User talk:Icebergproject

March 2020
Hello Icebergproject. The nature of your edits 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 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:Icebergproject. 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. MrOllie (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello! This is not a paid promotion project by any means. We are simply updating information on a topic we are passionate about and did research to learn how to properly assist in editing wiki stubs when we are able. We are still getting the hang of how to properly edit and communicate without any violations and having edits flagged for any reason. Icebergproject (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Icebergproject

Follow Up: Hello, again! We are working through Wiki stubs as a college course exercise. Unfortunately it is time sensitive so I am going to continue to make edits (by undoing yours) and finalizing references. I can provide further information if needed to validate that this is not the conflict of interest or any other stipulations mentioned above. I would rather my edits be in the system while we discuss this instead of waiting as there is a timely nature to this assignment. So we can keep undoing/redoing edits until we reach an understanding that this is a wiki stub we have chosen with interest to contribute information as pertinent to both our assignment and duty to share knowledge when possible. Thank you for your time and work, sorry for any misunderstandings. Icebergproject (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Icebergproject


 * As an educational project you should understand and learn the processes of Wikipedia. It is not your classes opportunity to wp:own an article. Also review WP:BRD which you have failed to do. Further editing to this page without discussion on the talk page and providing WP:RS and not promotional sources will be considered disruptive editing. Disruptive editors may have their editing privileges blocked or banned. VViking Talk Edits 14:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You asked to provide constructive feedback, I have, and I still would revert the whole lot of changes you have made as it is not worth it to explain each item that is promotional because 90% of it is. VViking Talk Edits 14:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

We are in the midst of learning the processes of Wikipedia. This is not an attempt at wp:own as this is a stub requesting expansion to a very limited amount of information when there is further wealth out there. We have not failed to WP:BRD as that is the current process and we are currently engaging in it. This edit is a work in progress and on the next edit we will link the reliable sources but it is difficult to do it with our information being reverted instantly, as it was essentially a "save" for us with an in progress edit. No Harm is meant, and we will revise to reduce promotional aspects. However, if you look at wiki articles of comparable yet better-known names such as Gucci or Benneton Group, we are simply mimicking the structure of their layouts. This form of editing is not disruptive but educational and good-natured. Icebergproject (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Icebergproject


 * Even if you do add sources, your version of the article would still be unacceptable because it is not neutral. Wikipedia is a big place and there are only so many volunteers, not everything has been reviewed yet. If you have found other examples of promotional editing, that is a reason to fix that content, not to copy the improper style and add more promotion. - MrOllie (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

We have reviewed guidelines for neutral writing and have employed the skill to the greatest of our ability, through weeks of editing down information and rewording and formatting content, understanding that there are only so many volunteers who are able to moderate Wikipedia edits. The importance of providing a greater supply of information is more in-line with Wikipedia goals and missions versus the arguable neutrality of content which can be edited into even more neutral language over time. We have posted a section on the Iceberg Talk page discussing the overhaul plans and welcoming edits to improve upon the possible promotional implications, yet highlighting the importance of information being out there in the first place. Icebergproject (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Icebergproject

Edit Warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; 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.-- VViking Talk Edits 14:28, 23 March 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.