Hi Etangm7! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).
I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.
To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.
In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms our use and policy on paid editing.
REDIRECT pagehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:174.85.60.56 and resolve this issue. Nothing that was suggestion by me is incorrect and is in fact neutral, I describe very briefly an existing system. if you feel we should use other wording I am happy to go over on the talk page. please see there my last comment
14:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Etangm7 (talk)== Spamming poolsbynature.net ==
As it clear there was much misunderstanding from my side on WP practices, which is now resolved, could you please remove this section here on my page
Thanks
Hello Etangm7. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that 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:Etangm7. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Etangm7|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, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Jytdog (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You went ahead and made another comment, which I have removed. Please take this as a final warning:
please let me know if that is ok now? and where best to write to you?
Thanks
The talk page is the best place for correspondence. Since we're discussing your account right now, your user talk page is best. @Jytdog: Do you want to chime in about whether the disclosure is sufficient, and what the user's next steps should be? —C.Fred (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As my comment before to C.Fred, I am less familiar with WP editing /talk process. Thanks all for editing. I agree that the term “natural pools” is misused and “organic pools” is a better description as it in fact pools by nature; pools made by the way nature functions. A simulation of organic processes to achieve water purification.
New technological advances, had allow for new systems to offer new options and flexibility of use. Because of the automatic mass removal and the correct water movement we can now resolve the lack of oxygen in hot periods and have organic pools in warmer areas. With the help of efficient biological chambers we can have organic pools in confined urban setup or even indoor spaces. These and others are real progress in the field but unfortunately are noted briefly as “biological filters” in WP with no actual description on organic pools; there methods or capabilities.
I respect WP guidelines but it is companies which developed new techniques and process, making contributions to our knowledge in this evolving field. Concerns should be balanced and know-how acknowledged.
The problem is, Wikipedia is not the place for you to promote your company's new technological advances. The only source you ever cited was your own company's website, and frankly, that's unacceptable for an encyclopedia. Hence my comment that we don't add any such material to the article until the addition can be based on a source that is independent. Ideally it would be an academic journal with independent oversight, but a trade magazine article—written by a magazine employee, not a paid placement from a seller—would also work.
Also, a procedural note. Please sign your comments by adding four tilde characters (the character sequence ~~~~) to the end of your talk-page comments. —C.Fred (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 (see WP:THREAD) - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and so on, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. Threading/indenting 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 at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit. That is how we know who said what to whom and when.
Please be aware that threading and signing are fundamental etiquette here, as basic as "please" and "thank you", and continually failing to thread and sign communicates rudeness, and eventually people may start to ignore you (see here).
Thanks for finally disclosing your relationship with poolsbynature. So you have a conflict of interest for that company and related topics, as we define that in Wikipedia.
There are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is a form of peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.
What we ask of editors who have a COI or who are paid, and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:
a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and
b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to
(i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page; and
(ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section on the talk page, put the proposed content there formatted just as you would if you were adding it directly to the article, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) place the {{request edit}} tag to flag it for other editors to review. In general it should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once. Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example. This is OK to do but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.
By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (There are good faith paid editors here, who have signed and follow the Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms, and there are "black hat" paid editors here who lie about what they do and really harm Wikipedia).
But understanding the mission, and the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission, is very important! There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Learning and following these is very important, and takes time. Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian - you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians.
I hope that makes sense to you.
I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about where the company has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content. If you are not sure if something is uncontroversial, please ask at the Talk page.
Will you please agree to learn and follow the content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and to follow the peer review processes going forward when you want to work on any article or any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm C.Fred. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Natural pool have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Jytdog (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
