User talk:Troyantonius

October 2021

Hello Troyantonius. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to The Daily Telegraph (Sydney), 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:Troyantonius. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Troyantonius|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. – NJD-DE (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, NJD-DE I am sorry, but I am new at this. No I have not received money for my edits to the Daily Telegraph page and nor do I expect to be paid for it. I used to work for the Daily Telegraph, but was made redundant a couple of months ago, and I was preparing stuff for job interviews when I came across the Telegraph page. I noticed that 90 per cent of it was about what the newspaper has done wrong, in terms of breaches of ethics, so I was trying to add some balance to the article. I started by adding some of the history of the paper, which was based on research I had done while I was at the paper. I think, perhaps, I went a bit too far making it sound like the Telegraph has done lots of great things, but I later added some extra bits to pull that back. Everything up to the section on the Digital Era is pretty even-handed, but some of the things under the heading "Campaigns" might read like an advertisement for the Telegraph. That was not my intention. Like I said, I no longer work for the Telegraph, but having worked there I know that, as a journalist, I was able to write plenty of things in favour of issues such as doing something about climate change and also plenty of articles about LGBTQI people that were objective (or even positive). Objectivity is what I strive for, or at least presenting two sides to an issue. Would it be possible to reinstate most of the early history and I will work on a more balanced look at the things the Telegraph has done (right and wrong) in more recent times? Or I can just leave that to others to add? Yours Troyantonius. 18 October 2021

Added back in some of the historical material that was deleted. I have rewritten anything I couldn't verify and checked the sources on other items on the page. Let me know if it is OK to continue and I will add more, but I will be as objective and scrupulous with footnoting as possible. Troyantonius October 26, 2021 Troyantonius (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

Hello Troyantonius. This the second time a Wiki editor has written to you about the nature of your edits to the Wikipedia page of the Daily Telegraph. Your edits contain a substantial volume of irrelevant, non-encyclopedic, and polemic content. A great deal of it is not cited or cited incorrectly. Some of it would be better categorized as ‘trivia’ than encyclopedia reporting. Several editors have attempted to correct this for you, however you have persistently reverted edits without engaging in discussion.

I recommend you propose any further edits on the talk page for this article, especially given your impartiality about this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Sydney 79 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello David Sydney 79 Thanks for your comments. My apologies, I am still feeling my way with this stuff. I was trying to add in as much detail on the history of the paper as I possibly could. There are no narrative histories written about the paper, so I have just been gathering as much material as possible to shape it into something like an encyclopaedic entry and trying to do more research to fill in gaps. I have been taking as my guide the Wikpedia entry on other newspapers, like The New York Times, which also includes things like details on the people who owned the paper, some of the colourful editors, their political stance or reportage on various events in history and some of the big stories that they broke. That is what I thought I was doing with my history of the Telegraph, so please tell me exactly what sort of things count as trivia or irrelevant and what things are acceptable as part of the historical narrative and I will fix them straight away. Given that I used to write popular history I probably tend to add colour to keep the readers entertained, so it is a habit that I will try to reign in. I am really striving for objectivity, but also to round out the story of one of Australia's longest running, and often most controversial and biased, major dailies. Troyantonius (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)