User talk:Nerdherd92

March 2017
Hello, I'm Dan56. I noticed that you made a change to an article, I See You (The xx album), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

January 2018
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks! --Animalparty! (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Paid editing?
Hi Nerdherd92. We have had a lot of conflicted editing related to Northwell. Would you please see the notice below and reply?

Hello Nerdherd92. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, 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:Nerdherd92. 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. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I am NOT being paid. I know the Forest Hills area well and thought the lack of information available regarding Long Island Jewish Forest Hills was simply unacceptable in 2018. You may compare for yourself: the information I contributed falls directly in line with the information available for "Lenox Hill Hospital", which is considered a sister hospital. How can one be considered trying to "promote" the hospital, while the other page is not? How inconsistent.

Questioning my edits as "financially motivated" is a contradiction, considering the Lenox Hill page, as well as other hospital pages that provide similar information, is not being questioned. Not one thing I shared in my edits was false. I simply did the research and tried to make a positive contribution to wikipedia.

Second account?
Hello Nerdherd92. User:Abznaq has made an edit to Ross University School of Medicine‎, similar to one you made recently. Is the account User:Abznaq operated by you? If so, then please see WP:Multiple accounts. Thanks, The Mighty Glen (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)