User talk:Ronna2023

Promotional editing

Hello, I'm David Eppstein. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to University of Erlangen–Nuremberg 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.

Please see also Wikipedia:Username policy which forbids corporate user names like "Justa Public Relations" and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure which demands that paid contributors disclose their paid nature. I am strongly tempted to immediately block you as violating both. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, thank you for your points. My name is Ronna Porter, I will indeed take steps to change my user name as you suggest and to disclose paid contribution as a long term advisor to this German university in native-English technology, science, and business communication, and as someone trying to make factual changes to this page in good faith, and in line with what I see elsewhere on commensurate university pages, and in fact highly reminiscent of the introductory section to your university in terms of information and context provided.

The drive for the initiative is indeed to update and correct many factual inaccuracies that have appeared over the last several years in this page. For example, FAU is not the second largest university in Bavaria, and many of the affiliations listed on the original date are no longer correct (and indeed, some of the names of the affiliated organizations have changed from those stated here). It is a full-spectrum university, which may not be unusual in the US - where you are - but is far less common in Germany, where this university is, and which is why this point is made.

I am also trying to help the university to follow best practice on many recommended university sites. Many far more current independent sources had been added to this page - such as from WEForum and the websites of German newspapers and funding agencies - but you have removed them. Up to date statistics such as number of employees/professors, students, budget, etc. had replaced out of date statistics. Current university seal and logo had replaced outdated ones. It is not surprising that either source information in German, or in German/English from the University itself is the best reference point.

So I ask that you remove this undoing and point out specific areas of concern that can be addressed - many thanks.

As a university professor yourself, perhaps competing with FAU in some areas, can I please ask you to point out to the community any points of conflict, competition, or bias that you may have in this context.

Regards, Ronna Porter JustaPR (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ronna2023, thank you for requesting a rename, which has been performed by now. As you have a conflict of interest, I'll add standardized advice in a new section below. As described there, please do not continue editing the article directly; edits can be requested by opening Talk:University of Erlangen–Nuremberg and clicking the text "request corrections or suggest content" in the orange warning box at the top of that page.

Continuing to edit against others' concerns would likely be seen as disruptive ("reject[ing] or ignor[ing] community input") and/or as a form or edit warring, both of which can lead to a block from editing.

Regarding David Eppstein's profession, I'm afraid that while your question is an understandable one to make, your concern lacks an actual foundation. David Eppstein is a highly experienced Wikipedia editor who has contributed to tens of thousands of articles over more than a decade. This experience comes with awareness of the conflict of interest guideline and disclosure requirements. Your request seems to imply a fear of bias, but the only bias I expect David Eppstein to have is one in favor of Wikipedia's policies, and against promotion.

So instead of referring to other Wikipedia articles which may be similarly promotional, and instead of questioning the competence of a very well competent advisor, please focus on article content in your edit requests.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ToBeFree, unfortunately the starting point is completely flawed and I recommend a different starting point which the University in question is trying to update both factually, with citations, and in good faith, as pointed out in my previous message to David Eppstein. What, specifically, is considered to be "highly promotional." Best regards, Ronna2023 (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noone is questioning your good intentions. The issue that became apparent in sentences such as "This full-spectrum university focuses on innovation, interdisciplinary research and “Moving Knowledge” (university motto) in a holistic way" and even on your user page ("over two decades of in-depth experience in integrated marketing communications, strategic PR, online content, and social media for some of the world's leading ICT and energy companies as well as public sector organizations in an international business-to-business context") is that you are unaware of how much your conflict of interest, and your general professional focus on promotional writing, have influenced your Wikipedia editing. This is a common issue described by the conflict of interest guideline, and a good reason to ask you not to edit the article directly again.

If there are specific changes you'd like to propose, please click "request corrections or suggest content" at Talk:University of Erlangen–Nuremberg.

Oh, and looking at [1], please take a moment to clarify that you are one single person having exclusive control of this account. No password sharing. If I understand the text "[PK1]If we go for this we need good sources. Do you have an idea?" correctly, it accidentally disclosed that your text has been written collaboratively before having been submitted through your account. This may be incompatible with Wikipedia's policy against copyright violations unless everyone involved had knowingly irrevocably released their contributions under the CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL licenses, being aware that the only attribution they'd ever receive is "Ronna2023". If I may guess, this is not the case and you have, strictly speaking, violated their copyright or at least Wikipedia's policies about it. It also shows that whoever wrote that note is aware of the issues you are asking about: Perhaps you could ask them why "good sources" are needed if you "go for this". Chances are that an honest answer already explains exactly what David Eppstein complained about. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this helpful feedback. I am trying my best to follow the editor feedback in all the different locations, which are new and confusing to me. I am trying to do this in a way that is factual, meaningful, constructive, necessarily brief and interesting to readers while trying to understand and action according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (verifiability, neutrality, no original research et cetera). Please bear in mind, that I am also trying to find English-language citations rather than the more plentiful German-language citations.

