User talk:AaronShirley

Conflict of interest and failure to disclose same

An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder.

Being paid to contribute to Wikipedia is one form of financial COI; it places the paid editor in a conflict between their employer's goals and Wikipedia's goals. The kind of paid editing of most concern to the community involves using Wikipedia for public relations and marketing purposes. Sometimes called "paid advocacy", this is problematic because it invariably reflects the interests of the client or employer.

The Wikimedia Foundation requires that all paid editing be disclosed. Additionally, global policy requires that (if applicable) you must provide links on your user-page to all active accounts on external websites through which you advertise paid editing. If you receive or expect to receive compensation (money, goods or services) for your contributions to Wikipedia:

you must disclose who is paying you, on whose behalf the edits are made, and any other relevant affiliation;
you should make the disclosure on your user page, on affected talk pages, and whenever you discuss the topic;
you are very strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly;
you may propose changes on talk pages by using the {{request edit}} template or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed;
you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;
you should respect volunteers by keeping discussions concise (see PAYTALK). --Orange Mike | Talk 02:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AaronShirley. Per the advice given in the above template added to your user talk page by Orange Mike, it would be better off for you to avoid directly editing Camara Phyllis Jones as much as possible except as explained in WP:COIADVICE. It would be better for you to follow WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement and propose changes on the article's talk page instead. Some of your edits, e.g simply copy editing, are probably OK, but any major additions of content like this or any removal of maintenance templates like this should be be proposed on the talk page so that others can review them. Adding blocks of unsourced content to any article is in general not a very good idea per WP:V, but it's especially a concern in articles is about living persons. Anything unsourced in the article can be removed pretty much at anytime per WP:BLPSOURCES; so, it would be better to find sources and add them, then add more unsourced content. Moreover, removing a COI template added by another editor when you are supposed to be the person with the COI is almost certainly going to be viewed with suspicion by others and is probably something to discuss either on the article talk page or with the editor (Ww2censor) who added the template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Camara Phyllis Jones, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AaronShirley. You seem to be marking pretty much all of your edits as minor. Be aware that Wikipedia defines a minor edit in a certain way, and many of your edits wouldn't be considered as such. This is not a huge big deal and many times it's done unintentionally, but basically anything listed in WP:MINOR#When not to mark as minor changes or which might possibly be seen as contentious should not be marked as minor. So, when in doubt, don't mark the edit as minor. As I posted above, this is not a kind of "one strike and you're out" mistake that is going to lead to an immediate block by an administrator, but continuing to do so despite warnings can sometimes be seen as a form of disruption, and particularly egregious cases may lead some administrator to decide that some kind of formal action does need to be taken. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Your addition to Camara Phyllis Jones has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]