User talk:Daemanheart

Prioria Maveric

Hi. I just wanted to touch base about the Prioria Robotics Maveric article. I undid your recent revision. This is explained further on Talk:Prioria Robotics Maveric. Please discuss further changes there before deleting content from the article. Thanks! Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

response

Hi, Thanks for the note. I am new to providing these edits. I will try to incorporate your feedback. I ran out of time to add the edits to the talk section. My point of view - The articles are poor journalism and conflict both in their content, sourcing, and consistency. The articles fail to discuss that the only valid point is a civil contracts dispute. All other claims and allegations were written for their sensational versus factual qualities. The articles also are directly contradicted by the court record. The plaintiff in the case filed 4 different lawsuits all of which were dismissed alleging a variety of different issues. The news articles confuse all of them. Thanks.

Thanks for clarifying. I think the article would be improved by having some more detailed sources. I think it's important to leave the allegations in for context, but if you have some references you could fill the picture out with, please do so. Personally, I think conflicting references should be acknowledged with phrasing like "some sources indicate... but others report (other claim)." Or, if you want to list some references on the article's talk page I'd be happy to fill in a more detailed account of the case. Just as a note, if you do add to the article yourself, put your references after the punctuation in a sentence. It's just for aesthetics but that's the standard style. Let's have any further discussion on the article's talk page, too, just in case there's anybody else who has something to add.

Thanks! Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Hello Daemanheart. 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 Prioria Robotics Maveric, 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:Daemanheart. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Daemanheart|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. HaeB (talk) 08:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response -- Haeb, I am not compensated in any way to make these edits. Furthermore, I have not created these pages I have merely proposed edits. I am new to making edits so please excuse any irregularities. Thanks Daemanheart (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]