User talk:Certifiedpro.editor
April 2021
[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Gordon Goichi Nakayama. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 16:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Questions about this account
[edit]Hi Certifiedpro.editor, your user name implies that you are editing Wikipedia "professionally" – are you being paid for your edits, or do you receive any other form of compensation? If so, you are required to disclose it. See this information for the relevant requirements.
Another issue: in this edit summary you use expressions such as "our edits fixed factual errors" and "we are working to get the full facts". Who are "we"? Wikipedia user accounts may not be shared. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 16:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
June 2021
[edit]Hello Certifiedpro.editor. 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:Certifiedpro.editor. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Certifiedpro.editor|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. Pahunkat (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)