User talk:Marge-Bev

Welcome Berwitz! Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are registered editors!

Hello, Berwitz. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! I'm Viewmont Viking, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge. Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type  here on your talk page, and someone will try to help. Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the VViking Talk Edits 14:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC) button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes   at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp. The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun! To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Mypage/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template:User_Sandbox/preload create your own private sandbox] for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put  on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

 Sincerely, VViking Talk Edits 14:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)  VViking Talk Edits 14:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)   [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Viewmont_Viking&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Welcome_to_Wikipedia/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)] Español

Deutsch

Français

Italiano

עברית

Русский

日本語

Polski

فارسی

August 2018
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In one of your recent edits, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. -- VViking Talk Edits 14:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Viewmont Viking - Initiative is indeed a major agency (this is documented ad nauseam) that is part of the Interpublic Group of Companies. We are currently creating a Wikipedia entry for the agency but as far as I understand that should not preclude it from being listed here. Can you please stop deleting it? Thank you.

Viewmont Viking - the links are not repetitive - each one goes to a different article verifying that Initiative does indeed work with the clients we say it does. It would be really helpful to understand why that's not accepted given how explicit guidelines are about documenting everything.


 * If you look at the link you added, was there not something that stood out to you that may show what you did was not the same as all the rest of the links on the list? Redlinks are discouraged in list of notable items. I think you should spend some time reading the terms and conditions and then familiarize yourself with the additional policies that the community has set up. You keep saying that you didn't know, or no one told you, or you don't know why...Most of that information is at the top of this page where I sent you a Welcome template that had many links to help you get started in the community. You are the one that went straight into editing and not learning from what others were telling you. Most of us told you why the link you added wasn't appropriate but you continue to ask why it isn't. That seems like it may be a case of I didn't hear that. For the deletion of the Draft you created, if you cannot see that it was promotional then you are not enough removed from the article to be objective when writing about the company you are working for. VViking Talk Edits 02:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Viewmont Viking - I will indeed spend some time reading the terms and conditions, since my entire intent was to add correct, documented information and I have been accused, in the most aggressive way, of more things than I have in my entire digital life preceding. It's simply incredible that you can cast aspersions at me, my intent, how I understood certain things, etc. having been on this for, now, about 2 days (not quite). Don't you think, "You are the one that went straight into editing and not learning...", "That seems like it may be a case of I didn't hear that," etc. goes beyond simply correcting a newbie who needed some guidance (submitting for approval/editing, I thought, was part of the process of getting this right...little did I know)? Whatever my Earth-shattering mistakes, it would be helpful if you and others would tone down your rhetoric just a bit. I know others have hit a similar issue...that's not way to fulfill Wikipedia's purpose but to destroy it. Now, I will read up. Can you do me a favor and quit casting aspersions at me moving forward? Thanks so much.Marge-Bev (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Berwitz (Marge-Bev)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Initiative (media agency)


A tag has been placed on Draft:Initiative (media agency), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. VViking Talk Edits 14:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Why is this being deleted? The information included above is a straight description of what the agency does/is - in the format/vein of countless other companies on Wikipedia...this doesn't make sense.

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is Interpublic. Thank you. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Editwarring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Interpublic Group of Companies. 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. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2018 (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.

Bri - I have been an editor on Wikipedia for roughly 24 hours - so there is no intent to editwar. My challenge here is plain: I am adding the name of an IPG agency on a list of IPG agencies. Why is this not an appropriate edit? Please explain and thank you.

Disclosure of employment
Hello Berwitz. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Interpublic Group of Companies, and that 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:Berwitz. 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, please do not edit further until you answer this message. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh my Dear Lord I admit, since creating an account on Wikipedia, I have apparently and unknowingly broken more laws and regulations in one day than I have in the entirety of my life combined thus far. I am not compensated to create a Wikipedia page but I am employed by the company. I wasn't hiding that, I just didn't think it was relevant since I was posting objective, empirical, fully referenced information (not propaganda or sales material). Can you please direct me to someone who can help me? This is bordering on the farcical at this point. Thanks.

Working in Wikipedia, step by step
Hi Marge-Bev. I spend time working on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing. I see you asked for some help above. I'd be happy to help you. I am, by the way, not an administrator, but an editor like you, just with more experience.

I've read through the page above and your contributions.

It is pretty clear that you work for IPG or perhaps its Initiative subsidiary.

So here is the deal...

