage in any practice that might undermine my work and indeed the terms of use of Wikipedia. I seek to be the best editor and contributor I can be. I would be grateful to understand any further detail in relation to this and an opportunity to respond. BeansS77 (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Based on Ticket:2026011510004266, I do not find this credible. Yamla (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

---

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.

Yamla, please can I kindly further information as to why I have been blocked? You have shared a ticket, but I can't access or view, and I have tried multiple times.. I do not do paid editing and never have, so I want to know what the issue is.BeansS77 (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

No, I am not permitted to share additional information with you about that ticket. --Yamla (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

@Yamla, ok thanks. Please can you explain how I can provide evidence for my appeal then? I'm not sure how I can provide evidence if I don't understand what I have done wrong BeansS77 (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Blablubbs is the blocking administrator. You can email them or use Template:Ping (click for instructions) here. Be aware, though, that Blablubbs isn't obligated to respond. --Yamla (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

@Blablubbs: Hi Blablubbs. I know you are under no obligation to respond, but please can you let me have any further information or evidence that suggests I have undertaken paid editing? I would be grateful for this. I don't know how I am able to appeal and provide you with evidence to the contrary unless I'm informed what the issue is / issues are? BeansS77 (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi. I am genuinely sorry, but -- in large part for legal reasons -- I cannot. All I can say is that the paid editing response team received private evidence, and that my assessment of said evidence concluded that there were grounds for a block. I did not come to this conclusion lightly, and I appreciate that this is difficult to formulate a response to. If you wish, you may file another appeal, at which point another administrator with appropriate access will review the evidence again. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

No worries at all.. I appreciate the response v much @Blablubbs:. I'm at a bit of a loss on this sadly. I have no connection to anything I have ever done on W-P, but I have no idea how I can prove this to another administrator, and therefore I'm not really sure if there's much point of appealing again if I can't respond to specific allegations, etc. I've tried to be the best contributor I can possibly be. Only over the weekend just gone was I reverting vandalism edits made by an unregistered user. Appreciate your guidance BeansS77 (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I hope you are doing well. I wanted to ask if there is any preferred way to contact you regarding a topic I would like to discuss with you. If you are open to communication outside Wikipedia, please let me know the best way to reach you. If not, I completely understand and we can continue here.

Thank you very much.

~~~~ Salemizadeh.amir (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Dear BeansS77, I am a researcher and journalist who covers Wikipedia, and I wanted to reach out to you for comment about a forthcoming story. Is there a way to reach you on email? ClaireLK1 (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi BeansS77, I tried to email you but have not received a reply so I just following up on this. I'm curious about the edits you made on Sept 09 and Sept 11 2025 on Peter Mandelson's Wikipedia page, which appear to cast him in a more sympathetic light after new emails detailing his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein were made public. I wanted to ask you about the specific edits you made, and whether you performed them in exchange for payment. On Sept 11 you removed the given by the Foreign Office for Mandelson's dismissal -- that he had told Epstein his 2008 conviction for sex offences was wrong and encouraged him to try and clear his name. Can you explain why you made that edit at that time, and why you were softening language around these allegations and moving them further down around the time of the dismissal? Any insights you're able to share would be really helpful, thank you in advance. ClaireLK1 (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)