User talk:Trees32

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Trees32. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Charmaine Williams, 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 article subjects 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 {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
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, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Tacyarg (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Socking

Hello, Trees32, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as TrueTy (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. VViking_TalkEdits 13:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Please avoid casting aspersions against other editors. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charmaine Williams

Hi, I've seen your post on my Talk page and the report you made at AIV. I want to set your mind at rest about whether I have a conflict of interest regarding Charmaine Williams. I do not. I had not heard of her until your edit showed up in Recent Edits tagged possible BLP issue or vandalism, possible unreferenced addition to BLP, references removed. You can see from the article's history that I had not edited it previously. When I looked at your edit, I saw that you had added statements that did not read neutrally, such as

played a pivotal role in several initiatives that significantly impacted the community
Her commitment to social justice
Through her beliefs and values gained in her work experience they helped to enhance her drive to advocate for her fellow citizens

These statements may well be true - but you had not added references to support them. This meant that they read promotional and made me think that you may be, work for or represent Williams yourself. I therefore reverted your changes and posted on your Talk page above about a possible conflict of interest.

Responding to your specific comments on my Talk page:

Does the user themself get to update on their own life or staff? The subject of the article, and her staff, should not edit the article directly. They can use the Request Edit template to suggest edits on the article's Talk page, supplying references for new information. These will be seen by uninvolved editors who can make the changes if they agree with them.
The original article that showcases her in a white suit seems to have subtle inserts of bias ... it also highlights articles from cbc and other impartial news reports like cp24 (why are sources from the news which we know lies and is inaccurate sometimes ok?) I'm not informed enough about Canadian news sources to answer this. You could raise it on the article's Talk page, on the reliable sources noticeboard, at WP:WikiProject Canada, or at the teahouse, which is a very useful resource for new editors.
where mine linked Toronto metropolitan university's article that didn't even mention her I don't understand why you would want to reference a web page that doesn't mention Williams.

I hope that answers your question about whether I have a CoI relating to Williams, and helps you to understand why your edits have been reverted. Tacyarg (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I understood what you were saying about compliancy and have re-read the asks and have went back and only made minor edits. Again some which have been changed back.

Ex. "Provincial politics" being edited to look properly "Provincial Politics" (along with the other titles) or "black" as in person and changing it to "Black" as it is politically correct to do so since it a race of people.

Ex 2. Changing the photo to a more present and clear photo instead of the one given which is extremely blurry. I don't understand why this is continuously being changed back to that blurry photo when a more clear photo should make logical sense.

Ex. 3 As this is a biography of her I added a bit on her early career and that has been removed. in these words - Early Career: Charmaine Williams prior to politics had a 19-year career as a certified Multi-Systemic Therapist, Behavioural Consultant and Counsellor. Charmaine has also worked with several therapeutic programs and organizations like Associated Youth Services of Peel, Youth Substance Abuse Program, Peel Children’s Center and the Reach Out Center for Kids in Peel and the Halton Region."

The paragraph is follows the compliancy rules and has no biased tone other than coldly relaying the information of her career.

Can you please help me understand where then the compliancy issues lie here and why it continues to be changed back. Why are these 3 changes an issue?

Thanks Again

Trees Trees32 (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in response to your questions.

Re "Provincial Politics", MOS:CAPS says we should not use unnecessary capitals, so "Provincial politics" should be used. Re "Black" or "black", MOS:RACECAPS says either can be used.
Re the photograph. I reverted this as part of my original reversion of all your changes, because I thought you might have a conflict of interest and that copyright of the image might not belong to you. I can see you have added it a second or third time and it is the current image in the article. Did you take this picture? Do you own the copyright? If not, you should not have uploaded it to Wikipedia and described it as "own work". If you did, do you have a conflict of interest? If so, you should not edit the article at all, but should request changes on the article's Talk page. Please reply to clarify this before editing the article again.
Re the information about Williams's previous career. This is unsourced biographical information and should not be included without a reliable published source. The article should also not refer to her by her first name. Tacyarg (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]