User talk:Lia Navarrete

April 2021
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Louis Lortie, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.   Ashley  yoursmile!  09:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Louis Lortie. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges.   Ashley  yoursmile!  10:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Hi Ashley, thank you for the comments. The artist’s introduction had been edited because it states two civilian honours with no reliable source. Lia Navarrete (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Paid editing guidelines
Hello Lia Navarrete. 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:Lia Navarrete. 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. Melcous (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, the mandatory disclosure had been posted on my Talk Page days before I got this message, so Wikipedia’s policies have been followed as required. The edits I’ve made have been neutral and constructive as they removed unsourced, misplaced and false information (which has been now restored by you) and had been replaced by true sourced facts about the artist. Lia Navarrete (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, can you please justify the reversion of my edit by justifing it as: promoted unsourced content.

Please, take the time to read the edits before reverting them and marking them as mentionned. It has clearly been reverted without any valid justification, plus my edit had more and more relaible secondary sources than the current one. Paid advocacy is not a synonym of promoted content! Lia Navarrete (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)