User talk:ECURBEC

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ECURBEC! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 06:55, Thursday, June 8, 2017 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi ECURBEC I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing. Your edits to Alexandre Mars were your first edits after you finished the "adventure" training, and were promotional, which creates the perception that you may have a conflict of interest. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, ECURBEC. 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 COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must 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 WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with Mars, his foundation, or any of his companies, directly or through a third party (e.g. a PR agency or the like)? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks so much for reaching out to me. Sorry for the delay in replying, the time difference is slightly to blame as I am in Dubai. Also I wasn't quite sure what the correct way was / is to reply. You are my first interlocutor. Thanks! As you rightly say, I am new to all this.

I dont know if there is a conflict or not. I am involved on an ad hoc basis with the How to do good initiative and am proud of the work they do. I was involved in helping to make the speaker tour happen. I helped with planning and execution. I did go to the venues and and I did get expenses, although it's all strictly non-profit and tickets were free etc. I met and learnt about Mars from that. Actually I would really like to get an entry for this initiative going as it is notable, but I thought it was premature until I am a bit more wiki savvy.

I absolutely don't work for Mars or Epic although I do admire him and his work. I chose his entry to edit as a practice really as I thought I could usefully expand it. I see you say that this was my first edit. Actually I have been practicing a little bit on the Dubai and Gozo sites, inter alia. Maybe I didn't sign them? Or?

However, the main point is, as we both know, that I don't really know what I'm doing and I would be extremely grateful for your help and guidance.

Perhaps my phrasing is at fault. I see someone else has deleted what I wrote as they took exception to the phrase 'talent for business' and said it has no place in an encyclopaedia. I have thanked them, by the way, and accepted the deletion. I am not here to cause trouble or to undermine this marvellous bank of neutral knowledge, rather to learn and participate appropriately. And I must thank you for assuming that this is the case rather than 'judging'.

Having said that, I am not sure I wouldn't write a similar phrase again as isn't it a simple fact that Mars has a talent for business and it is relevant? His ability to start new companies and make money is what has enabled him to fund and make successful his foundation, which is all about getting other young successful business people to give back too by funding other young people with good ideas?

Anyway I am SUPER happy to be guided in how to put things and wonder if you can help me?

What declaration do I need to make and where? If any?

How do I amend the Mars entry so that it is acceptable? Or?

How do I move forwards to suggest and write up new articles and pages? I am interested in more things about this part of the world, for example.

I hope I have got this right and you will have time to answer me. I dont expect you to do everything for me, of course, but it is really great to have a mentor. {{subst:unsigned|08:08, 15 June 2017 (edit) (undo)

Best wishes ECURBEC (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying! Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon ":" in front of your comment, and the Wikipedia software converts that into an indent; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons "::" which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And if you hit a return in an indented comment, you need to add the colons in front of each paragraph. If fixed that for you above. Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your open and gracious note. Sounds like there are no COI issues, but rather that you are a fan of Mars, and this came through in your edits. We call this "advocacy" and it is distinct from conflict of interest per se. Advocacy is a difficult thing in Wikipedia - people come edit for many reasons, but one of the main ones is that they are passionate about something. That passion is a double-edged sword. It drives people to contribute which has the potential for productive construction, but it can also lead people to abuse Wikipedia - to hijack it from its mission of providing the world with free access to "accepted knowledge." Some people come here and try to create promotional content about their companies (classic "COI"), some come to tell everybody how bad it is to eat meat, some come to grind various political axes... we get all kinds of advocacy (COI is just a subset of it) It all comes down to violations of WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVOCACY - a lack of focus on the mission, which is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, neutrally. A lot of times, people don't even understand this is not OK. I try to talk with folks, to make sure they are aware of these issues.

