User talk:Sourya936
November 2022
[edit]
Hello, I'm Raydann. I noticed that you recently removed content from Future Investment Initiative Institute without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 14:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi there Raydann Sourya936 (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hoping you are fine. I work in comms department. Please note that the featuring of the Kashogi incident is defamatory content especially when the institute is keen on global inclusion, peace and making an impact on humanity Sourya936 (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Such articles truly dampen our efforts to do something for global betternment. Kindly take it down please. Sourya936 (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Can you please look into our activities in the past years and see that the sub article has no link to anything we stand for. Sourya936 (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- I can understand why you would prefer the information concerned not to be in the article. The information in question is summarised as "some speakers and sponsors who had planned to attend the event withdrew pending the outcome of investigations". Nothing in the article actually suggests that your organisation was involved in or responsible for the events which led to people withdrawing, but it is conceivable that some people might infer a connection between your organisation and the murder, even though the article doesn't actually say there was one. On the other hand, the statements in the article do appear to be factually correct, and a large-scale and publicised withdrawal by a number of would-be participants is a sufficiently significant fact related to the event that supressing the information because you don't want people to be aware of it probably can't be justified. Wikipedia does not seek to suppress mention of true and relevant information because someone orvsome organisation involved doesn't like that information to be publicised. Perhaps a reasonable compromise might be to leave the information there, but add a note indicating that there was no suggestion that your organisation was to blame. I will look at the sources cited in the article, and if necessary also other published accounts, and see whether I can find anything which supports such a statement. JBW (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. Kindly look into this Sourya936 (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
- I can understand why you would prefer the information concerned not to be in the article. The information in question is summarised as "some speakers and sponsors who had planned to attend the event withdrew pending the outcome of investigations". Nothing in the article actually suggests that your organisation was involved in or responsible for the events which led to people withdrawing, but it is conceivable that some people might infer a connection between your organisation and the murder, even though the article doesn't actually say there was one. On the other hand, the statements in the article do appear to be factually correct, and a large-scale and publicised withdrawal by a number of would-be participants is a sufficiently significant fact related to the event that supressing the information because you don't want people to be aware of it probably can't be justified. Wikipedia does not seek to suppress mention of true and relevant information because someone orvsome organisation involved doesn't like that information to be publicised. Perhaps a reasonable compromise might be to leave the information there, but add a note indicating that there was no suggestion that your organisation was to blame. I will look at the sources cited in the article, and if necessary also other published accounts, and see whether I can find anything which supports such a statement. JBW (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Future Investment Initiative Institute, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Roundish ⋆tc) 14:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Sourya936. We welcome your contributions, 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.
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. JBW (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)