User talk:Opala22

Hello, Opala22. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Joshua Waitzkin, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. 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 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. Melcous (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extra note

As an employee of the person you have made edits about, you should also be aware of the following:

Hello Opala22. 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:Opala22. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Opala22|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. Melcous (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Emily, thanks for making your relationship clear and for using the request edit template on the article talk page. To follow up, just one more request - can you please use the Template:Paid on your user page? And by way of explanation, you will see that another editor has declined your edit request. This is for two reasons:

The wording you proposed is still what would be seen here as promotional rather than encyclopedic, particularly for the opening paragraph of a biography. These will generally start with the person's nationality and occupation, followed by a brief summary of what is detailed and referenced in the rest of the article. See MOS:BLPLEAD for more details.
Wikipedia works by including what has been published in reliable, independent, secondary sources rather than what people have said about themselves. So Josh's own website is not an acceptable source. If there are specific achievements that you think have not been mentioned in the article, please provide a link on the talk page to an independent source.

Cheers, Melcous (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi Emily, the edit request you made on 13 March was placed on the article (see here), rather than on the talk page, which is why it was removed. However, even then, the change you are proposing to the opening paragraph of the article is not an improvement. It removes any of the links and correct formatting, and all it adds is things like "8x" "2x" and the name of his book, which are specific details that are covered later in the article and do not belong in the opening sentence which is an introductory overview, which is exactly what both Spintendo and Altamel told you back in January when you made the same request. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]