User talk:DigitalArchiver2020
Welcome!
[edit]Hi DigitalArchiver2020! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 15:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- thanks ! DigitalArchiver2020 (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Managing a conflict of interest
[edit]
Hello, DigitalArchiver2020. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
- disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
- do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment, Drmies. None of us stand to gain from the promotion of a page or another. Our interest in any subject matter is motivated by academic interest utilising the sources available to ensure the accuracy of the information provided. I am not affiliated with Gatt nor do I stand to gain from the promotion of his page. I am however interested in building more content about entrepreneurs and researchers on AI in Malta which is a tiny country in the EU and under-represented in Wikipedia. I have initiated work (a labour of love) on one page and seek to do the same on others. The Wikipedia's "Do not bite the newcomers" policy is a valid reminder that we're trying to achieve the right content guided by Wikipedia's content policies. DigitalArchiver2020 (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Well, who is "us"? Drmies (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Drmies"us" refers to volunteers from all around the world known as "editors" or "contributors" who spend honest time to create Wikipedia content through consensus-building, following extensive policies and guidelines and ensuring neutrality, verifiability, and respect for all contributors. DigitalArchiver2020 (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's a language thing, but what you said sounds like you're part of a team. Sorry, the little jabs below the belt don't really work on me. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Drmies. Thank you for this note. No, I don't have time (or interest) in "little jabs below the belt", nor should anyone here. Language differences at times create miscommunication - true. I truly subscribe to the idea that this is a community (hence 'us') working towards a common goal underpinned by honest work, and a framework of guidelines and policies. DigitalArchiver2020 (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps it's a language thing, but what you said sounds like you're part of a team. Sorry, the little jabs below the belt don't really work on me. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Drmies"us" refers to volunteers from all around the world known as "editors" or "contributors" who spend honest time to create Wikipedia content through consensus-building, following extensive policies and guidelines and ensuring neutrality, verifiability, and respect for all contributors. DigitalArchiver2020 (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Well, who is "us"? Drmies (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
As for you
[edit]I was in a hair’s-breath of blocking you for editing disruptively through obvious COI editing. I don’t care if you don’t edit again or find something clearly uninvolved to edit but you better drop this stick and stop wasting precious community time. Spartaz Humbug! 08:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Spartaz: I don't appreciate the tone however I respect your viewpoint (something known since the time of Voltaire). I emphasise (again) my approach to abide by all Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As any new contributor (as you once where Ian 2006), I am navigating the complexities of this platform and urge you to consider the principle of Don't bite the newcomers which underlines the importance of patience and goodwill toward new editors who are still learning. In addition, the vandalism policy highlights that any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not considered disruptive or unconstructive. As you can see from my edits, my intentions have been to contribute positively to the article's content. I understand that the community's time is precious, and it's not my intention to waste it. I value the importance of a respectful and collaborative environment in Wikipedia and I'm dedicated to contributing to it. Thank you for also maintaining these standards and curteous communication with me, and others. DigitalArchiver2020 (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- You seem very versed in our policies and norms for someone who is so mew and has only edited one article. I invite you to compare the participation levels in AFD and DRV now and in 2006 when I started editing. There is a reason why we oppose bludgeoning and long screeds of self serving text and its because of the distraction and time they waste. Ask yourself if the time and effort your campaign to keep your pet article going diverted to those discussions are worth it given that AFD is literally dying because of low participation rates. You talk about tone, assuming good faith, faux appreciation of my engagement but if you are serious about sticking around and collaborating then I hope that in time you are ashamed of how you wasted the community’s time here and learn lessons on how to support your colleagues to use their limited volunteer time effectively. Oh, and I seriously suggest you stop gatekeeping how other editors engage with you. Spartaz Humbug! 09:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Spartaz All contributors, new or experienced, have the right to participate in discussions and defend their viewpoints. The essence of Wikipedia, as a collaborative platform, is open dialogue and constructive discourse. Your contribution here (with many, oft incorrect assumptions) is not in this spirit. Why?
- I acknowledge that low participation rates in AFD are a challenge. But at the same time, shouldn't every argument be given due consideration, irrespective of its outcome? The ethos of Wikipedia lies in embracing diverse viewpoints, and only through rigorous discussion can we achieve the highest standard of information.
- Civility is a cornerstone of any productive discourse, and it's crucial in an open platform. If someone doesn't agree with you @Spartaz it is not a 'faux' attempt at anything, it's just a divergent viewpoint which requires consideration. Why monopolise truth? That led to too many historical humbugs already !
- As for the suggestion of 'gatekeeping', that is far from my intent. My efforts are made in good faith to improve the quality of content and any statement to the contrary is incorrect. DigitalArchiver2020 (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- Do you think after 17 years of contributions that any of that bold text is news to me? There is a point where doggedly arguing your point becomes disruptive. The tolerance is much lower for editors who make a lot of noise but contribute very little and/or push a particular pov or pet subject then it is for those who contribute widely across a broad spectrum. You deny a COI. The ball is in your court to show that you are the latter editor and not the former. Just mark my words, your noise to value levels are not where you want them. Spartaz Humbug! 14:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- It's a pity to witness this spiteful approach, bent on accusations, predictions and rancour. I'm hoping to meet other 17-year veterans who have matured more politely than @Spartaz. We'll see. DigitalArchiver2020 (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think you are missing the point that your conduct is subpar and making light of the warning. I'm blunt because you don't seem to be listening. Spartaz Humbug! 21:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- Cicero once said: "As fire when thrown into water is cooled and put out, so also a false accusation... is at once dissipated, and vanishes". Revel and rant further @Spartaz. There is clarity and joy in intellectually seeing what others can’t see. DigitalArchiver2020 (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think you are missing the point that your conduct is subpar and making light of the warning. I'm blunt because you don't seem to be listening. Spartaz Humbug! 21:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- It's a pity to witness this spiteful approach, bent on accusations, predictions and rancour. I'm hoping to meet other 17-year veterans who have matured more politely than @Spartaz. We'll see. DigitalArchiver2020 (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- Do you think after 17 years of contributions that any of that bold text is news to me? There is a point where doggedly arguing your point becomes disruptive. The tolerance is much lower for editors who make a lot of noise but contribute very little and/or push a particular pov or pet subject then it is for those who contribute widely across a broad spectrum. You deny a COI. The ball is in your court to show that you are the latter editor and not the former. Just mark my words, your noise to value levels are not where you want them. Spartaz Humbug! 14:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- You seem very versed in our policies and norms for someone who is so mew and has only edited one article. I invite you to compare the participation levels in AFD and DRV now and in 2006 when I started editing. There is a reason why we oppose bludgeoning and long screeds of self serving text and its because of the distraction and time they waste. Ask yourself if the time and effort your campaign to keep your pet article going diverted to those discussions are worth it given that AFD is literally dying because of low participation rates. You talk about tone, assuming good faith, faux appreciation of my engagement but if you are serious about sticking around and collaborating then I hope that in time you are ashamed of how you wasted the community’s time here and learn lessons on how to support your colleagues to use their limited volunteer time effectively. Oh, and I seriously suggest you stop gatekeeping how other editors engage with you. Spartaz Humbug! 09:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)