User talk:Qbmag

September 2019
Hello, I'm Julietdeltalima. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to San Diego Jewish Academy have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. ''The individuals you added are not notable and not actually the subjects of Wikipedia articles; the linked articles are to historic figures who happen to have the same names. Wikipedia does NOT include promotional, laudatory tributes by former students like you added. Please don't make more deceptive edits like this to add non-notable individuals.  Julietdeltalima   (talk) '' 17:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to San Diego Jewish Academy. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. ''Please get consensus on the talk page before you add this completely unencyclopedic content again. Look at other school and college articles: they DO NOT include this kind of admissions-office-brochure breathless laudatory paean, as well they shouldn't.  Please also read WP:NPOV. Thanks.  Julietdeltalima   (talk) '' 02:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Qbmag. 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 San Diego Jewish Academy, 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 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:Qbmag. 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.  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  02:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

February 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at San Diego Jewish Academy, you may be blocked from editing. ''You've been warned about this three times. This is not appropriate content for Wikipedia. I urge you to go to WP:TEAHOUSE for more guidance. We never, ever have quotations or WP:PEACOCK-ery in association with people on "notable xxx" lists. Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?  Julietdeltalima   (talk) '' 18:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Fuzheado &#124; Talk 19:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)