User talk:PeelTheOnion

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, PeelTheOnion. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Earthworm Jim, 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, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * 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 are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. ''It's pretty obvious you were the IP editing the other day as well. You seem to have a declared conflict of interest with this property or a relation to Interplay or one of the other companies involved. You need to cease editing this topic and follow the COI guidelines above.'' -- ferret (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m seconding this. You’ve made it brutally obvious that you’re the same IP who made the legal threat yesterday, and made it brutally obvious that you have connections to the subject. You connections do not give you any more authority over the article over anyone else. Quite the contrary, there are Conflict of Interest Guidelines you need to be following, but arent. Please start following them, or you’re likely find the page locked from editing so you won’t be able to make any changes at all. Sergecross73   msg me  20:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know what you are talking about regarding a legal threat yesterday. I only made one other edit on anything before today and it was months ago. I have worked with this IP though so I will review the COI information you linked to. I didn't claim special authority to make edits. All I am doing is trying to update the page with factual information, which I did, and included citations to outside third party sources. While I have you here, since I can't seem to figure out how to respond to your comments on the edits I proposed (it took me a while to figure out how to answer you here), can you explain why you reversed my changes to the reason EWJ PSP was cancelled? This is a sincere question because I want to understand this process. The version of the article I edited says EWJ PSP was cancelled for financial issues. My edit doesn't alter that fact but it does add context that development ended because Atari licensed the rights and ran out of money. The original linked source (GameZone) doesn't include any sources, attribution or factual support for its info about cancellation, just assumptions. The author of the GameZone blog post even ends it with "At least, that’s what I get from it," indicating that the post was his or her own opinion. I was adding that the game was cancelled because Atari had the rights and ran out of cash. The SEC filing, which is a sworn document, is Atari's statement of fact that it had no money, had sold all studios, and had ceased all development including through external developers. I am curious why those facts would be viewed as less authoritative than an anonymous blog post that has no sources for its information? I get why you wouldn't want to rely only on a company's statement justifying an action but this was a statement of fact by Atari (that was bad for Atari and signed under oath) and that was then applied to the circumstance of the game under development at the same time (no money and no developers means no EWJ PSP game). My first edit earlier today, which you also changed, referred to the Atari bankruptcy. I think the bankruptcy in 2013 was the end result of the cash problems in 2006-2008 carried over. But I could see after your first reversion that I also was not specific enough for the topic of this game and that's why I focused on Atari's financial filings for the time period that the game was cancelled. The info added is correct.

Anyway, I will review the COI rules which I was unaware of (although their existence makes sense in hindsight) and will keep them in mind if I make any future edits to these pages.

Is there a way for me to see the other edits that you are talking about from before today? I see the view history tab but not sure how can I compare different versions to see what was changed and then changed back at different times. Also, to better communicate in the future, if someone makes a change and a comment on an entry, how do I try to discuss with them? Do I just go on their talk page like you did here or is there something in the entry that is a link to discuss that particular page or change? I would have asked you to clarify after the first edit this morning but couldn't figure out how.

PeelTheOnion (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m referring to this edit in regards to the legal threat. If you look at the page history, you’ll see some very similar edits to yours, which is hard to see as a coincidence when you look through and see how few edits the article tends to see. Sergecross73   msg me  23:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)