User talk:Endwealth/Archive 1

Louis CK
Hi there! Thanks for your contributions to the Louis C.K. article. It looks like you've been on Wikipedia for a few years, but haven't been very involved, so first of all, welcome! If you have any questions, let me know! I'm here to help! :)

If you're going to draw connections between Louis C.K.'s sexual harassment allegations and an episode of One Missisippi, then you'll need to cite an actual news article that notes this similarity, rather than just citing the episode itself as a source. Otherwise, the statement would be considered Original Research. The Daily Beast interview with Notaro brings this up, so you should use that as a source and specifically state that the publication is making the claim.

You should also be aware that a discussion has already taken place on C.K's talk page, in which it was decided not to include any mention of the harassment allegations. That conversation happened about a year ago, long before Notaro's comments - and so it's worth reevaluating the matter. But just as a heads up, some people might revert your additions to the article. If they do, then some form of consensus will have to be reached as to whether the information should be included.

I'm generally in favor of including the information, but the last conversation about the matter got pretty tense, and so I'd prefer to stay uninvolved going forward. But again, feel free to ask any questions if you have any! --Jpcase (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

July 2020
Hello Endwealth. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to We Charity, 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 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. 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:Endwealth. 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, do not edit further until you answer this message.   — Yours, Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 19:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

--

Hi, No, I am not being paid by anyone to edit the We Charity page nor am I paid by anyone who has a financial stake in it. I am confused as to how my criticism of WE looks like paid editing. Are you asking if I have a financial stake in a rivalling charity that wants CERB funding? Or if I get paid by any poltical party or group associated with a political party? The answer to both is no. I am just interested in criticism of WE. -- Endwealth (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the confirmation :-D. Apologies for the hassle. — Yours, Berrely  • Talk∕Contribs 20:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , No worries. By the looks of all the other sections, someone certainly is being paid to edit it! Endwealth (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on We Charity; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Woody (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Hi, I don't see how I'm edit warring with anyone. With any of the edits, if it was taken down, I see why and then correct any errors (copyright, citations, grammar, etc). Can you point to an example of what I did incorrectly? Thanks! Endwealth (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Information added, you reverted, information removed, you reverted. This isn't about revert wars, but that there have been a number of edits/reverts back and forth without a single edit on the talk page. An IP has started a discussion on the talk page but you haven't responded. Please note that edit summaries are not the place to have discussions about contentious content or about Wikipedia's policies and how best to implement them. Please discuss how best to edit the article to ensure it meets WP's policies on the article talk page. Woody (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Both your examples are mischaracterizations. Information was added by person A, removed by person B, then added again with changes by Person C (me). In the second example, my sentence was removed for possible copyright so I re-worded. There is no discussion on the talk page regarding the section being referenced here (all I see is "I concur" with adding criticism from a 2018 Canadaland article). But yes, I will engage in the talk page regarding this edit. -- Endwealth (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)