(1) Regarding "This full-spectrum university focuses on innovation, interdisciplinary research and “Moving Knowledge” (university motto) in a holistic way". I will try indirectly to re-submit the changes I had recommended in the interest of factual accuracy, verifiability, and current relevance without the contested sentence. I will click "request corrections or suggest content" at Talk:University of Erlangen–Nuremberg.

(2) Regarding user page. I added this on David Eppstein's recommendation to be open and transparent about my potential conflict of interest. The information given - "over two decades of in-depth experience in integrated marketing communications, strategic PR, online content, and social media for some of the world's leading ICT and energy companies as well as public sector organizations in an international business-to-business context" - is true and verifiable. However, you deem it as promotional, so I will change.

(3) I confirm, Ronna2023 is indeed my account alone. I have been open and transparent that I am an communication advisor to FAU. I and my client are aware of the need for verifiable citations, which is why I researched added several. I attest that there are no Wikipedia policy against copyright violations.

Regards,

~~~~ Ronna2023 (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English citations are fine, and preferred if they're of higher quality. When comparing equally reliable sources, the language of course makes a difference and English is preferred then. The section of the verifiability policy describing this is WP:NOTENG, which you may already correctly be referring to, though.

Having worked for a specific amount of time is a fact. Having worked for "over two decades" is already a slightly subjective way of making the number look large. I used the same rhetorical device above ("more than a decade") with the same intention; I could have said "16 years" instead. "In-depth experience" is subjective. "Some of the world's leading" is rather promotional, although I understand that (more factually) naming specific ones may not be desirable (and of course isn't required). In my opinion, you shouldn't be required to change this; the way you describe yourself on your user page should be almost entirely your own choice. The community doesn't always agree about this, and user pages are sometimes overzealously deleted for containing even proper COI disclosures that happen to be written promotionally. I had only mentioned it to show the general issue.

Regarding the edit request, thank you very much for creating one. I'm afraid it can't be (positively) answered in its current form, which is just a copy of the entire article, modified with many changes that should instead be requested individually. A good request could look like this:

Please replace the following sentence:

This is an example sentence.

By:

This is my replacement.

Reference: example.com/good-source

Reason: The original sentence lacks a citation directly verifying the material. The reliable source example.com (listed in green at WP:RSP) can be used to verify my replacement.

Doing this for every desired change has the benefit of allowing discussion where discussion is needed, and direct implementation where no discussion is needed.

If you compare yours with my example above, I hope you agree that it is comparatively hard to productively answer your request in its current form. Do feel free to edit it, perhaps even remove it entirely and re-create it in the above form.

Regarding account and password, thank you very much for the clarification and no worries then.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, two days ago I requested changes one by one using the process that you require, but since then there has been no discussion or feedback received. Can you please advise on the usual waiting time for factual changes. I noted 48 hours ago that there was a backlog of 109 requests awaiting review and this does not seem to have changed since then. I look forward to seeing some of these factual updates (like university audited statistics, university seal and logo) with the appropriate citations to be reviewed in the next days. Many thanks, ~~~~ Ronna2023 (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to a volunteer community where your request is one of many and there is no "next days" guarantee. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome :-) No next day's guarantee expected or required - I always value people's time, especially if given voluntarily or to contribute to a bigger goal like supporting scientific research and education. I'm just trying to find the most efficient and effective way to make factual edits so that I can understand and adjust appropriately on the elements considered to be 'promotional.' ~~~~ Ronna2023 (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no worries then – the edit requests have been made correctly and have been added to the queue; they will be answered sooner or later. By splitting the request into smaller, easier-to-implement and easier-to-discuss changes, you have already done the best to ensure a quick answer to at least easy cases such as numbers updates. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated. Ronna2023 (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Ronna2023, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

We generally welcome your editing, 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 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, clients, 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 Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

If you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia independently of your conflicts of interest, the Task Center and the community portal provide helpful ideas.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, you are welcome to ask questions at the Teahouse, especially about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (verifiability, neutrality, no original research et cetera). Article-specific questions, on the other hand, are best asked on the respective article's talk page.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the helpful guidance. I am trying my best to follow the editor feedback in all the different locations, which are new and confusing to me. I am indeed trying my best to do this in a way that is meaningful, constructive, necessarily brief and interesting to readers while trying to understand and action according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (verifiability, neutrality, no original research et cetera). ~~~~ Ronna2023 (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2023 (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. The thread is University of Erlangen–Nuremberg. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]