User talk:Chchchowmein

Leave me a message!

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Chchchowmein. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article William Eubank, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the 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, you must 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 WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies.

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. You seem quite intent of puffing up this article and changing a review from Variety'' that wasn't very flattering. If you have a COI, you really do need to declare it.'' NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, what's your relationship to ? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi NinjaRobotPirate. First off, apology for creating more work for you. I do have an external relation to that article's subject, that of friendship. The subject and I both grew up in the Santa Ynez Valley and I am always interested in following where his career is taking him and the press it generates for where we're from and learning about the people (actors, cinematographers, etc) that he gets to work with. Also, Bates94 was a previous account of mine that I lost the password to; you can mark it inactive/retired, if that is possible. Reading through relevant policy on this, I noticed "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest". This struck me because I really do feel I was making constructive, useful edits, and well-sourced edits that furthered the encyclopedia. In reading about the article subject leaving a diffusion filter on for the entirety of the filming, I thought that was a super fascinating choice and added that -- info like that... I don't see how that is "advancing outside interests" rather than the goal of a list of facts/knowledge. I definitely do not mean at all to engage in puffery: I only made the Variety change because I thought it improved the article, going from a quote giving a (very) short summation, to giving additional info/context about what Variety more specifically took issue to. On seeing you disagreed, I really had no intention to revert it.


 * From reading WP:EXTERNALREL, I see "How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be an autobiography or written by the subject's spouse." -- I'm a friend but not the subject's spouse. I haven't been asked to edit this. Also at EXTERNALREL, "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, financial or legal — can trigger a COI." I noticed some other editors note, "the key word being 'can'. Not 'does'". I am willing to stop editing if needed. I do believe the article as-is retains NPOV. Chchchowmein (talk) 04:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you don't have a financial COI (ie, you weren't paid to edit the article), there isn't really a major problem. You might try to keep our content policies in mind, especially neutral point of view, but there's no rule that says you can't edit a friend's Wikipedia article.  There's also nothing wrong with creating a new account if you lose the password to the old one.  I was worried that perhaps a spammer was creating shill accounts, but it seems fairly obvious that's not the case. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's encouraging. Sorry for the trouble. Chchchowmein (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

August 2019
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Office of Fine Arts. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Plagiarism, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, missed that one. Working on specifying and clarifying more inline refs now. Thank you! Chchchowmein (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)