User talk:CQGore

January 2020

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Suzanne Scholte. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. David Gerard (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. 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 lose their editing privileges. 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 result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you.--VViking_TalkEdits 21:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CQGore. 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 Suzanne Scholte, 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:CQGore. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=CQGore|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. David Gerard (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My edits to Suzanne Scholte

She asked me to make the edits to update the material to be more accurate and up-to-date. I did this as her husband, and am not receiving any financial benefit at all, in fact it's a pain in the ass to do this. But every time you revert to the old out-dated material I get crap from her. So, could you please allow the more recent material to stay in place so I can have peace and quiet at home? Otherwise, please contact her directly at skswm@aol.com to resolve your concerns and cut me out as the middle man.