User talk:Mariwiki77

April 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Ghostwriter. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Neil N  talk to me 17:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Mariwiki77. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

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.
 * 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. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

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. Neil N  talk to me 17:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring and socking
First, do not, under any circumstances, use anonymous edits to restore material that you made with an account. If I detect you doing that again, this account will be blocked and the IPs you use to perform anonymous edits will also be blocked.

Second, do not restore the material you have been attempting to add to Ghostwriter again until you can gain consensus on Talk:Ghostwriter that the material should be added. Continuing to edit-war the material into the article as you have will also result in this account being blocked.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Kww -- I only started editing here a few days ago. Still learning the rules which I will respect. (I am originally from Japan.) I believe I signed all as Mariwiki77?

I have exactly been doing what you suggest, trying to build consensus in Talk. My objection is that someone like Frankresuto comes along and merely deletes my work with no edit summary, no explanation of any kind. Then NeilN states a rule (is he an admin? -- I see you are), and I consider that rule (rule: secondary sources preferred as references, not self referrals) and I follow the rule and get deleted again. Here is the exchange:

Quoted here:

NeilN had written:

User talk:198.22.122.12 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Ghostwriter[edit] Please do not add references which are actually links to whatever a company is selling. References should be secondary sources - magazines, newspapers, academic papers, etc. --NeilN talk to me 05:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

START Mariwiki77 COMMENTS:

GHOSTWRITER PAGE, RECENT ISSUES AS OF 11 APRIL 2015

The (restored) Manhattan literary reference to pricing of a book existed as early as March 25, 2012 and got deleted somehow from this 'Remuneration and Credit' section of the Ghostwriting page. The firm is authoritative and a good source for accurate pricing. The current reference (as NeilN requested/suggested) is The Washington Post, from a 9 June 2014 article on Ghostwriting itself.

Seo-Writer and Ghostwriters Ink are self- referrals from the sellers' own websites. They should be removed, according to this rule cited by NielN that secondary sources need to be used as references and not the seller's own site, until they can provide such a source.

This one also fulfills the criteria of a secondary source: One ghostwriter gave the following fees in 2011:[1] Jump up ^ {{cite web |url=http://www.writersdigest.com/writing-articles/by-writing-goal/get-published-sell-my-work/how-to-be-a-ghostwriter |title= How to be a ghostwriter|last1=James-Enger|first1=Kelly |last2= |first2= |date=June 7, 2011 |website=www.writersdigest.com |publisher=Writer's Digest |accessdate=2 September 2014

Now, let's please resume the discussion here. Please do comment on the above evidence from the current page. Italic text

I have done other work on this page that I thought was careful and informative, only to have it deleted. In fact I was threatened. I am experienced in American publishing -- for over 2 decades I've worked in it in various capacities.

I am new here as an editor, so bear with me, but I am fairly stunned by the environment. For example, a man -- who, in his profile, says he started college this year, and recently did over 3000 edits in one month (this is given in his statistics; obsessional?) -- also recently deleted me and accused me of vandalism. When I wrote a defense he had nothing to say. I won't lose sleep, but what kind of operation is this? Wikipedia could be a good thing. I do understand your concerns, NeilN. You are clear when you write. I'm just looking for consistency. Mariwiki77 (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mariwiki77. I'm a bit unclear on what you'd like me to do here? I don't have any real issue with your latest edit. [10] --NeilN talk to me 06:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

NeilN, are you an admin? You seem to have a substantial track record on Wikipedia. Frankresduto, over the last few days, merely deletes whatever I put up. He offers no edit summary, seems to follow no rules -- especially in relation to the above discussion about secondary sources, has no history of contributions. He undid my last edit with no explanation -- the one you find no objections to. How can someone mediate this, rather than he and I engaging in an edit war. Would appreciate it. I am beginning to understand how this process works, being new to it. 38.109.98.242 (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Please advise.

38.109.98.242 (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Mariwiki77 (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The fundamental problem here is that it would appear that your motivation isn't to improve ghostwriter, but to improve the coverage of Manhattan Literary. What you need to persuade people of is that this isn't true. Given that every edit you've made has included ML, that's going to be a sisyphean task.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Mandatory paid editing disclosure; conflict of interest
You didn't respond to the conflict of interest query above. I am upping the ante here.

Hello Mariwiki77. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, 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:Mariwiki77. 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. Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Mariwiki77, and the template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Notices of discretionary sanctions
-- Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Using article talk pages 1 -- indenting and signing
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. Threading/indenting also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. 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.Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Using talk pages 2 - focused discussion based on reliable sources and the policies and guidelines
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Royal Rife are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2018 (UTC)