User talk:MWJDWiki

October 2018: Inappropriate changes to Fred Baier

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Please note that Wikipedia is not the place for you to post your résumé, curriculum vitae, or similar material. It is also unlikely that anyone will ever see it, and anyone can alter the info you post. Please read this policy page describing what Wikipedia is not. Your résumé or CV will soon be deleted as this constitutes advertising, which is not allowed. You may also want to read our policies on conflicts of interest and autobiographies. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More detail on Wikipedia policies

As you are editing a page at the request of the subject, before attempting further edits, you need to read and review Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy, that would be the biggest concern regarding your edits. It is not necessarily a complete ban on editing or providing input to the article e.g. deletion of unreferenced and contentious information may be permissible. However, your edit also deleted existing content, and certain features such as categories, templates and other formatting items that are important to the development Wikipedia articles. Such features and material should not be deleted or changed without valid reason and at least some understanding of their purpose.

If you have further questions, raise these at Wikipedia:Teahouse. You could also review introductory pages such as Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. Hopefully that better explains some of the issues at play here. Dl2000 (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll do as you suggest.

In the mean time, please leave the page as currently stands. I'll get back to you when I've made the appropriate revisions.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by MWJDWiki (talk • contribs) 07:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MWJDWiki. 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).

I know this is unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on.

I fixed the indenting, and added a signature for you, in your post above. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Thanks for your guidance. I'm confident I've avoided all these pitfalls.

If you disagree, please advise.

Otherwise, please run the Fred Baier page as below.

<redact> — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎MWJDWiki (talk • contribs) 16:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You overwrote my note to you.

Did you intend to do that? Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk As far as I'm aware, I haven't overwritten anyone's notes to me. If inadvertently I have done so, please accept my apology. In the mean time, I'm more interested in uploading the new Fred Baier page. User:MWJDWiki/MWJDWiki "~~~~"

Click on the link on the word "overwrote". That link is called a "diff". You overwrote my comment. That is a fact - there is no "if" about it.

Please acknowledge that.

Thanks for indenting your comment. To sign your comment, type four tildas. Do not type the "no wiki" markup -- just the four tildas. Jytdog (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that I overwrote. Please forgive this and all other breaches of Wikipedia protocol. Once I've finished here I promise I shan't be returning.

Can we now proceed to the question at issue, whether my text on Fred Baier violates Wiki COI standards, and if so how? MWJDWiki (talk) 07:47, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read the message I left here, instead of overwriting it, you would know that you must disclose your employer and the client when you edit for pay in Wikipedia. I am done trying to have a conversation with you. See the message I will leave at the bottom of this page. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

I have reverted your edits at the article for a number of reasons including that they did not correctly provide/cite reliable sources; that they removed important formatting, and that they introduced what appeared to be promotional or at least non-neutral content. As you have a conflict of interest you are requested to propose changes on the article's talk page instead of editing it directly. You can do this most easily using the Template:Request edit. It is better if you propose changes one at a time rather than changing the whole article at once - then you can say for example "Replace x with y" and provide a reliable source for that specific change requested. Thank you, Melcous (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, why? What's it to you? There's nothing contentious or uncorroborated in my text. Or if there is, forget about protocol: tell me what it is. I have a life, you know.MWJDWiki (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Fred Baier shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mandatory paid editing disclosure

Hello MWJDWiki. 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:MWJDWiki. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=MWJDWiki|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) 15:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have already stated that I am not being paid for this. If only I were, given the extraordinary waste of my time it has entailed. So please drop that line.

I'm getting pretty tired of your continual objections regarding procedure and protocol. To what in the content do you object? And to whom do I refer regarding your entirely negative interjections?

MWJDWiki (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you wrote here that you are not being paid. You put it in an edit note, instead of replying simply to me.

So...you do have a conflict of interest, just not one that arises from being paid. Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict of interest is presumably because I know the subject, who requested that I update his entry. I'd be surprised if something similar wasn't the case for the vast majority of entries relating to living people. The issue – surely – is not whether the subject is known to me. It's whether what I've written is objective and accurate. I'm still waiting to be told why this is not the case.MWJDWiki (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia, redux

As I mentioned in the email, let's start over. Here is the message I originally left about COI. Please read it, and then reply, and we can move on to the next step.

Hi MWJDWiki. I spend time working on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing, which is mostly about health and medicine. I am not an administrator. Your edits to date are promotional with respect to Fred Baier.

Lots of people come to Wikipedia with some sort of conflict of interest and are not aware of how the editing community defines and manages 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, MWJDWiki. 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. 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, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with 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).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. 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. Unmanaged conflicts of interest can also lead to people behaving in ways that violate our behavioral policies and cause disruption in the normal editing process. Managing conflict of interest well, also protects conflicted editors themselves - please see WP:Wikipedia is in the real world, and Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia for some guidance and stories about people who have brought bad press upon themselves through unmanaged conflict of interest editing.

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).

You have already disclosed that you know Fred and want to update his page as a favor to him. Would you please reply to this, and just let me know you read it? Then 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, so that you understand what kind of content is OK here in Wikipedia. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 03:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Morning. I've read your message, and would welcome your assistance. Many thanks.MWJDWiki (talk) 12:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]