User talk:Nick.follows

September 2019
Hello Nick.follows. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Queue management system, 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 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:Nick.follows. 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) 11:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie thank you so much for your response and direction. I was unaware of the 'Talk Pages' and best practice involving them so that's good to know. I can confirm (100%) that I am neither receiving, nor expect to EVER receive any compensation, in ANY format, for my edits to the Pressure Measurement page. I merely reviewed the content and though it strange that it did not cover Digital devices at all, when these do exist and that they are growing in popularity as move more and more to digital (electronic) devices for measurement tools. I thought by editing the article as I did, that I was addressing a clear bias towards the analog (dial) devices dealing in pressure measurement. I did not think the article was purely historical, so looked to include contemporary practices as well. I hope you appreciate this standpoint. I think the Queue Management piece you're referring to was my first ever edit - so forgive my naivety there, but it would have come from a similar place of trying to include in the conversation another aspect of the subject, based on my personal knowledge, that wasn't already covered.