User talk:Jennifermaitland

Welcome!

Hello, Jennifermaitland, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Jytdog (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the picture above, is a link to the Teahouse where people can help you learn how this place works. THe helpdesk is here: Wikipedia:Help desk. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SPA /COI

Hi Jennifermaitland. Based on your contributions, your account is what we call a WP:SPA (please read that) and it is higly likely that you have a professional relationship with subjects you have edited. hence this notice:

Hello, Jennifermaitland. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Per the Terms of Use described above, and WP:COI, would you please declare your relationship with subjects you have edited? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not respond to this. I will seek a site ban against you. Please respond. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have familiarized myself with all the terms and conditions. I am a freelance writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifermaitland (talk • contribs) 11:30, 19 March 2015‎ (UTC) [reply]

Your edits are all about Paul Caplin ‎or products of Caplin Systems. Your behavior is that is of a paid editor; what is your relationship with Caplin Systems? Please note that per the Terms of Use you must disclose if you are an employee of one of Caplin's companies or are acting as a contractor for anyone. Must. Paid editors have a place in WP, but only if they follow the Terms of Use and the WP:COI guideline. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I left Caplin Systems in March 2014.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifermaitland (talk • contribs) 19 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, so edits you made before then, were paid edits. The current question is whether you have received or expect to receive consideration for edits you have made since then. Thanks. (also, please sign your posts, as described in the welcome message above, thanks) Jytdog (talk) 13:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and no direct answer here either. so.. ok. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

some background

I don't know if you are aware of all this, but paid editing is a huge issue in WP. We actually have an article about it - please see Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. The issue has raised huge controversy here, with regard to how to handle it. The community is so divided that the Wikimedia Foundation, which owns WP, took the step of adding the requirement that paid editing must be disclosed, to the Terms of Use, back in the summer of 2014. This was in the wake of the Wiki-PR scandal, which is described in the article above. Bottom line is that people come here to warp WP in many ways - some do it because they have an ax to grind, some abuse WP for advertising, and both are difficult to deal with. I personally think paid editors can be great contributors, if they disclose per the ToU and if they make suggestions on the talk page instead of directly editing articles, as described in WP:COI. Sometimes suggestions from paid editors provide research and sourcing that are very useful. And if they recognize the ethics of the situation... most everybody here are volunteers, and does this in their spare time, and when paid editors make demands that volunteers do stuff so that the paid editor can make money... well there is a big ick factor there. Anyway, that is some of the background. Please also see Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms. Jytdog (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The pages that you mention were established pages that I was asked to maintain at the time. I didn't create them. I can see now that you've edited them the remove references to Caplin Systems and I like to ask that you undo these changes as there is now a flag at the top of these entries saying that a major contributor is closely associated with the entry. This is not the case as I have no association with Caplin and I only ever made very minor edits to the pages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifermaitland (talk • contribs) 19 March 2015(UTC)

so you are continuing to ignore my efforts to actually communicate with you, and you are doing the small things that are "tells" of someone who is not here to build an encyclopedia (e.g. you are still not indenting or signing your posts).

I have tried, but am now done trying to engage with you. If you continue to edit in violation of our policies and guidelines you will end up getting blocked. You will do as you will. if you ever want to actually talk, you can drop me a line at my talk page. Good luck! (i mean that) Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I'm confused. I get lots of emails through from you that are blank. I'm not trying to ignore you. I have responded to all the emails with text in them. I am simply saying that I don't mind if you remove anything I ever contributed to the pages we mentioned but please don't have them flagged. I don't even remember what I was asked to add to them and don't wish to be considered a major contributor.

That is a human thing to say, thanks; WP can be confusing and that is why I have been trying to talk with you. (by the way, i have not sent you any emails. You may have set your preferences so that you get an email when someone posts to your Talk page, but that is not me.) (and please sign your posts, as i mentioned before. this is basic etiquette on WP and lots of things depend on it) Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I do get lots of emails through and the links don't work. I am new to Wikipedia as you can tell! Anyway I would very much appreciate it if you could take the "major contributor" labels off those entries as I didn't ever feel I was a major contributor - I was just asked by Paul Caplin himself to make some additions to the entry about him (rockstar turned software CEO) and I thought that was a valid way of using Wikipedia at the time. I'm sorry as I see now that this was considered paid editing. This just wasn't my understanding at the time. I will refrain from adding anything further that is company specific on the site and will stick to the rules which I am now more familiar with. I am actually a very good writer and would like to become an active contributor!

there is a preferences tab at the top of the page. you probably have something set in there, to give you email notifications. if you do want to stick around i suggest you explore them, and see how to change it. there is a "help desk" here and something called the 'tea house" for helping people figure things out - i will post about them here. but i suggest you start by reading the links in the welcome message above. AND SIGN YOUR POSTS!

