User talk:Rachelle Robinson
April 2022
[edit]
Hello Rachelle Robinson. 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:Rachelle Robinson. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Rachelle Robinson|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. MrOllie (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hello MrOllie,
- I am not expecting or receiving any compensation for my edits. I am doing edits without any compensation; kindly let me allow more edits. I am waiting for your favorable response for the next edit; thanks. Rachelle Robinson (talk) 07:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Your edits were full of inappropriate citation links to advocacy groups and commercial entities. This is especially a problem in medical articles, which have very stringent sourcing requirements which you can find at WP:MEDRS. Only systematic reviews published in medical journals, or statements by major medical organizations (like the WHO) are usable in those articles. MrOllie (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, kindly let me allow edits. In the next edit, I will consider your points only do citations of journals and influential organizations. Thanks a lot Rachelle Robinson (talk) 03:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Your edits were full of inappropriate citation links to advocacy groups and commercial entities. This is especially a problem in medical articles, which have very stringent sourcing requirements which you can find at WP:MEDRS. Only systematic reviews published in medical journals, or statements by major medical organizations (like the WHO) are usable in those articles. MrOllie (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)