User talk:AnnieYW

September 2023

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please stick with the talk page for discussion, and assume good faith while you're at it. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AnnieYW. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Temu (marketplace), 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:AnnieYW. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=AnnieYW|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. Amigao (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am an American undergrad student and not being paid by anyone. I can see Temu and its parent company's PDD having some good sides, while Wikepedia only puts what the government wants and only the criticism, which is unfair in the interests of American people due to political tensions. I very much assure you that I am voluntarily editing as a American student and regard my edits as faithful and truthful. AnnieYW (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikepedia really stands by its doctrine, you and the administrators should never revert the changes that state both the good sides and bad sides and saying users are paid only because they are saying "good sides" of things such as the company. It Wikepedia really a good website to provide infomation worldwide, or it is just a thing used by politicians? AnnieYW (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also see your "Amigao" user talk page that you made a lot of bad or hate edits related to China and Chinese-related edits and you now try to delete my edits on the company just because it is related? Don't be ridiculous; I can see how Wikepedia are full of politicians and haters now instead of actual scholars and students. AnnieYW (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Pinduoduo. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. You seem to insist in including flowery, POV language, while also only editing a small subset of articles. Please adhere to our POV and COI policies as already noted, and please stop edit warring. ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]