User talk:Acetyl-CoA35

October 2024

Hello, I'm AntiDionysius. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jayant B. Udgaonkar. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Jayant B. Udgaonkar, you may be blocked from editing. AntiDionysius (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Acetyl-CoA35. 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 employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. 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:Acetyl-CoA35. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Acetyl-CoA35|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. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments on my talk page and your edits, a few things:

Edits being "approved by the ethics committee of the Institute" is not a good thing. People or institutions do not have editorial control over articles about them, and in fact are asked to refrain from editing those articles under Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy. If you are employed by the Institute, please read the paid editing policy as explained above. If you are affiliated but not employed or otherwise financially compensated, please read the conflict of interest policy. Please do not make any further edits before familiarising yourself with the relevant policy and making the necessary declarations.
Your edits contain a number of violations of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. This is the main reason we have the conflict of interest/paid editing policies; people who have COIs or who are financially tied to a topic are therefore asked not to make direct edits but to request other editors to do so on their behalf. The policies explain how.
Your edits also had some smaller issues with sourcing; YouTube videos are not generally acceptable as sources, for example.
Could you please explain what you mean when you say "The information added now is deemed essential for future students planning to join Dr. Udgaonkar's lab and to prevent future harassment and sexual exploitation of students"?

Thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]