User talk:Masterwikiblaster

November 2020
Hello, I'm MrOllie. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Masterwikiblaster, you are invited to the Teahouse!
.

November 2020
Hello Masterwikiblaster. 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 serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

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:Masterwikiblaster. 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) 21:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie, I wish I was being compensated directly or indirectly for my efforts. I would be a whole lot richer. :) I am not being compensated for my edits directly or indirectly. I will be editing quite a large number of articles based on my expertise and over 20 years of experience in technology and higher education. (I would be happy to connect offline with you to verify my identity if you would like.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterwikiblaster (talk • contribs)


 * I'll accept your statement that you are not being compensated, but your editing is focused on one particular group and has a noticeably promotional tone. Please review WP:NPOV. Neutrality is one of Wikipedia's core policies. - MrOllie (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie you are not letting me move to other articles because I am trying to go one chapter at a time. My next target is EDUCAUSE and Internet2. I have also been trying to edit the poorly written and incorrect Student Information System article.

I have been running IT for colleges and universities for over 20 years and

1) we would never say that a student information system is a student administrative system. 2) these are not the major modules of a student information system. a student information system starts with admissions and curriculum management. I am not saying that these are not important but they are now how the industry breaks down the SIS. (see analysts for example) registering students in courses; documenting grading, transcripts, results of student tests and other assessment scores; building student schedules; tracking student attendance; and managing many other student-related data needs in a school. 3) this has very little to do with a SIS. It looks like it was just tacked on: Information security is a concern, as universities house an array of sensitive personal information, making them potentially attractive targets for security breaches, such as those experienced by retail corporations or healthcare providers.[1] 4) The largest SIS provider for higher education BY FAR worldwide is Ellucian followed by Oracle. The ones listed here are for k-12 schools. A major system in use within the UK is Capita's SIMS system. Other systems available include Arnor, Bromcom, Civica REMS, Cloud School, Engage, iSAMS, PowerSchool, RM Integris, ScholarPack, SchoolBase, SchoolPod and WCBS.[2]

I am not bringing a promotional bias here in any way. Just trying to update a very very poor article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterwikiblaster (talk • contribs)


 * It is hard to accept that you are not bringing a promotional bias when you add flatly promotional statements such as 'this solution is both affordable and flexible to meet the needs of traditional and non-traditional institutions alike.' - MrOllie (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel it is hard to accept that I am not bringing a promotional bias. I copied and paste it from the corporate about statement of the company. Yes, I agree that this should be edited/removed.

MrOllie, I totally get where you are coming from. How about we do this, I give you what I am trying to achieve and you see what is best to get it done without being promotional?

1) On January 10, 2004, Anjli Jain became the Executive Director of the CampusEAI Consortium.[1][2] The way this is worded implies that she is currently the Executive Director of CampusEAI Consortium currently. This article has not been updated in years and she ended her ED role in approximately 2010.

What is the best way to address this misleading information problem?

Also, there is another sentence in this article that essentially restates the same information. I find these two sentences to be redundant.

This is purely a consolidation effort. How do you suggest this be fixed?

2) Since the article was frozen it seems to end in 2010. I have been tring to update it to make it current. For example, I found news sources that show the establishment of EVC Ventures $50-million fund in 2016.

Please advise how best to update this article to reflect upates after 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterwikiblaster (talk • contribs) 16:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)