Jillcincinnati

October 2023

Hello Jillcincinnati. 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:Jillcincinnati. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Jillcincinnati|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. 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) 21:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Further, your last edit, made after the above message was posted to your talk page, was reverted by Yoshi24517 on the grounds that it did not cite reliable sources. I had been going to revert it myself, on the grounds that material does not get removed from an encyclopaedia merely because it is out of date. Assuming that the text you removed was properly cited and encyclopaedic (which I haven't checked) you should not have removed it, though it could be edited to clarify that it was historical information, and new, properly cited information added.

What you should do now is:

1. Respond to 331dot's question above.
2. If you are a paid editor in Wikipedia's terms, you must make the required declaration
3. If you have an association with the school (whether paid or not) you should henceforward not make edits directly to the article, but should make edit requests, citing reliable sources.
4. In any case, I advise making many smaller edits rather than one huge one. It is possible that part of your previous edit was acceptable, but because you made it all in one go, it was reverted all in one go. --ColinFine (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)