User talk:SeedsmanFJC

December 2020
This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at Artichoke, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Zefr (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Confusion.
Thank you Zefr. However I am a bit confused about this process here. I looked into Wikipedia's rules concerning what is listed as "blatant advertising" and how to identify it. And I'm not sure how it would apply in this situation. None of what I cited attempted to market or sell any particular thing. The website I've been working on does have a store on it, however that is intended to fund educational, human rights and environmental projects. As I write up more for each plant we do have or otherwise talk about, I was checking with wiki to see where citations we incomplete, broken or needed. Especially considering much of the information often leaves out valuable origins. I took my que from a number of other pages that cite wiki directly to a page for their product, which I didn't do. I cited towards a section about whatever crop was being discussed. I am attempting to learn here and thought I was helping. Would companies directly citing their product pages also be in violation? Wikis rules on blatant advertising doesn't seem to be clear to me on that area. __````SeedsmanFJC 14:25 17 December 2020 UTC--SeedsmanFJC (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's best not to use commercial sites because there will always be promotional links that may encourage sales. See WP:PROMO. On topics of seeds, plants, and other botanical content, there should be independent WP:SCIRS sources which provide facts and neutrality, WP:NPOV. Zefr (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks again Zefr. But that doesn't clarify my question(s). Your answer about not using commercial sites appears to be an opinion. I'm trying to understand here, because I've found quite a few commercial sources being cited without hindrance throughout wikipedia. I was asking for clarification on any sort of rules concerning commercial sources being cited. I cannot seem to find any sort of rule that would say using commercial pages as a source would be a violation. I also checked on citing myself or my own work and found no rule that would suggest that would be a violation. What I found was.. "You may cite your own publications just as you would cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you are regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest; when in doubt, check on the talk page." The only thing I could even find true to the issue is that I perhaps cited my own work at least on the Artichoke page at a level that could have appeared "excessive" and "promotional". I can understand the need to bring this to my attention as being a potential issue, however you directly accused me of a violation I don't believe I have committed and then reverted ALL of my work anywhere on wiki. We use our page to uplift indigenous voices as well as conduct all the work I mentioned earlier. A huge part of our work concerns agriculture and the fact that our website utilizes a store to finance an uplift our efforts should not be, at least in my opinion, an issue.. Especially if there is no particular rule that says this is a violation in existence. I will be more careful next time with "excessive" citing any of our work per page. However I hope you understand the Artichoke page had more to do with excitement than malicious intent. And I ask that you reconsider the reversions you've conducted elsewhere. Thanks. --SeedsmanFJC (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)-
 * You said: We use our page to uplift indigenous voices as well as conduct all the work I mentioned earlier. A huge part of our work concerns agriculture and the fact that our website utilizes a store to finance an uplift - which defines promotion, non-neutral sourcing, and conflict of interest, all of which are discouraged or disallowed on Wikipedia. I provided a WP:COI notice below. Your topics to date, including the cardoon article, are scientific (botanical) in nature, and should be readily sourced by WP:SCIRS reviews. The revert on your cardoon edit ("unreliable source") makes my point, as it was a Wikipedia administrator who reverted. Please stop your use of the promotional, non-RS, commercial soapboxing of the Alliance website, and find neutral, high-quality scientific reviews. The warning above puts you on notice not to repeat use of the promotional website. Zefr (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, SeedsmanFJC. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Artichoke, 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. Thank you. Zefr (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)