User talk:Digital futures

February 2013
Hello, Digital futures. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article OCAD University, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.  freshacconci  talk talk  22:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for references for your corrections to the OCAD page
Hi, I assume this is someone “in the know.” But can you fix the references when you do your corrections? Because many of the footnotes were added by me and I really can’t honestly say I can come up with the kind of corrections you made just looking at the references I found. (You didn’t update the references, which means “I can draw new conclusions based on the same references.” I don’t think that’s the case.)

New material demand new references, and if the old references do not support the new material they should be removed. (I don’t agree with this system, but it is the system here; we can’t change that.) Thanks much. —Al12si (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)