User talk:Bennyhbk

Editing with a conflict of interest
Hello, Bennyhbk. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. In particular, please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, its competitors, or projects and products you or they are involved with;
 * instead, propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the template);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

Last but not least: All contributors must not contribute content that violates conflict of interest laws (just as all contributors must respect copyright). The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive is valid throughout the European Union. In a German court decision in 2012 (that also relied on the directive) regarding Wikipedia: "The court held that when a company edits a Wikipedia article, the resulting text falsely creates the impression that the edit has no business-related purpose. By implication, the judges found that the average reader of Wikipedia articles expects to find objective and neutral information." That is a very very important condition, comparable to the FTC Guide" that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser”. This expectation by consumers of neutral information on Wikipedia, requires that companies not write "their" WP articles for PR/marketing purposes.

Editors who are compensated for their contributions should make the disclosure by placing the  template at the top of the talk page of affected articles and filling in the parameters. They should also supply this information as part of a list on their user page of all their paid contributions.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing, and autobiographies. Thank you. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Ken Coates (historian). While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not promotional material. He is a public speaker described here on his personal website

October 2015
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Jody Mitic, you may be blocked from editing. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC) This is not disruptive editing. I added a picture.
 * I mean a different edit. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read through the links I provided. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

So these individuals are public speakers which is a fact. where does your concern lay? In the verbiage being used? I've read the articles and there is no overt promotion being done here. I'd like to flag these revisions you've made to my edits.Bennyhbk (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Bennyhbk

Mentioning public speaking in biography articles
Since I actually partially restored one of your edits to the Bob Rae page, I wanted to step in and explain why your edits are problematic. The first reason is the non-neutral language (e.g. "highly sought-after public speaker"), which goes against Wikipedia's neutrality policy. The second reason is the explicit mention of the National Speaker's Bureau. While it is a verifiable fact that these public speakers are exclusively represented by the NSB, to have it in the text of the article, right next to a link to the NSB website makes it seem that your edits aren't meant to be informational but promotional. There's simply no need to resort to puffery to namedrop the agency that handles their requests. If you want to say they're a public speaker, just say that "Person X is also a public speaker, focusing on topics X, Y, Z." which would be far more in line with our policies and guidelines. Furthermore, there's no need for their public speaking to be its own top-level heading. It's more appropriate to put it under the relevant header. In Mr. Rae's case, it was under his post-MP career section. Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with your non-neutral language - I will adjust that. I have to disagree with your assessment on the need to mention who they are represented by. Take professional athletes are treated to having their representation sourced - see the profile for Kevin Durant. Those are also treated with a source. The representation for an individual should not be treated differently based on a profession. So please adjust your edit accordingly. Bennyhbk (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)bennyhbk