User talk:Jol Gi

December 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Kacapi, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Catalyzzt (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I apologize for the mistake I made and it will not happened in the future edits. Thank you Jol Gi (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Pariaman. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Sorry, but every change you made to this article was a grammatical error or spelling error. Please be more careful. CodeTalker (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I apologize for the mistake I made, and it will not happen in the future edits. Thank you. Jol Gi (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed most of your edits and I have had to revert another 27 of them, which all had grammatical errors. You seem to have a particular difficulty with relative clauses introduced by the word "which". I see that several other editors have also reverted some of your edits. You are creating a large amount of work for other editors who have to review and clean up the mistakes you make. If your command of English is not strong, you may want to consider contributing to the Wikipedia in your native language rather than the English one. In any case, you should STOP making grammatical changes, because you clearly do not have the competence in English to make such changes. Thank you. CodeTalker (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Trevor Asserson

Hello, Jol Gi,

Thank you for creating Trevor Asserson.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Almost certainly a UPE or COI article from a disguised SPE

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Aszx5000}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Aszx5000 (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hello Jol Gi. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Trevor Asserson, 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:Jol Gi. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Jol Gi|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. scope_creep^Talk 14:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]