User talk:Ecity97

June 2021
Hello Ecity97. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Giada (brand), 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:Ecity97. 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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers Yikes! I was just about to post on your page with some questions about my edits. Content that I added to the page that has been removed includes an article from Vogue about an original creation from this brand (the Andi Coat), collaborations with photographers on recent collections (this content exists on other fashion brand pages) and a magazine article about a new restaurant. Please tell me why these edits are considered spam or unreasonable or what you mean by "the nature of those edits" I'm just trying to understand how things work around here. Thanks! Also you put a Notability tag on the page - I made edits to expand the page and include content and sources simliar to those I see on other fashion brand pages and those were removed and called spam. How do you suggest I edit the page to get the flag removed? I want to improve the page but feel like I just got ganged up on. Ecity97 (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll ask more directly: do you receive any financial compensation for your contributions? MarioGom (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

MarioGom and Justlettersandnumbers I'm a fan of the brand and was really surprised to see such a short Wikipedia mention about the company so I tried to improve myself. I've asked several times why those edits were not okay so I can correct it and know what to avoid. Was the language the problem or the articles I linked to? I had some edits deleted so I tried something else and it seems like everything was removed and I'm not sure where the problem is in those edits. Please help me understand. Ecity97 (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was just looking at the Teahouse and came across your question. I was going to answer there, before realising the conversation had moved here. A comment: Firstly, the question of paid editing is extremely sensitive. If you are not being paid to edit, it would be a very good idea to reply to 's and 's questions and simply tell them. WP's policy of assuming good-faith (understandably) tends to evaporate the moment even the faintest suspicion of undisclosed, paid editing is floating in the air, and it's very simple to dispel it by answering the question honestly. Secondly, if you feel that the reversion was unfair, the correct thing to do is to add a section to the article's Talk page, explaining why you believe your text is appropriate, and why you consider your reference reliable. You may be able to convince the editor who reverted to change their point of view. Or you may find that a few other editors join in, and eventually a consensus is formed. Maybe someone will come up with a better wording, or a better reference. It is normal for people to have different points of view, and while none of us should ever bludgeon others into submission, or resort to revert-wars, it's fine to state your case. That's what article talk-pages are for. Good luck, and happy editing! Elemimele (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That article has been extensively edited by accounts and IPs from a large undisclosed paid editing operation. Your edits shared some behavioral traits with accounts in that operation, but they were not a strong match. That's why I didn't report your account, but came here to add a standard warning. When I saw that someone else already warned you, but you provided no clear answer, I repeated the main question. Other than that, it's ok. or  may have further insights about content issues. MarioGom (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I asked about some other edits on the GIADA talk page as instructed on the Teahouse and would be interested to know what you think. Thank you!! Ecity97 (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

reversions
If people revert but don't use the Talk page, this may be useful to you: : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Responding_to_a_failure_to_discuss may be useful to you. Rogerdpack (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Rogerdpack It is incredibly frustrating, because it seems even when you tag this editor with a failure to discuss, they just say "NO" and that's the end of it. It feels very unwelcoming and I don't understand it. Have you had any luck or are you feeling stuck too?