User talk:Holgergrundel
January 2021
[edit]
Hello Holgergrundel. The nature of your edits 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:Holgergrundel. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Holgergrundel|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. [1] MrOllie (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Mr Ollie, I have no financial stake in promoting this topic and am simply trying to use my expertise and experience from 20 years of working in this area to enrich the page on private sector development. I will, however, provide an additional reference and reduce the element of personal judgement in the text I am proposing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holgergrundel (talk • contribs)
- Nonetheless, you should not be adding links to a group you are associated with, even if you aren't being directly paid to do so. - MrOllie (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
What do you mean by 'associated with'? Can you please provide me with an official definition? Can a researcher at university not cite work done by others working at the institution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holgergrundel (talk • contribs)
- For example, if one were a 'Senior Adviser' to a particular group, one should not add links to that group's web site. - MrOllie (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
That's hardly a meaningful explanation and simply license for deleting posts based on your personal judgement. It would have been helpful to get a clearer explanation to enable people like me to contribute to Wikipedia. That's all I am trying to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holgergrundel (talk • contribs)
- You can find the full explanations in the policy links included in the opening message above. I'm not personally inclined to entertain hypotheticals that don't have anything to do with the present situation, but if you have specific questions, you may raise them either at WP:COIN (specific to conflicts of interest) or WP:TEAHOUSE (general questions). - MrOllie (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Holgergrundel, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Holgergrundel! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC) |