User talk:Msaconato

December 2021
Hello Msaconato. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Mammoet, 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:Msaconato. 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. – NJD-DE (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear Njd-de, I am not getting paid to do these edits, at all. I do work for Mammoet, but I'm not a copywriter. I decided to check the Wikipedia page for my own curiosity. I noticed a lot of old information and also the note on the top note which was saying that the text was too commercial, so I decided to contribute to Wikipedia with updated info (number of employees, logo, extra parts of the history, and historical photos) and with a neutral tone. I thought this was going to make Wikipedia richer and I was not considering any commercial purpose, because to be honest with you, the Wikipedia page is not even in our marketing plans. My intention was to bring extra facts to Wikipedia because I simply like and use Wikipedia and I was trying to contribute to its information database. I leave the page as it is but be aware that it is not good. There is a lot more to talk about, key projects, global presence, corona effects (a huge chunk of the operations in South America stopped because of it)... All of this is open source information but is not being shown on Wikipedia. I'll leave up to you and Wikipedia then, I won't do any edits if they are not good welcome and according to your standards and rules but be aware that what you have now is incomplete and outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msaconato (talk • contribs) 08:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Msaconato, I get it that Mammoet is not paying you specifically for edits on the Mammoet article. However per the policy on paid-contribution disclosure anyone who is compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia. I understand that some of the information in the article is outdated, and we welcome contributions based on reliable sources. As a paid-editor with a conflict of interest, please have a look at the policies WP:PAID and WP:COI and take the appropriate actions. Also instead of editing the article directly, please request changes on the article's talk page. You may use the edit request wizard for this. Thanks! – NJD-DE (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)