User talk:MrMarioNateRuizJr

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! 72Dino (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

Hello, MrMarioNateRuizJr. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Business Insider, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

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.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
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.

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. If you are the PR person for Business Insider, I suggest that you put your recommended changes to the article on its talk page for someone else to post. Your initial edits removed references and added promotional language that does not belong in an encyclopedia. 72Dino (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Hello, I'm MrOllie. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Hello MrMarioNateRuizJr. 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:MrMarioNateRuizJr. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=MrMarioNateRuizJr|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. MrOllie (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you insinuate I have a financial interest in making edits.

I am the PR person for Insider, as Ive made absolutely clear.

Im troubled by what seems an agenda by Wiki editors to make Insider look bad (including slanderous accusations that are not supported by any citation), and by simple errors of fact that are hard to correct. Case in point: the page should be titled Insider, not Business Insider. Why does the entire page choose to focus on Business Insider and not Insider? MrMarioNateRuizJr (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the PR person for Insider, you have an obvious conflict of interest and you should not be editing that article at all, let alone scrubbing criticism from it. As an employee of Insider, WP:PAID obviously applies to you. You should also read WP:NLT, since making claims that material is 'slanderous' is typically construed as a legal threat on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So this gives you license to made edits that are incorrect? How is my edit (making clear that Insider is a news site, not one that just covers business) inaccurate?

Im troubled by your pattern of avoiding facts; seems you have an agenda. Similarly, where is the citation about Insider's casual use of anonymous sources? There's a clear double standard: Im supposed to include careful citations, but this claim is allowed to stand without any backup whatsoever? Who can I appeal to? This is absurd, and a waste of time. MrMarioNateRuizJr (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It gives me license to return the article to the state it was in before your inappropriate edits. You're not supposed to include careful citations - you're not supposed to edit the article at all. You may make suggestions on the talk page. As to the sentence you are concerned about, the lead section of the article summarizes the rest of the article. You will find the citations further down, in the 'Reception' section. If you would like more input, feel free to ask at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard MrOllie (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So rather than deal with the actual merits/facts, you're focusing on procedure. Wonderful.

And Ive made edits before -- no one ever said I was unable to make edits, only that it was helpful if I disclosed, fully, my association with the site.

I'll repeat: Insider is not a business site. You are promulgating misinformation. MrMarioNateRuizJr (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've been ignoring the warnings you received for years. That no one noticed doesn't mean that what you were doing was right. MrOllie (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're fine ignoring the actual facts to focus on procedure.

Just amazing.

Also, if you've paying attention, you'll notice how very careful Ive been over the course of five years.

Again, just amazing how people like you misuse your authority. MrMarioNateRuizJr (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "MrOllie," to be clear: are you stating that I have no right to make edits to the page?

That seems to be what youre implying.

Id rather that you make the explicit, as I do plan to start appealing all this ... MrMarioNateRuizJr (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I will be explicit: your careful efforts to scrub out criticism and turn the article into an advertising piece are wholly inappropriate and are an abuse of Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you feel that way. I've made an honest effort over the years to be within the guidelines. In fact, I've shied away from making too many edits because I see how proprietary are the editors of this page -- as if they own the truth about it. I think your description of my suggested over the years is grossly exaggerated and unfair. MrMarioNateRuizJr (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not made the required disclosures, and you are still inappropriately editing the page on your employer. You really must stop this - you are violating Wikipedia's terms of use. MrOllie (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But am I factually wrong? of course not

let's continue to lose the forest for the trees MrMarioNateRuizJr (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

furtermore, stop misrepresenting me and my actions. Ive already fully disclosed that Im the head of comms for Insider. Ive never hidden this fact. MrMarioNateRuizJr (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a collaborative project. No single editor has any right of ownership or control over the content of an article, particularly those who are affiliated with its subject. When disagreements arise over content, a process of civil discussion and compromise should be held on the article's talk page, with the goal of achieving consensus. If that fails to resolve the disagreement, further dispute resolution measures can be employed. Editors in dispute should avoid edit warring as this is considered disruptive editing and can lead to sanctions against one or both parties. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Nicholas Carlson

The article Nicholas Carlson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject is not notable, per WP:BIO. Could not find RS that cover the subject that are not created by the company he works for or an interview subject has given. Article was initially created by a user with a WP:PAID COI

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]