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. Unmanaged conflicts of interest can also lead to people behaving in ways that violate our behavioral policies and cause disruption in the normal editing process. Managing conflict of interest well, also protects conflicted editors and their employers themselves - please see WP:Wikipedia is in the real world, and Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia for some guidance and stories about people and companies that have brought bad press upon themselves through unmanaged conflict of interest editing.

As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Would you please start the disclosure process by just replying here, and a) disclosing your employer, and b) briefly describing your role in the company (for example, you could be an office administrator, you could handle accounts, your job could be doing PR for the company, etc)?

We'll just take this one step at a time. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * @Jytdog - thank you for your help here. Much appreciated. Two quick things: 1) I had no intention of hiding anything. I just joined as an editor this week - where is the spot to disclose that I handle PR for Initiative? It's public. I am fully transparent. I just don't see anywhere to do that. 2) I thought I was submitting a draft for consideration and I assumed I would get back edits, etc. The note I got back was that it could take 7 weeks for anything to get published...am I misunderstanding that? I thought all the edits/feedback would take place during that 7 weeks...including where to disclose my post at the company, anything that needs to be documented, removed, etc. Why are the responses I am getting (not from you, but from others) suggesting this was published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marge-Bev (talk • contribs) 12:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying!  Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting (see WP:THREAD) - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and so on, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this  in front of your comment.
 * And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit. That is how we know who said what to whom and when.


 * Please be aware that threading and signing are fundamental etiquette here, as basic as "please" and "thank you", and continually failing to thread and sign communicates rudeness, and eventually people may start to ignore you (see here).


 * I know this is unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that. Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Lots of questions! I know that you feel some whipped around and beleaguered.  Please don't be upset. The main thing is that you have now clearly disclosed and are expressing a willingness to learn, and that makes many things possible.  (Lots of people with conflicts of interest show up in Wikipedia and lie or express no willingness to learn, and things do not go at all well in those cases.)  So please don't let upset about the initial difficulties or let them get in the way of moving forward.


 * So the first step is to get your disclosure posted.


 * Would you please add the disclosure to your user page (which is User:Marge-Bev - a redlink, because you haven't written anything there yet)? Just something simple like: "I handle PR for Initiative, an agency within IPG, and have a conflict of interest with regard to that company and related topics"  would be fine.  If you want to add anything else there that is relevant to what you want to do in WP feel free to add it, but please don't add anything promotional about the company or yourself (see WP:USERPAGE for guidance if you like).


 * The disclosure has already been added locally, at the IPG talk page, so once you post on your userpage, the disclosure piece will be done. (We look for central disclosure, on your user page, and local disclosure, on any other page where you are working, so people with whom you are talking are aware of where you are coming from).


 * Then we can move on to discussing the "peer review" step, and then some general orientation to Wikipedia.


 * It also would be very helpful to you and everybody else, if you understood the context of paid editing in WP. We can talk through that if you like (and I mean talk on Skype or google hangouts), but if you were to read Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia and WP:Wikipedia is in the real world, and then User:Jytdog, and then Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms, you can get there on your own as well. If you like I can introduce you to other PR professionals in WP who are what we call "clueful" and they can help you get oriented too... but first things first! Jytdog (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * @Jytdog - We'll agree to disagree on how appropriate it is to consider someone rude for simply learning something in the first few days of interacting with it, but so be it. I appreciate you taking me through the rules and being nice about it, which puts you far above anyone else who interacted with me in the first 48 hours of being an editor. Since having this experience, I have been told by a number of people who have, in the past, attempted posting/editing pertinent, objective information in good faith that they felt honestly harassed and pulled away. I have also been told that this is fairly recent...it wasn't always like this. I leave it up to the editors to decide if this helps or hurts the admirable mission and intent of Wikipedia and whether this is a culture they want to perpetuate. That said, I am fully appreciative that you are a much-needed exception to this.


 * When I go to my user page, it's immediately confusing. It says no page exists...what exactly am I doing wrong?


 * I would love to talk to other PR "clueful" people - and until I became a Wikipedia editor - would have considered myself among the "clueful" lol. That said, if I am considered a paid editor in any regard, doesn't that basically tie my hands here? I am about to read up on everything you sent me in the meantime.


 * ThanksMarge-Bev (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Marge-Bev
 * Hi. Thanks for replying. I didn't say you were being rude intentionally.
 * Thanks for agreeing to read that stuff. I think it will help you understand the context into which you have stepped.
 * After you do, we should probably talk via Skype or google hangouts, instead of continuing here. Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)