User talk:Dfowlerchristianbook

Edits at Christianbook

Hello,

Your reverts over at Christianbook, which have no edit summary, and your username – Dfowlerchristianbook – leads me to believe that you may have a conflict of interest with the article and the article's subject.

Firstly - reverts that change the article considerably need an edit summary. This is in the article's best interests, as it helps editors to work together, and it's especially true when potential conflicts of interest are involved. You cannot revert an article into submission; we have the three-revert rule for a reason, and editors that fall afoul of it may be blocked. It is true that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, but we have rules and guidelines for a reason, and tools to exercise them as well.

Secondly, you should familiarise yourself Wikipedia's plain and simple conflict of interest (COI) guide, as if you have a conflict of interest in editing Christianbook, you need to disclose it.

A conflict of interest is defined as contributing content to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships - any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest, and you do not have to be paid to contribute to an article to be considered a conflict of interest editor.

The reason COI editors need to be disclosed is that their motivations are considered to muddy the waters of what Wikipedia is not; we provide "neutral articles written independently of their subject, not corporate or personal webpages, or platforms for advertising and self-promotion." A conflict of interest can prevent editors from making the best judgements on the neutrality, independence, and quality of an article.

Having a conflict of interest isn't a judgement about an editor's opinions, integrity, or good faith – but it must be disclosed.

If you do have a COI, I would urge you to disclose it. There are ways to disclose a COI, and COI editors that follow these rules aren't chased off the platform – they're just subject to a few more steps than if they had no COI. COI editors who follow these steps and choose to work with others are a blessing, and I wish they were more common.

I hope this makes sense. The COI guidelines, and the steps one can take to follow them as a COI editor, are clearly set out, but if you have any questions, I'd advise popping over to the WP:TEAHOUSE – Wikipedia's dedicated question-and-answer spot, where experienced editors will be happy to point you in the right direction. Thank you!--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 19:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are well-intentioned and are an improvement in some cases. Unfortunately, I will need to undo them as paragraph one in your version makes it seem that Ray, Paul and Dave all contributed towards the same listed functions. Instead, it should read along the lines of “his younger brother Ray was involved from the very beginning helping to get customer orders fulfilled, his older brother Paul lending funds and advice, and Dave providing computer programming.” I am affiliated with Christianbook and although this may be a COI in some cases, in this case my connection lends credence to the version prior to your edit, as I have knowledge that the listed functions were not shared equally among the three individuals cited which your version implies.

Dfowlerchristianbook (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Hello Dfowlerchristianbook. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Christianbook, 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:Dfowlerchristianbook. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Dfowlerchristianbook|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. You have stated that you are affiliated with them, meaning you are being paid by them in some way. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please know that if you do not disclose that you are being paid then you can be blocked. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am an employee of Christianbook and I disclosed this affiliation on the last undo.

Dfowlerchristianbook (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not good enough. Disclosing that you are being paid in an edit summary is not enough disclosure. Please read WP:PAID and follow the instructions for disclosing that you are being paid there. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, while doing so in an edit summary is technically enough, over time that disclosure can get lost. So disclosing on your userpage is better. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added the following to my user page: "I am an employee of Christianbook."

Dfowlerchristianbook (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cooperating. First, don't add your signature to a separate line of a response, it just looks weird. Second, I advise you read WP:BRD. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]