User talk:Butterflycrowdwiki

August 2019

Hello, I'm Count Count. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Sangita Reddy— because it 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. Thanks. Count Count (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sangita Reddy

Your edits to Sangita Reddy, which I am sure are well intentioned, ruined the structure of the article, its formatting and its referencing. I have restored it to the version prior to your first edit. It looks very much as though you are being paid to "improve" this article. If so, you must declare this on your user page and read this guidance before editing further. Please also have a close look at other similar articles on Wikipedia to get some idea of what is expected. Thanks Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Sangita Reddy. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Hello Butterflycrowdwiki. 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 Sangita Reddy, 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:Butterflycrowdwiki. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Butterflycrowdwiki|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. ST47 (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ST47...I have disclosed the paid contribution. I am new to wikipedia. Cld you help me with where I should insert the disclosure. Thnx

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Butterflycrowdwiki reported by User:ST47 (Result: ). Thank you. ST47 (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ST47...I have disclosed the paid contribution. I am new to wikipedia. Cld you help me with where I should insert the disclosure. Thnx

"I have disclosed the paid contribution" and "Cld you help me with where I should insert the disclosure" directly contradict. Either you disclosed your paid contribution or you didn't. I can find no evidence you did. Regardless, that's not the reason for your block (but would probably be relevant when considering unblocking you). --Yamla (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Butterflycrowdwiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i have disclosed the paid contribution. I am new to wiki. shall comply the rules and remove the references and other links. Thanks

Decline reason:

This doesn't address your violation of WP:SOCK. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Multiple copyright violations

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text—which means allowing other people to modify it—then you must include on the external site the statement: "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later, and under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike".

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question at the Help Desk. You can also leave a message on my talk page. --Yamla (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely lost for words and heartbroken to describe the hardwork I had put in to this for the past 3 days. My lack of my understanding of the policies and gudilines has really hurt me and it is my mistake. I will try again once more when i get unblocked.