User talk:WLBHFLU23

A cookie for you!

Hello MelanieRJAS! I hope you don't mind me looking in- I see you've had a few issues, and got off to a rocky start? That's a shame, I wondered whether we could do something about it. I see people have already explained the question of copyright attribution to you, so I'm not going to re-hash that. It's a shame perhaps that the templates used can come across as- shall we say- slightly clinical? It's so everyone gets told the same thing, but of course, in a certain light, they can appear rather blunt. I think an issue that we could usefully resolve here is the one raised on Dlohcierekim's page, regarding your perceived conflict of interest. Wait- before you blank the page! ;) this isn't a capital offence, and no-one is saying that you shouldn't edit any such articles. Really, what is being suggested, is that if people were aware of your connection to a subject, they will understand your attachment, but also, perhaps, view you as an expert. And experts- particularly local ones- are extremely useful for discovering reliable sources that other editors wouldn't. The problem arises if the 'expert' cannot see the wood for the trees. That is, being unable to recognise when encyclopaedic material drifts into sounding... unencyclopaedic- which i think might be what happened earlier? If I could make a suggestion- since, really, Wikipedia as a community is based on mutual discussions to establish a preferred way forward- how bout you make suggestions on the article talk page, and then a third party can enter the information neutrally? That's not to say you have to do that in every article you want to edit, merely the things close to you. I understand that might sound harsh, as those are, perhaps,the things you most want to edit- but we have plenty here to choose from, and I usually point out to editors in this position that although they might think they're only here for one thing, it's easy to find something else one has an interest in along the way. Anyway; tl;dr: re-word your edits into your own thoughts; discuss suggestions to artices with others before you make the edits; and there's five million+ articles here- 99% of them need improvement- so happy editing! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 18:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing

Hello MelanieRJAS. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Richard Johnson Anglican School. 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.
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, 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:MelanieRJAS. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=MelanieRJAS|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. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 02:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)