User talk:Matti2 at Fortum

Welcome!
Hello, Matti2 at Fortum, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Apros (Software)


A tag has been placed on Apros (Software), 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. Jytdog (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Working in Wikipedia as a paid editor
Hi Matti2 at Fortum. I spend time working on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing, which is mostly about health and medicine. I am not an administrator. Your edits to date and those of, which appears to be an older account of yours, are promotional with respect to Fortum and its products.

Lots of people come to Wikipedia with some sort of conflict of interest and are not aware of how the editing community defines and manages conflict of interest. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Matti2 at Fortum. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Further information
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 themselves - please see WP:Wikipedia is in the real world, and Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia for some guidance and stories about people who 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).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step and you are clearly doing that through your username.

You should finish that disclosure by adding to your userpage, User:Matti2 at Fortum -- a redlink, because you haven't written anything there yet). Just something simple like: "I work for Fortum and have a conflict of interest with regard to that company and related topics"  would be fine. You should also disclose the older account - "I formerly edited using an account,  but I don't use that anymore" or the like.  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).

I added "paid contributor" tags to the articles' talk page, so the disclosure is done there. Once you disclose on your user page, the disclosure piece of this will be done.

The second step is a form of peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask of editors who have a COI or who are paid, and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:
 * a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and
 * b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to
 * (i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page; and
 * (ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section on the talk page, put the proposed content there formatted just as you would if you were adding it directly to the article, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) place the  tag to flag it for other editors to review.  In general it should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once.  Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example.  This is OK to do but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (There are good faith paid editors here, who have signed and follow the Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms, and there are "black hat" paid editors here who lie about what they do and really harm Wikipedia).

But understanding the mission, and the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission, is very important! There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Learning and following these is very important, and takes time. Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian - you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians.

I hope that makes sense to you.

I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about where the company has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content. If you are not sure if something is uncontroversial, please ask at the Talk page.

Will you please agree to learn and follow the content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and to follow the peer review processes going forward when you want to work on any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Response to the deletion of page Apros (Software)
Thank you for your guidance. I would like to respond to the deletion of the page and the remarks related to it. First of all, I would like to correct one incorrect assumption above. I am not the same person as Wikipedian “Matti at Fortum”. Matti just happens to be a common name around here.

I have now improved my disclosure by adding a disclosure at my user page as suggested ("I work for Fortum and have a conflict of interest with regard to that company and related topics"). Apologies for not doing this earlier.

The editing that I made in the Apros Wikipedia article was correcting outdated information (updating latest release number, replacing broken links and updating list of products with new names). I considered this as small corrections rather than changes in the content. Evidently, also these changes should have been done by proposing the changes on the Talk page due to COI which I did not fully understand as a newcomer to Wikipedia. I will follow the practice of using Talk page in the future and I will be more attentive regarding COI editing.

I must say, I was surprised that the entire page was deleted following these updates. I suppose the reason was not so much related to the latest updates but rather the old page contents. In order to better understand what are appropriate contents and proper style of Wikipedia pages for commercial software, I looked through some other Wikipedia pages of process simulation software. The pages are diverse, but in my opinion the contents of Apros page were not so different from many of the other simulation software pages regarding the advertising or promotion aspect (G11: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G11). I would have preferred to do some revising and maybe excluding some parts of the article rather deleting the entire page. Also, the contents had been reviewed and approved before so it is surprising that now the entire page needed to be deleted instead of revising the content.

It would be possible e.g. to add more independent references. For example: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311807833_Progress_in_dynamic_simulation_of_thermal_power_plants

This independent review article on dynamic simulation of thermal power plants includes 26 additional references to the use of Apros in various thermal power plant simulation. There are also many more independent references that could be added. The old references to company/product web page could be removed from the article.

Best regards, Matti2 at Fortum (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note, and for clarifying that you are not the same person as the first Matti.
 * One option would to be request for the page to be undeleted and put in draft space so that you can work on it. You can do that at WP:REFUND.
 * Another alternative would be to just start over from scratch at through WP:AFC, with a disclosure on the talk page.
 * When you talk about "independent" please make sure you are using the word the same way that the editing community does - please see WP:ORGIND, which is part of the general guideline for notability for companies, as well as the more general essay, WP:INDY. (The Fortum page itself is very bad, btw... way too many non-independent sources.)
 * I do hope you have a look at User:Jytdog/How, which lays out our mission and how we realize it, and explains why we work in the way that we do. It also has a section with suggestions for writing a new page, which you might find helpful. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Apros (software)
I have moved the deleted text to draft space, much against my better judgment. Do not be tempted to think that it is okay for you to create an article about a product made by your employer; it's not. But if you feel you can truly create an article that, if read by an independent person, would not sound promotional or as if it was written by an employee, you can have a go. Deb (talk) 10:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)