User talk:Fullomayo

October 2020

Hello Fullomayo. 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 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:Fullomayo. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Fullomayo|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. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for any edits - Thank you Fullomayo (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Hello, I'm Dewritech. I noticed that you recently removed content from Isa Ali Pantami 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. Dewritech (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with your removal of the Controversies section of the Isa Ali Pantami biography, because it was full of unproven allegations, I disagree with your addition of the extensive list of "Achievements" and "Publications". The point of the article is not to list every last thing the man has ever done, but rather to select highlights. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Isa Ali Pantami 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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 discuss on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021 - 2

Hello User:Fullomayo. I've noticed that you continuously remove content from Isa Ali Pantami by saying the 'Controversies' could be libelous. However, you do not point out what is potentially libelous, edit the section, or communicate your issues with the section; instead you just delete it. I wanted to ask you what the issue is so that we can get that section back up. Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Fullomayo, I'm again posting to inquire on your rationale for removing content from the Isa Ali Pantami and how we can work to get the 'Controversies' section back up. Watercheetah99 (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of report to Administrators

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fullomayo, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Randykitty (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]