MaryKlida

March 2013

Your recent editing history at Cobo Center shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Please also be aware that your position with the Cobo Center means your editing on this topic should be more limited than it otherwise would. You do not have authority over the article, nor do you have an exemption from our usual policies, and you must be cautious about whether your edits are seeking to improve the encyclopedia, or just your employer's image. Conflict-of-interest editing can become disruptive, and if that becomes the case you can be blocked for it alone. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the warning, and did not know about the editing protocol - what does and does not constitute a revert. When I tried to edit the individual posts, I got a message that told me I could only delete the post manually. There is a person or group in cyberspace who is posting links to images and articles that redirect people to "crime in detroit" websites or the links themselves are malicious. I clean up the best I can. I appreciate your patience while I learn this complicated system, and will thus forth follow your instructions and request a dispute resolution. Thanks again.

I see that "codepro" has is disputing my neutrality from the notice at the top of the page and his current edit to the Cobo Center page. I can't find the page where the neutrality is being discussed. Would like to note that his original text and links were vastly different than what is currently posted, the only link now is to the City of Detroit Wiki page. I would like to think that it is more ethical to post as who I am. My identity is not being hidden by a random user name, and I do have the best interest of the article in mind, as well as the Detroit community's interests. If you could send me a link to the discussion, I would like to see it if allowed.

Yeah, he was supposed to notify you so you could be part of the discussion. here is a link to that discussion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Mary. I just wanted to drop you a note thanking you for doing your best to adjust to using our policies and processes for the dispute you're in. I know it can be a strange transition to be told you can't do things the obvious way but must handle them on some obscure corner of the project, and you're doing a better job of making that transition than a lot of new editors do. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Your encouragement is very much appreciated. I am doing my best to figure out the procedures and protocols here and am looking for local subject matter experts to coach me. In the mean time, I am really struggling with how to add the reference material. I think Codepro's suggestion that the article needs citations is valid - just can't get the hang of the right way to add the articles. I'll keep working on it. Thanks again.--MaryKlida (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, MaryKlida. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codepro (talk • contribs) 17:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Information on how to add references to an article

Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.102.242.50 (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

University of Detroit playing at Cobo Hall

Mary, just a random question wondering if you know the answer to or have the means to find the answer. I remember going to a University of Detroit basketball game at Cobo Hall in the 1980s/1990s. Do you know how often U of D played games at Cobo and during what timeframe? Thanks :) — X96lee15 (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

What I could find, hope it is helpful: http://www.detroittitans.com/sports/2008/11/11/GEN_1111084603.aspx

February 2020

Hello, I'm Magnolia677. An edit that you recently made to TCF Center seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello MaryKlida. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to TCF Center, 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

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, and if it does not, 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:MaryKlida. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=MaryKlida|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. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Please note the edit summary here. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

As previously advised, your edits, such as the edit you made to TCF Center, give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:MaryKlida, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=MaryKlida|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)