User talk:Michalyogev

October 2022
Hello Michalyogev. 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:Michalyogev. 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. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Relationship
I have to ask, what is your relationship with the subject of the article Michal Schwartz? As your edits come across that you know this person personally. Canterbury Tail talk 19:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I notice that Michalyogev is the one who uploaded the photo in that article, tagged as "own work", so a connection of some sort is certainly implied. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No relationship with Prof. Schwartz personally. 2001:4DF4:1300:9A00:9559:BE5A:4AF1:14A3 (talk) 07:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Remember to log in before posting. If you want your IP concealed, contact an oversighter. Do you have any relationship with her? How did you obtain the image of her you say is your own work? 331dot (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The image of her actually looks a bit like a copyright violation photo taken of a slide of a presentation or the like due to the terrible quality and artifacting on it. Canterbury Tail talk 12:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)