It is great to allow your passion to drive the subject matter you work on, but the really key thing when you edit, is to always start with very strong sources (see WP:MEDRS for content about health, and WP:RS for everything else) and let them guide the content you generate (not what you already know, or what your passion tells you is true or false). We summarize reliable sources here, giving WEIGHT to what they give WEIGHT to, and we try to avoid colorful language that promotes or denigrates anything. Positive facts, negative facts - whatever is accepted knowledge. I hope that makes sense. Happy to discuss if you have any further questions as your experience here progresses. Thanks again for your reply! Jytdog (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, and thanks for the information about indents and also the clarification about advocacy. It is really helpful. I am going to crack on and try and get my stuff into a neutral and appropriate state. I am actually a great believer in 'real' information.ECURBEC (talk) 06:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for talking, and good luck. Onward and upward! :) Jytdog (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The 'How to do good' Philanthropy Programme (July 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Shadowowl was:

This article contains external links. They are not permitted in the article's body. Use references instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The 'How to do good' Philanthropy Programme and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

» Shadowowl | talk 16:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! ECURBEC, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! » Shadowowl | talk 16:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
293	Barbershop music (talk)	Add sources
17	Sweet Adelines International (talk)	Add sources
134	Australian hip hop (talk)	Add sources
176	Baldwin Hills, Los Angeles (talk)	Add sources
97	Wild & Crazy Kids (talk)	Add sources
2,128	Home Improvement (TV series) (talk)	Add sources
3	Ernest Llewellyn (talk)	Cleanup
160	Twin Peaks (band) (talk)	Cleanup
106	NLT (band) (talk)	Cleanup
364	Holy water (talk)	Expand
3	The Ritz (quartet) (talk)	Expand
3	Rural Route 4 (talk)	Expand
5	Platinum (quartet) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
42	Sydney Conservatorium of Music (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
2,581	Wonder Woman (TV series) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
138	Four-part harmony (talk)	Merge
592	Future bass (talk)	Merge
3	Singing Valentines (talk)	Merge
9	Oh Inhuman Spectacle (talk)	Wikify
7	Bernard C. Schoenfeld (talk)	Wikify
3	Joseph Twist (talk)	Wikify
18	Alaroye (talk)	Orphan
4	Stephen Magnusson (talk)	Orphan
5	Himal Sagar (talk)	Orphan
2	Out of the Blue (EP) (talk)	Stub
3	Four Harmonizers (talk)	Stub
4	Masterpiece (quartet) (talk)	Stub
5	Bluegrass Student Union (talk)	Stub
20	Everything Is Forgotten (talk)	Stub
3	Evans Quartet (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:The 'How to do good' Philanthropy Programme has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:The 'How to do good' Philanthropy Programme. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Hello, I have posted (I hope correctly) on your talk page so just saying thanks for taking the time to comment and I hope I have made the necessary amendments.ECURBEC (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:The 'How to do good' Philanthropy Programme has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:The 'How to do good' Philanthropy Programme. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been off-air completely for a few weeks for many reasons. First thanks so much for the edit you made to my draft. I'd be so grateful if you could see if there is anything that needs to be changed? The article now seems to have gone into limbo and I'd really like to move forwards with it. Any advice you can offer will be gratefully appreciated. ECURBEC (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The 'How to do good' Philanthropy Programme (August 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mr. Guye was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The 'How to do good' Philanthropy Programme and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 21:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The 'How to do good' Philanthropy Programme (August 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by NewYorkActuary was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The claim to notability here seems to rest entirely on what we at Wikipedia call "inherited notability". Much, indeed, most of the text is devoted to telling us exactly which notable people have associated themselves with the programme. What is completely lacking here is any evidence that the programme has been the subject of in-depth coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Instead, we have brief interviews/announcements of upcoming speeches, links to sales sites (which should be removed -- they're seen here as promotional), and links to the organization itself.

On a more technical note, there is a bit of over-citing here -- do we really need to know which cities hosted events and, in the case of some of the cities, does this unencyclopedic detail really need to be sourced with more than one reference? Also, I re-formatted the first two references using the {{cite web}} template -- I leave it to the draft's creator to do the rest.

My preferred outcome here would have been to recommend adding this content (minus the lengthy listings of cities, speakers, and book contributors) to the article on the Philosophy Age article. Alas, no such article exists.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The 'How to do good' Philanthropy Programme and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this and yes I understand. No excuse, of course, but I did intend to do a minor edit. But then I started researching....... ECURBEC (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The 'How to do good' Philanthropy Programme concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:The 'How to do good' Philanthropy Programme, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]