User talk:AB10002

Welcome!
Hello, AB10002, and welcome to Wikipedia!&#32;Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article.&#32;Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Ian.thomson (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

"our team"
At Help desk, you said "our team," as if there are multiple users for this account. Is this account shared by a team? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Because this is not allowed on Wikipedia, please see WP:NOSHARING. Also, if you have a conflict of interest, or are paid to edit here - you must disclose this.  Seagull123  Φ  23:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Julie Payette, 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 the sandbox for that. Thank you. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  10:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Ownership of content
The subject of an article - or their designated representatives - have no right of ownership or editorial control over an article. Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies. The following excerpts are directed towards editors editing articles about themselves, but apply equally to those acting on their behalf.

From WP:AUTOPROB:
 * If Wikipedia has an article about you, we want it to be accurate, fair, balanced and neutral – to accurately reflect the sourced, cited opinions of reliable sources. If you believe reliable sources exist which will make the article more balanced, you can help by pointing other editors to such sources.


 * You may wish to make suggestions on the article's talk page or, if the problem is clear-cut and uncontroversial, you may wish to edit the page yourself. If your edit may be misinterpreted, you should explain it on the talk page. Note that if the fact has different interpretations, others will edit it. Your edits are more likely to be accepted if they are neutral and well-sourced to third parties.


 * If others do not agree with the changes you propose, you may pursue dispute resolution. For instance, the Biographies of living persons noticeboard may offer a forum for impartial contributors to help resolve differences.

From WP:PROUD:
 * The neutral point of view (NPOV) policy will ensure that both the good and the bad about you will be told, that whitewashing is not allowed, and that the conflict of interest (COI) guideline limits your ability to edit out any negative material from an article about yourself. There are serious consequences of ignoring these, and the "Law of Unintended Consequences" works on Wikipedia.

To summarize... if negative information exists about a person, and it comes from a reliable, independent source, and it is written neutrally and with due weight, it is fair game for Wikipedia. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Paid editing, shared account
You were asked about this being a shared account, and notified about paid editing as well. Please read the message below and reply here before editing further.

Hello AB10002. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO. 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, and if it does not, 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:AB10002. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. 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, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

January 2019
As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Julie Payette, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:AB10002, and the template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi AB10002. Your interests do not seem to particularly diverse. The concern raised here is that you are a single-purpose account. There's nothing wrong with having an interest in one topic, but it's extremely rare and in this case suspicious. You should explain here what association you have with the subject. The reason I state that is, if you edit the Julie Payette account again, and remove content as you have done in the past and add glowing content as you have done in the past, I will take your editing pattern to a larger forum. The purpose of that discussion is whether you should be prevented from editing the Julie Payette article further, or simply be prevented from editing on the English project any longer. A good explanation of your behaviour will go a long way in preventing that discussion, or act as a defence if the discussion does start. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a direct link to that discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop editing the article and instead join the discussion at the administrators' noticeboard. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Changes I made to the page of Julie Payette
I hereby confirm that I am not being compensated, directly or indirectly, for any edit I made to the page.

I am concerned about (1) the inaccuracies that keep creeping onto this page, (2) the lack of substantiated evidence in the articles that were originally cited for the content of the paragraph that was entitled « re-evaluating the role of GG » (which is an inaccuracy in itself— there is no evidence that Ms. Payette is doing so, however there is ample evidence that she is modernizing the role) and (3) the biais of one or multiple editors who constantly include content based on anonymous sources, gossips and innuendos that is only meant on depreciating the subject. None of the content that was listed under the above paragraph was corroborated by reliable and identifiable sources.

I included changes to which I was careful to attach numerous references for your review. In there, the actions and intentions of Ms. Payette are clear and corroborated. Please take a look.

One example - in the paragraph above - there is a reference to Ms. Payette « does not plan to preside over the GG History Award ». This is inaccurate. Ms. Payette hosted the GG History Awards on November 22, 2017 and will preside again on January 28, 2019. (REF: www.canadahistory.ca)

Another example - there are no evidence that « more numerous appearances ...were made per year ». This is an invention from one journalist from the Toronto Star who has been notoriously biaisée against Ms. Payette and whose information is not corroborated anywhere else and contradicted by the Annual Report of her Office. (REF: http://www.gg.ca/en/the-office/annual-reports)

One last example - the letter dated September 27 at the end of the same paragraph - was an internal communication of Ms. Payette to her staff to encourage them to continue their good work. This is what every competent leader would do to reassure their staff in light of unfair criticism. In addition, the content of this letter was obtained without authorization by the media. This is in my view, neither newsworthy, nor relevant to this page, in the grand scheme of things.

Finally - in the edits I made last night, I made sure to put references from independent and reliable sources that corroborate my statements. What is wrong with adding the following interesting and positive content: « She is also quite involved in the musical community of the capital, even participating in the recording of a CD with the Ottawa Bach Choir » ? ( REF1: https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/the-singing-gg-julie-payette-soars-with-chorus-of-handels-messiah) (REF2: https://ottawabachchoir.ca/en/product/handel-dixit-dominus-bach-schutz-motets-2/)

Thank you.

AB10002 (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)