User talk:Compsci2017

Welcome!
Hello, Compsci2017, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Crossgates Mall did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. John from Idegon (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
Hello Compsci2017. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Crossgates Mall, and that 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

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, and if it does not, 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:Compsci2017. 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, please do not edit further until you answer this message. John from Idegon (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Compsci2017 (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC) I am not a paid advocate for Crossgates Mall. In addition, I’m not sure how listing anchors and former anchors would indicate a “financial stake”.


 * Your original username had a direct correlation to the title of the only article you've edited.
 * You've repeatedly readded unsourced content despite it being removed.


 * When you finally did add a source, you left a snarky edit summary like you felt people were preventing you from doing what you were assigned to do.
 * Even though you've been given basic information on how Wikipeda works, you're not complying with policy or even doing something as simple as signing your messages.
 * Whereas this may be the first time you've attempted to use Wikipeda as free advertising for your employer or client, it's not the first time anyone has, and as the templated message I left you above indicates, your editing fits the pattern of someone doing so.
 * John from Idegon (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Compsci2017 (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)To answer your first point, I’m not sure what evidence you have to prove the first person was me. There was no reason for you to repededly remove the content to begin with. Nobody assigned me to post anything and it’s possible that the snarky-ness came from my content being repededly deleted by you. Again, there is no business I’m attempting to advertise for (I again ask why posting names of stores that closed in the 90s would be considered advertising).

Compsci2017 (talk) 02:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)