User talk:Cbelli92

September 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Artists Anonymous has been reverted. Your edit here to Artists Anonymous was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/artistsanonymousartistsanonymous/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

May 2024
Hello Cbelli92. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Artists Anonymous, 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 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:Cbelli92. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. 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. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi
 * I am NOT being paid for the edit!!! I am simply someone who knows the people enough to put this online. Cbelli92 (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm, you're not employed by them or paid by them? Thank you for your reply. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * no i am not i have known them since 2015 and are very good friends. not many people know the ins and outs of their work first hand and the history. thanks Cbelli92 (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

how to post an edit on a page that needs edit

 * unblock: please reply Cbelli92 (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * helpme: with this issue Cbelli92 (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

unblock request
You appear to have some misconceptions. No "final edits" are made to an article; it's not "their" page to be managed and even if you made edits, anyone else can choose to edit it in ways they may not approve of, or nominate it for deletion for not meeting notability guidelines. And "accurate information" can not simply be supplied by you; information is supposed to be sourced to reliable, vetted sources, such as newspapers, peer-reviewed academic journals, news reporting, and the like. Wikipedia is simply not interested in what an artist has to say about themselves or what the artist's friends have to say about them. Unless, of course, those personal feelings themselves receive significant coverage and are reported on by these reliable, vetted sources with a reputation for fact-checking. In any case, I can almost guarantee you that if an admin chooses to unblock you, it will be on the condition that you do not make any edits to the article in question. This is a group-maintained encyclopedia, not a social media site or a promotional platform. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Indeed; since you say you have no other interest in editing, I suggest that you withdraw your request. You won't be unblocked to contribute to that article. 331dot (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * okay, so i don't understand, it is all information that IS factually accurate and can be vetted through press, through history and also acclaimed art historians.. does this mean that essentially I am unable to ever edit on any articles simply because the first one i start with is a legitimate update on this specific article? i do not understand that i cannot simply be part of the wikipedia editing group just simply because i am doing my first edit on this page - it is not personal feelings or thoughts, sorry to say, but legitimate background, technique explanations, professional journey etc etc - facts. Cbelli92 (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)