User talk:Mexi-Kiwi Mike

Mexi-Kiwi Mike, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Mexi-Kiwi Mike! 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 Nick Moyes (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Hello, Mexi-Kiwi Mike. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Bahman Tavoosi, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest 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, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
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 are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you read WP:COI, which bit of "....you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly; you are prohibited from making more than trivial updates directly..''" did you not understand ? Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Velella, then why don't you edit the article using the provided information instead of just reverting it, if there is unbalanced information. Or do you just want to waste my time and ensure I don't get paid anything during a lockdown that has destroyed my normal business? This one gig would feed me and my family for a week! I've already requested admin help to resolve the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mexi-Kiwi Mike (talk • contribs) 17:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already disclosed the COI. Or are you on a crusade to ensure only people who don't disclose COIs can publish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mexi-Kiwi Mike (talk • contribs) 17:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, digging deeper. Rather than engaging in Edit Warring, please refer to Dispute resolution. "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text." So, rather than reverting everything, you should be specific.

I have done my best at complying with best practice, but wholesale revertion even with the COI flagged is also a breach of best practice.

If you disagree then I am happy to accept any Third opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mexi-Kiwi Mike (talk • contribs) 18:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

@Mexi-Kiwi Mike:, the paid editing policy clearly states:

you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly; you are prohibited from making more than trivial updates directly.
you may propose changes on talk pages by using the {{request edit}} template or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed;

In this case you have done neither, therefore in my opinion Velella (talk · contribs) was correct in reverting it. The edits you made are much more then trivial and therefore you are prohibited from making them. Please use the {{request edit}} template, or post on the COI noticeboard. - - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 18:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what little it may be worth, I did also review your edits and even without COI, much would have been reverted. Unsourced sentences and sentences sourced to IMDB and Facebook, would not have passed muster. What your employer wants, and what the sources say may be at odds here. In Wikipedia, it is the sources that hold sway. Please propose any substantive changes on the talk page as requested above and everything should be good as gold. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rich Smith: @Velella:, ok, I disagree with the reasoning, but accept your much greater experience and the process. I will independently edit and put the new details in that way later. Maybe you could see your way to integrating those changes?

Can you clarify why IMDB isn't an authoritative source for movies? What would be permitted? Because these movies, and the other additional one I added that is no longer shown do exist.

I am used to editing other community wikis which are a lot more constructive with regards to edits, I felt the response I got was punitive, unconstructive, and hostile, and I am under a LOT of stress.

I see that Wikipedia has tightened up a LOT since the early days when I last posted (no idea the username but it'll be for an email address I no longer have access to)

@Mexi-Kiwi Mike: thank you for your understanding, it is appreciated. In relation to the {{request edit}} it should be used something like this on the talk page of the article:

Information to be added or removed: ADD TEXT HERE
Explanation of issue: ADD TEXT HERE
References supporting change: ADD URL AT LEAST

~~~~

As for the COI noticeboard, that just needs a new section explaining what edits you wish to make (maybe use the same kind of format as above).

Now, IMDb isn't a reliable source, as much like Wikipedia, a lot of it is user contributed so it's seen by most reviewers as an unacceptable source. Hope that all helps, again thanks for being understanding - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 20:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb

Hello Mexi-Kiwi Mike,

I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Citing IMDb because that essay reflects the thinking of most editors who work on film related articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Mexi-Kiwi Mike! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, I've been asked to edit a page and I'm being paid. Now all edits are being reverted by another user despite disclosure purely because of the COI., has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]