User talk:Spontiac

August 2020
Hello, I'm Path slopu. An edit you recently made to Darius Šaluga seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.  PA TH  SL OP U  07:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Magma Aviation, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Negative material at GetJet Airlines
Your addition to the article has been questioned by other editors. Perhaps you want to join the talk page at Talk:GetJet Airlines and provide more rationale for including the material about the company that's been getting in trouble, AviaticMRO. Note that Wikipedia prefers secondary to primary sources, so we would rather see news articles interpreting this information, rather than stuff you get from the companies register. Also the company which is in trouble (apparently) is not GetJet, the subject of the article, but some other company. Inclusion might be challenged on grounds of relevance. Is there any news coverage of these matters in the press outside of Lithuania? EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
Your recent editing history at FL Technics shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Ahunt (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

January 2024
As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Spontiac, and the template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. Thanks, Framawiki (please notify me when you reply) 13:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Spontiac. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Avia Solutions Group, 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 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 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:Spontiac. 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.  scope_creep Talk  17:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)