User talk:Russellbesq

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. (See especially WP:EL) Han-Kwang (t) 22:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

June 2010
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Trade secret. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. --Edcolins (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply to your message
No problem. Contributions are always welcomed, thanks (especially to articles such as Non-compete clause, which is in my opinion a very interesting topic). If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to post a message on my talk page. Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest policy
Hello, Russellbesq. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. 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, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * 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 must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Hi Ronz, I do not regularly contribute, other than my original contributions when the pages were pretty sparse. As a result, I apologize that I am not familiar with the process of addressing the issues that you have raised. (I actually thought that I had addressed all issues that had been raised.) In short, the materials that I identified are authoritative and have been relied upon by the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Obama Administration, and others; they are not biased or inaccurate in any way, nor are they promotional. (I particularly do not understand what would be inappropriate about a chart comparing the laws of the 50 states; it's a resource relied upon by many lawyers and companies and provides an easy way for people to see how the laws vary.) I am sorry you find them to be somehow inappropriate and I am very surprised that you would take them down. I would think that you might refer them to an administrator who can make that decision, and request that you put them back and please check with an administrator if you truly think that they are inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate. Just to be clear, I am simply trying to pass along knowledge in a format that makes it accessible to people who are trying to understand it; as a result, I don't understand your objection and am I wondering whether you are maybe misinterpreting or misapplying the rule you are relying on, especially given that the types of materials that I put up are no different from many other of the materials others have cited. Thanks. RB

Hi Russellbesq. I ran across some of your edits recently and am extremely concerned that you are using Wikipedia for self-promotion. My initial thoughts are to start a discussion at WP:COIN. I haven't looked over your editing in much detail at this point, and I don't know if you are aware of the many changes in how editors with a conflict of interest are expected to manage that conflict. I thought it best to try to discuss the matter with you first. --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ronz. I got your message and left a message for you on your talk page (as well as here, as I was not sure which you would see). I am confused about what you think I did. The only thing I can think of is that I provided links to some resources that happen to be located at my firm's website. However, those resources have been relied upon by the Obama Administration, The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and many others. I did not cite to anything that is promotional. I have discussed this in the past with editors, and thought it was resolved. Please let me know. Thank you, and sorry that this is creating an issue. RB

I should add that the materials are all academic-type materials. (I actually use them in a class I teach on the subject.)
 * Thanks for the quick response. As I said, there have been many changes to how editors are expected to manage conflicts of interest since you began editing. Please look over WP:COI. I don't have time at this moment to go into the details, but will try to do so as soon as my schedule allows. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I've yet to find the time to look into this in depth. In the meantime, as my initial observations are:
 * Most of your edits are promotional in nature and against a conflict of interest.
 * You've not followed others' recommendations on how to address problems that they've brought up with you.
 * The easy way for you to continue contributing as you have is to use edit requests on article talk pages. --Ronz (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Here are the responses to your previous attempts to address concerns about your editing:. You didn't follow up with either. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, I do not regularly contribute, other than my original contributions when the pages were pretty sparse (and a few updates to keep things current). As a result, I apologize that I am not familiar with the process of addressing the issues that you have raised. (I actually thought that I had addressed all issues that had been raised.) In short, the materials that I identified are authoritative and have been relied upon by the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Obama Administration, and others; they are not biased or inaccurate in any way, nor are they promotional. (I particularly do not understand what would be inappropriate about a chart comparing the laws of the 50 states; it's a resource relied upon by many lawyers and companies and provides an easy way for people to see how the laws vary.) I am sorry you find them to be somehow inappropriate and I am very surprised that you would take them down. I would think that you might refer them to an administrator who can make that decision, and request that you put them back and please check with an administrator if you truly think that they are inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate. Just to be clear, I am simply trying to pass along knowledge in a format that makes it accessible to people who are trying to understand it; as a result, I don't understand your objection and am I wondering whether you are maybe misinterpreting or misapplying the rule you are relying on, especially given that the types of materials that I put up are no different from many other of the materials others have cited. Thanks. RB (sorry - forgot the signature) Russellbesq (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC) russellbesqRussellbesq (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)russellbesq
 * Thanks again for following up with me.
 * I'd going to focus on the conflict of interest for the moment.
 * I recently saw a nice summary of our COI guidelines: Basically, treat your edits to Wikipedia as you would when submitting an article to an academic journal, with a declaration of your conflict of interest and a request for review.
 * I hope from your position you understand that we're simply setting a standard similar to what you're already familiar, for the same reasons. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, can you just explain what it is that I am supposed to do in order for the materials to appear on the substantive topic page? If that's not possible, please just let me know that. To be clear, I am just trying to make useful content easily available. In that regard, you didn't take down the portions of the actual article that I wrote - nor do I believe there is there anything indicating that I wrote them, so I'm having a problem understanding why that is reliable but references relied upon by the Obama Administration (among others) are not acceptable. Again, if there is a problem, I request that you either tell me how to fix it and get the resources back or or please put it back and ask an administrator to evaluate it. As for the conflict, I don't see it. There's nothing hidden; my page reflects my connection to the information, which another part of why I'm having a problem understanding your concern. Thanks. Russellbesq (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2017 (UTC)russellbesq
 * I'm going to continue to focus on the conflict of interest, hoping we can get this out of the way quickly.
 * what it is that I am supposed to do: The second bullet in my first message to you is the bare minimum: propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles with the request edit template, including a disclosure. --Ronz (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Ronz, I will take a look. In the meantime, I again ask that you reinstate the resources I posted and run this by an administrator if you think the resources are inappropriate in some way. I'm not sure why, where there is a disagreement, you appoint yourself the final word and editor and remove things that other people post. I have no objection to you raising your concerns, but I think an administrator should make the decision. If I am mistaken and you are an administrator, please let me know. Thanks. Russellbesq (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)russellbesq
 * That's not the purpose of administrators, and I don't think I have the final word in any of this.
 * You were asked to start a discussion on the article talk page by another editor. You never did. When I came across your subsequent edits, I asked you to do the same and have pointed out why I think it is necessary. --Ronz (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Ronz, I think the point is lost. You took down something that someone (I) else wrote; I did not agree to have it taken down - in fact I disagreed. You seem to think that you have the authority to pull it down. And, you did so because you disagree with the views I expressed. Whether those views are expressed here or elsewhere is irrelevant. There is clearly nothing more that can be said to convince you, whether written here or on some other page that you seem to prefer. I put the materials up - and wrote much of the initial article - for purposes of educating people, not as my job. You removed it. I don't have any time or interest in further debating it with you. I hope that at some point you realize that some people are just trying to add to the knowledge base and your efforts are better spent addressing actual problems. Have a nice day. Russellbesq (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)russellbesq

Sorry - forgot two points: (1) there is no conflict (to be clear - I am not paid for any of this; I do it purely to post useful information on the subject); (2) the policy that actually seems to apply, which you presumably overlooked, is the following:

Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it.

As I have explained, the few things I posted are materials that are indisputably relevant, confirm to the content policies and are not excessive. Nor do they place undue (or virtually any) emphasis on my work. In fact, I cited lots of author authorities. The fact that you disagree is your choice. The fact that you took it down is simply improper. Russellbesq (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)russellbesq
 * My apologies. My intent is not to create frustration or worse. Let me get some help. --Ronz (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law in the hopes that the editors there can resolve this quickly. --Ronz (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)