User talk:SunnyG81

June 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Flexible electronics, did not appear constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SunnyG81, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi SunnyG81! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Printed circuit board, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Hi. It looks like you are new. We never move a page without a discussion and a consensus. Also, capitalization should comply with WP:MOS. Constant314 (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Wikipedia:Moving a page before you try to move a page. Especially notice section 6. You are supposed to take care of all that if you move a page. Constant314 (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I went ahead and reverted these moves. If you think the pages should be moved, you can open a new section on the talk page of those articles to discuss the proposed move. Constant314 (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Page Moves

Hello, I noticed that you moved other pages. You should revert those moves as they were done without a consensus and it does not appear that you did the required cleanup. Constant314 (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New editor needs help

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Hello, I believe I've made a COI not fully aware of the rules and guidelines and would like to fix it. First of all, after reviewing my case, if punishment is appropriate, I'd accept it with understanding! However, I'd like to explain the situation in more detail and also see if you can assist me with what I was trying to do, if feasibly accepted by wikiepedia standards.

So, I opened a wikipedia account several months back and started editing. Please see the list of my contributions as evidence. I believe I made good-faith edits for the best interest of the community and my goal is to share information in my field. I opened an anonymous user because I saw a warning about potential risks, but hadn't gave it much thought at the time.

Specifically, my expertise is with electronic circuits and also I own a website where I published an article on PCB via and PCB design. It is a 6000-word article and it took me over a month to prepare, also there is intention for elaborating it in the future for the sole purpose of knowledge sharing. I can say that this is the output of years worth of information gathering in this field. I felt its appropriate to write and share freely this information on my website and also thought wikipedia readers could benefit from. There is no promotional intent in this article whatsoever - although there is an internal reference within the article on my website to my home page (only one link "electronic design services" within a 6000-word article), this is more a search engine requirement that internal linking within a website are maintained and that these links are not considered navigational links. I try to keep it at the minimum.

As I said, I'd really hoped that this article would be cited as a reference in two pages "Electronic circuit board" and "Via (electronics)" where it is most appropriate, and I can say that every effort was made to maintain correct information on my article. Also, please note, on my article I sign by MY NAME. That's a huge responsibility and I have to make sure I've done everything possible to keep the information correct. I also keep a references section and try to cite my sources often. However, now I understand that I'm a COI and also a self-published by wikipedia standards. I honestly think the information could serve the readers but veteran community members told me they cannot use it even if they think the information is correct and informative. Actually, for that I wasn't prepared. I understand better the wikipedia guidelines now, although cannot accept why cant self-judgment be made by the community to judge between a good source and a bad source.

As you may know, PCB world is described by a series of IPC standards. These cost money and aren't freely available. So what can the community do in the absence of vital learning information? As for me, 15 years of work in the field have matured such that I'm able and willing to share my knowledge, freely and on an add-free website. The article is not promotional by any means and is done with good intention toward the community. I hope you can exercise case-by-case judgment and help to add this valuable source as reference.

I do think that wikipedia standards of verifiability and reliable sources (after I became aware of them only last week), are not well adapted to this new world. For example, an online magazine would qualify as a reliable source or at least a potentialy peer reviewed source to some degree. It may be the case for some magazines, while for many others I know for a fact that they accept content freely or with a small fee, and there is not really a peer review or even basic fact checking. On the other hand I sign by name as mentioned. So honestly can't understand why wikipedia editor community cant evaluate source by source based on contents. And hope perhaps an admin within this field can make such judgment call.

I also want to identify myself as COI as it required and this was clearly my mistake. Again I believe I made good-faith edits for the best interest of the community. I don't know if I need to change the account name for that or to do something else, if you can advise what to do it would be highly appreciated.

Best wishes SunnyG81 (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't punish editors here, especially those seeking help to work within the rules. Blocks are not a punishment, but a means to end disruption to Wikipedia. If you are not disruptive, you have nothing to worry about.

It is indeed a conflict of interest for you to make edits about your own website and possibly your field depending on what edits you want to make. Please review WP:COI for information on how to declare one. There are formal ways of doing so, but a simple statement explaining what your COI is on your user page(User:SunnyG81) would suffice. You should not directly make edits related to your COI in most cases(see this link for exceptions), instead you may make edit requests(click for instructions) on the article talk page, detailing changes you feel are needed. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 331dot, I will follow your guidelines. best wishes SunnyG81 (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advice for COI editor

@SunnyG81:, I thought that I would offer interpretation on the admin’s advice as it applies to you. Notice that this is on your talk page, so that if I get it wrong, perhaps some other editor will comment. First, on your user page User:SunnyG81, not your talk page, put a simple statement like: “I have a WP:COI relationship with <company name> and <web-site>.” That is all you need. You do not need to identify yourself or your exact relationship with the company.

The list of actions that you should avoid is fairly short.

Do not create an article about you or your company.
Do not edit any article about you or your company if someone else creates it.
Do not edit articles about your clients. You would want to avoid this anyway for commercial liability reasons anyway.
Do not link to your web-site or use your web-site as a source.
Do not copy and paste any (including your own) copyrighted material into Wikipedia. You can paraphrase copyrighted material. In case of material to which you have the rights, there is a mechanism to give permission to Wikipedia to use the material. I mostly see this in connection with images. The second image on Star quad cable is an example of a copyrighted image placed in a Wikipedia article with permission of the copyright holder.

Things you can do

Join any talk page discussion.
Request other editors to make edits on those articles for which you have a conflict of interest. There is a talk page template for that. See Talk:3M for examples. You can discuss the request just like any other editor.
Edit any other article including articles about PCB, Vias, and flex circuits as long as you provide a reliable source other than your own website for any facts that you introduce. You do not need a reliable source to simply polish the writing. However, if some other editor thinks that you changed the meaning, then you may get reverted.

Recommendations for now

Avoid any COI articles for now.
Avoid moving any pages without a discussion. Feel free to contact me for advice.
Avoid repurposing any articles without a discussion. For example, changing and article about Vias to an article about only PCB Vias. In that case, I agreed with the repurposing, but there should have been a discussion.
On the left side of any article there is a tool called “Page information”. If you click that, you can see how many people are watching the page. For example, on Via (electronics) the Number of page watchers is 52 and the Number of page watchers who visited recent edits is 5. That is not very many. That means it might take a while before you get a reply to talk page proposals, so please be patient.

Feel free to contact me on my talk page. Constant314 (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Constant314: Thank you very much Constant314, I will definitely follow your advice and guidelines closely. SunnyG81 (talk) 00:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]