on the tag issue. i am a volunteer and deal a lot with paid editing and advocacy here. i have my hands full and over full. the tag on the article is a notice that somebody needs to review the article to make sure it complies with our policies and guidelines. when somebody independent and experienced goes through the article, he or she can take the tag off. i will try to do it this weekend. unfortunately we cannot tweak the language, and from a quick glance over the article i think i will find other batches of paid editing in it. so please be patient on that. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand now. I have made the email preference change and have found the tea house. In terms of the tag issue, I actually think both articles are pretty neutral really. All the technologies mentioned in single dealer platforms are well known - I don't think anyone from Adobe or Microsoft has been on there trying to promote themselves. I am not sure about the banks to be honest - I would be suprised if they had but just not sure. There are actually a fair few contributors to the page which looks a lot different to how I remember it, it has been that long! Single dealer platforms are a very valid category and the links to HTML5 are very good too. The page is actually the only resource out there that explains the history of single dealer platforms, and for that reason it is very valuable. As for Paul Caplin's page, he did not create it but I will suggest he manages it from here on in. If he himself posts links to new ventures, will this be considered paid editing? Jennifer (see, I get it eventually :)

when i say sign your posts, i mean type four tildas after it, like this ~~~~ - it will put your name and a datestamp after it. and we thread discussions by putting a colon in front of it - one colon makes one tab in, two colons make two tabs... etc. these are two things that the wikipedia software does when you save your post. that is how i indented this. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Let me give it a try to see if I've got it right. Jennifer Jennifermaitland (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you got it!! Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

to answer your questions above, yes, if Paul posts links to things, those are paid edits. He should not try to "manage his page". In WP, that is a terrible idea - nobody owns anything here or "manages" anything - we are are all more or less equal (although there are "administrators" who have extra powers) Paul can watch the page if he wants, or tell one of his employees to, and whoever that is, should disclose they are conflicted, and should post suggestions for changes on the Talk page. this is all described in the COI guideline, which I have already linked for you several times - here it is again WP:COI. (People are going to send you links to policies and guidelines as you are learning and when you ask questions. please read what is at those links. the welcome message has a bunch of essential ones. there is a lot to learn here... and if you don't take the time to try to learn, by reading what people write to you, they are going to decide you are not really interested in learning and will stop trying to help you). Jytdog (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this place is a community and over the years it has struggled over lots of issues and together, as a community, decided to figure out ways to deal with things. some of them are really fundamental and have wide acceptance - these are "policies". others are maybe less fundamental, or have less acceptance, or exist only to explain some aspect of a policy - these are "guidelines". they define what kind of content is OK, and how we behave toward one another. they are actually deeply wise and they all fit together into a coherent whole, when you understand what is at the heart of them. Jytdog (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have read the guidelines now and will relay that message to Paul. I think a variety of people do contribute to both of those pages and people do find them valuable. Single dealer platforms in particular is a very valuable page and actually does need an update as quite a lot has has happened in that space. I won't attempt to update the page any further at this point though. There are other articles that I could contribute to and new topics as well that my time would be better spent on. Wikipedia is a fascinating project and a very interesting community. Jennifermaitland (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

like i wrote above, i think paid editors can be really valuable, when they declare their COI and offer suggestions on the article Talk page instead of directly editing the article. people who know what they hell they are talking about - VERY useful! but COI erodes trust in the encyclopedia (and often causes scandal and damages the reputation of companies that do it extensively)... that is why offering suggestions on the Talk page meets everybody's needs - good, up to date content can get suggested by a company rep, then can be reviewed for NPOV and quality of sourcing and if it is good, added to the article by a volunteer. that is how it can work well. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think companies these days value it when Wikipedia features even just their area of expertise because this justifies the business as an actual real sector. There is so much research done on the web these days before any sort of product or solution is bought, so I think businesses do benefit a lot from very well written Wikipedia entries dedicated to their specific business area, even without a direct product or company mention. Jennifermaitland (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

great. i hope you can help update that article. good luck! Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome again

Hi Jennifer, and welcome again! It seems you are over the initial hump with regard to being a newbie here. You must consider this incident as just a learning experience, don't let it worry you. There is lots of stuff like that to catch us out, (I consider myself only a tiny bit ahead of you in the learning wikipedia stakes) and there is more to trip you (and me) up if we want to stay around. The number of people here working, all volunteers, is astonishing, and they have built up a lot of regulations, since it would be impossible to create such a project without them. You may have seen WP:PAG (Policy and Guidelines) bandied around a bit, and this is because they are the rules we edit by. Bloody turgid, they are, but if we didn't have them, it would be like the wild west, and wouldn't work.

Take some baby steps with the project if you are keen to be involved. I would suggest you just jump in somewhere, click around. If you make mistakes, don't worry too much, there are lots of people willing to help WP:AGF editors, and we all keep an eye on each other. We also do things like add links to our posts to try to encourage others to read some stuff, (like this; WP:NPOV; which is the policy on 'Neutral Point Of View')

Also remember to ask me or Jytdog questions on our Talk pages if you want, and I'll try to suggest something helpful. Find a topic without a COI, and jump in. Good luck. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 17:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't panic, but I have something else to ask, sorry. I'm a little bit worried that you are routinely using more than one account here, which is a practice called "sockpuppetry" and is frowned upon. Do you have more than one account? I ask, because I can see two accounts that have made very similar edits to yourself on the same and related topics. As I said, do not panic, but do let me know, and we'll deal with it. Best wishes -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 18:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Roxy! Thank you for all your comments and useful advice, very informative and very kind. To answer your most recent question, I think I did create another account not long after creating the first one several years ago (and as you will see the accounts will have edited the same pages). This was simply because at the time I had forgotten the original account details and didn't seem to be able to recover them, so I made a new account in the same name with not disimilar details (and attributed to the same person). Unfortunately I can't delete a Wikipedia account, but I can say that I will only ever contribute from the most recent one. If there is a way of making the older one dormant then that is completely fine. The "forgot password" facility for Wikipedia seems a lot more efficient than it was a few years ago, as only just recently I requested a new password and go one immediately. Hope that answers your question, and again thanks for your advice and support. Jennifermaitland (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to burden you with more crap to read, so just stick to this account, don't use any others, and she'll be right. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 18:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]