User talk:Maurizio55

February 2013
Hello, Maurizio55. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Maurizio Guarini, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

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.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * 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.

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. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Handling Conflict of interest
Both on the talk page of Maurizio Guarini and by email to me you asked how you might best handle the correction of inaccuracies in an artilce about yourself. I replied thus on the article's talk page, and promised to reproduce that here for you for the future:


 * The problem you face is that the article is about you. There is no issue with making entirely neutral edits to it. Far better, though, is to detail here on this page the areas that you feel should be corrected, and ask that someone is kind enough to make those changes. However you rely on their good office for that to be achieved.
 * If the article contains matters that are not accurate, they may be removed, of course they may. However, here is where the difficulty starts. Wikipedia requires citations in reliable sources for all facts. The article as it stands has few of those. Your correction of any aspect must be based on the simple rule that ''Every fact is a cited fact", the more so since you are the gentleman whom the article is about. Even your birth must be a cited fact. This is the case whether you are royalty or a street sweeper.
 * A further problem you face is one of a mixture of embarrassment and of ego. I do not say this in a deprecating manner. When one sees a Wikipedia article about one's self on is both pleased (ego) and embarrassed, especially if it is not the article one would have written one's self. These two emotions are a great part of the reason we ask (but do not insist) that the subject of an article does not touch it except to correct factual inaccuracies.
 * If you are truly notable then others will correct the article from reliable sources. If you are not then the article is likely to be deleted. It never matters to the discussion whether you consider you are notable or not. Even if you are, you may not be sufficiently notable because of a lack of the reliable sources to verify the matter. If I give myself as an example, during my working life I was an acknowledged expert on a topic, with press coverage in specialist press. I do not believe that this gave me sufficient notability for an article to appear on me here.
 * I am going to copy this message to your own talk page in case the deletion discussion deletes the article. Should this happen my advice to you is to await the creation of the article by another person, and to read it with interest.
 * Should this article remain and you feel you are powerless to put factual inaccuracies right, place the text on your talk page, and ask beneath that for the help you need, using precision in your request. A sufficient request might be "Please look at Maurizio Guarini and delete all uncited supposed facts. The following facts are supported by reliable sources" and list them with the accurate sources where they appear.
 * I hope this shows you the way out of the position you find yourself in through no fault of our own. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid we have discovered that the article is a copyright violation of http://www.maurizioguarini.com/bio.php which is something we do not allow. If you are the copyright owner you may grant WIkipedia full rights to use this material should you so desire, and there is a process for this. See Donating copyrighted materials for the details.
 * However, I advise you not to bother because your website is promotional and Wikipedia is absolutely not. It is honestly worth awaiting an article by others who consider you to be notable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yulunga2013 (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * Not sure if I know how to correctly use this User Talk. Hope I'm following the suggested guidlines. Anyway, I'm about to repost the article with the bio shortened, reworded as much as I could. I have one question, though. I've written the article following similar articles related to musicians, and I don't see that anything has a citation, like the birthdate for instance. For example, if you look at Jordan Rudess article, that has a bio similar to Maurizio Guarini, I don't actually see that all the guidelines that you are talking about are followed. Do citations need to be external or thay can even be links to other Wikipedia articles? In this latter case, I can link almost any citation to something. More, is a link to an Imdb movie better that an internal link to wikipedia talking about the same topic? Which one should I use if I have the option? Assuming that imdb is considered an impartial reference with no promotional intent, what is the equivalent for music releases that I can link? I need more input on this. Any help and feedback that will allow me finally to post an acceptable bio is welcome. Thank You