User talk:MarkJustice54

December 2022

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Terry Woods (Emmerdale) have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Terry Woods (Emmerdale) was changed by MarkJustice54 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.878531 on 2022-12-01T12:54:14+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to National Assessment Group. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Adakiko (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Finley Hospital. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Adakiko (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did with this edit to The Korek Mountain Resort & Spa. Adakiko (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Wesoree (Talk) 14:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Data valuation. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Elizium23 (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative projects require cooperation which might entail you ceasing being problematic.

Hi. JavaHurricane ‎has twice asked you to stop posting on their user talk page. On Wikipedia, it is a norm that we respect those requests. You have been pointed to the Teahouse each time. I have doubts about your intentions, so if I see you post another unwelcome talk page message, you're going to get reverted and warned. You might find your copyediting better applied at WP:GOCE. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman you wanna end this or should I try AIV? Elizium23 (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect WP:ENGVAR

MarkJustice54, you've been warned about this before and have been told this through various edit summaries, but as a matter of fact, changing the spelling from British to American is not a "grammatical change" and is disruptive. Continue with this behavior and I may have to start a thread on WP:AN. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain why you decided to bullheadedly ignore this and continue on with Special:Diff/1128689195 and Special:Diff/1128682805? --SHB2000 (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Random changes

Hi. Please stop making arbitrary and unnecessary wording changes. Such additions are not improvements. For example:

Adding the term "lead-free" to the heading of the "honors and awards" section of this article was not an improvement.
Duplicating the word "based" in the intro of this article was not an improvement.
Adding a space to the word "instationary" is not an improvement.
Changing "inspir(e)" to "i(e)" is not reflective of the source or MOS:PMC. And not an improvement.

Please stop making changes to articles "just for the sake of it". Guliolopez (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Hello MarkJustice54. 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:MarkJustice54. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=MarkJustice54|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. MrOllie (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @MrOllie I appreciate your comment, however, I assure you I am not financially compensated. I came across the citation while reading LAtimes out of my daily habit. It is my opinion, that there is nothing wrong with the citation, is it? (https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2021-12-16/how-to-avoid-online-dating-romance-scams) if there is anything wrong with it, kindly let me know. Kindly, also understand that I am new here, and trying to learn. MarkJustice54 (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Zed J Alexander per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zed J Alexander. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]