User talk:Security in mind

July 2021

Hello Security in mind. 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:Security in mind. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Security in mind|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) 14:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Hi MrOllie. I am not paid for my edits nor paid per edits. Are subject matter expert, working for a company developing a solution, allowed to improve Wikipedia content of such solution without posting such mandatory disclosure? Please advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Security in mind (talk • contribs)

If you are working for the company you are considered a paid editor. Please read the links in the above message. - MrOllie (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully my new user page will do what you are looking for. Thanks for the advice. - Security in mind (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just making sure you saw that note, MrOllie. Security in mind (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the disclosure, but that doesn't mean you should then carry on as you have been. Please see have a read of Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. - MrOllie (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it, and edits I have made so far follow the rules of documenting facts. Your last reversal is actually now creating a page that contains false and confusing information about the different implementations. While the vendor is the same, the implementation and product is actually different. Please answer to the Talk page of Comparison of cryptographic libraries as to why you are removing facts. Security in mind (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes: "Do not edit or create articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors." "Post suggestions and sources on the article's talk page, or in your user space." "Post requested edits on the article's talk page using {{request edit}}, or ask for help at Conflict of Interest collaboration project or at the Conflict of interest noticeboard." - MrOllie (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2021 (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) 19:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrOllie: be my guest... Security in mind (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

I have blocked MrSaul76 for personal attacks and a battleground approach to editing Wikipedia. You are warned for personal attacks as well. While not as shrill as MrSaul76's behavior, it is nonetheless inappropriate. Your belated application of COI notices to your userpage is noted. You are expected to provide sources for your edits, not merely assertions. You are also expected to abide by the conflict of interest policy. I closed the AN3 complaint as meritless, it is not a forum for further complaints by you or a means to win an argument, and I have removed your last comment. Bring sources, and stop treating other editors as opponents. Acroterion (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion: may I ask that you point me to the phrase, comment, edit where I may have done such personal attacks so that I understand where I may have crossed such border, but also not do cross it again? I have always been very careful in my messages. Also, where is the good forum to win an argument (that obviously MrOllie and I have been having in a non aggressive manner? I tried the 3rd Opinion route, but unfortunately the topic at stake seems to have been too complex for the 3rd party who looked at that issue according to that user's comments.

"User:MrOllie|MrOllie is reducing the quality of the main articles, while I am trying to maintain it." While not a particularly egregious personal attack, it is clearly personalized against an editor who simply disagrees with you, and who is by their own lights maintaining the encyclopedia. You are being disagreed with. Stop making it about another editor, the onus is on you to explain and reference your edits. The appearance of MrSaul76 with much more focused antagonism has not helped, and your support of their behavior is a poor choice.

Additionally, from your AN3 complaint " Am I a RS on a subject? Yes. Am I a subject expert matter on the topics I write about? Of course!"

No, you're not a reliable source, you're somebody writing things on the internet. No editor is a reliable source. Find published sources, don't assert that you know better. Acroterion (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand that some users may feel offended, or feel personally attacked by my comments, they are by no mean a personal attack WP:NPA#WHATIS, but rather an Accusation. Yes, some people may feel personally attacked by accusations, but those are behavioral feelings and each person react differently. Are accusations allowed on WP? Should I be more explicit in saying I accuse MrOllie of reducing the quality of the main articles by removing elements considered unique about a topic, and modifying articles to place scandals first rather than where it should belong within the entire article? Why isn't the Volkswagen US diesel emission fraud topic at the top of the Volkswagen article then? Why is there different treatment applied to different articles? and note that I am totally against personal attacks. This leads nowhere. I did not use any bad words, I did not call MrOllie of any name. I accused him. Why should WP users be branded with a Personal attack title when there is nothing personal in this accusation? With regards to RS, well, I will no from now on. I thought that a WP user putting a badge that he's working at NASA, and writing about NASA topics, could be considered a reliable source. But you are right, we all hide behind a moniker, no one really know who we are, and if some know, I hope they will maintain privacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Security in mind (talk • contribs)

This isn't a debate. You are assuming bad faith of another editor who simply disagrees with you. Stop that. Please read WP:AGF, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. You will gain an understanding of what is a reliable source - editors' personal knowledge is a useful context that allows editors to make informed choices about referencing to reliable sources. You may not write about what you know - you must write about what reliable sources say. Acroterion (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is a debate. In this section I am being accused of Personal Attack while there was nothing personal or misplaced. It was not an attack but an accusation. Two very different words and having different impacts. Don't WP users have any recourse when wrongfully being accused? What should I do to defend myself? With regards to good faith, thanks for the article, good reading actually which will give me some good arguments in Comparison of TLS implementations. - Security in mind (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]