User talk:Prcc27/Archives/2022/October

Circumcision and HIV
Consensus has changed (it happens), which is why you have needed to start edit-warring to get your preferred text in. You are I assume aware of WP:EW? Bon courage (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please show me the discussion on the article’s talk page where consensus has changed. All I see is a couple of users tag teaming their edits. I reverted the other user once, and you once. Please do not accuse me of edit warring when you have made 2 reverts in a day on an article in the past. (And no, a dummy edit does not count as a revert). Prcc27 (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The change is evident in the edits made. WP:ONUS pertains particularly to inclusions of such disputed text, and removing outdated cruft is just necessary cleanup in any case. As I say, WP:CCC and the the old text had nothing more than weak/stale consensus in any case, as we now see. Your stated intention to continue reverting is noted. Better, I look forward to your raising this on the Article Talk page should you wish to argue for your insertion. Bon courage (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do not misinterpret policy: “the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content”. Consensus was already “achieved”, so until consensus changes, ONUS does not apply. And no, a couple of tag team edits do not count as a “new consensus”. I look forward to you bringing this matter to the talk. Because if you do not get consensus for your edit, the original consensus still applies. Prcc27 (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You're wrong about the consensus, which is why you're having to edit-war. Consensus is not just something written on Talk pages, you know. Anyway since your stated tactic is to continue reverting and not Talk, I have taken that step to try and head problems off. Your participation would be welcome. Bon courage (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * An edit being in the article for less than 6 hours is not a consensus. Especially when one of the user’s edit summaries does not even match their edit: “removed extensive activist text that is not referenced and does not belong in an encyclopedia.” KNMG is not an activist organization, and the paragraph in question did have a reference. If consensus changes, I will respect that. And yes, I will be participating in the discussion, so we can work towards a stronger consensus if possible. Prcc27 (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Prcc27. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Edi Birsan, 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, clients, 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 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. Thank you. Cabayi (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)