User talk:Skafjr75

Navigation
Hallo, Thank you for creating Cambridge Analytica (film). When you create an article like this with a "disambiguated" title, please make sure that the reader can find it from the basic name (ie Cambridge Analytica), by adding or expanding a hatnote, or adding the article to a disambiguation page. This helps the reader to find your article, and also reduces the chance of a future careless editor creating a duplicate article with a slightly different disambiguator. I've fixed this one. Thanks, and Happy Editing. Pam D  15:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that. --Skafjr75 (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alexander Nix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equestrian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Skafjr75. 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 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. (talk) 09:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you are referring to, but perhaps you are thinking of Cambridge Analytica? Anyone reading my edits to that article (and other articles, for that sake) will notice that I write about that topic in a critical, nuanced and encyclopedic manner based on the media coverage, certainly not in a manner which is particularly flattering for the company or anyone involved with it. --Skafjr75 (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

There was a newspaper article about your edits in Norwegian daily VG yesterday: Anonymous Wikipedia account edits pages of millionaires involved in Norwegian shipping company conflict torstein (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Verdens Gang is a sensationalist tabloid rag, like The Sun or the Daily Mail or worse, not really a serious source by our standards, and apparently it's the first time the writer has discovered that "anyone may edit Wikipedia". I only know what I've read in the media about the feud in the Wilhelmsen clan. I only touched upon this issue as a smaller part of my work on the background of people affiliated with Cambridge Analytica, particularly Alexander Nix, something I started working on in the context of the Cambridge Analytica scandal two years or so before I or anyone else had heard or read of the Wilhelmsen feud. (An article in Dagbladet from early 2018 had highlighted Nix's relations to the Wilhelmsen family, so it formed a starting point for the coverage of that, although there wasn't any "family feud" until 2020 as I understand it). Considering that I've written quite critically about her husband, his companies and his business partners over several years even before this feud it wouldn't make sense for me to have any personal interest in the Wilhelmsen feud. Like most newspapers and their readers I was merely intrigued by the conditions in her family company that Norwegian media had described as oddly anachronistic, and reported what they wrote. That it had a gender dimension was something primarily highlighted by Norwegian newspapers, not something invented by me in any way, and some of these edits were simply quotes from them. As Berlingske Tidende summarised it, the debate in Norway over the Wilhelmsen feud has been focused on patriarchal structures, so it certainly isn't unreasonable to mention the gender dimension when that is what most other media have focused on. That the company seems to strongly disagree with the way it has been portrayed in the media, whether Norwegian or foreign, isn't really Wikipedia's problem. If I had any personal stake in any form related to the Wilhelmsen family I also probably wouldn't have included less flattering material (for the Wilhelmsens) that they have attempted to remove, such as the fact that one of them was the consul of apartheid-era South Africa, which is factual, but perhaps something they're not keen on mentioning today.
 * There seems to be an upsurge in coverage of the Wilhelmsen feud in recent days/weeks, so my guess is that they are simply clinging on to anything that could make an "article" in the Daily Mail style, even non-stories on the fact that the issue gets some coverage in Wikipedia based entirely on the coverage in the media. --Skafjr75 (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @Skafjr75: Just passing but just to say I'd agree that newspaper article singling you out as an anonymous editor was just plain ridiculously over the top .... a quick scan you've an account of over two years that seems to have been making steady contributions over that time. Obviously your interested in the topic; just as I am interesting in particular topics.  @: are you able to explain why you templated Skafjr75 and was it the best way of proceeding given the media mention?  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in, Djm-leighpark. I honestly don't think there is any need for us to waste any time on that kind of articles; I took it primarily as an indication that the author was unfamiliar with Wikipedia's concept and wanted to drum up something on a topic that is currently generating some interest. Apparently the same complaints about the coverage of the feud have been leveled against Norwegian media themselves, particularly Dagens Næringsliv, the newspaper that seems to have started the coverage of the feud, as this letter to the editor by one of the company's representatives indicates. I must admit that I used Dagens Næringsliv as one of the sources, but unlike Verdens Gang Dagens Næringsliv is a high-quality broadsheet newspaper known for serious journalism in its field. I don't think the complaints about the media coverage had really been voiced when I was working on this material before, but perhaps I'll revisit the relevant articles to see if there are nuances to the ownership debacle that I missed. --Skafjr75 (talk) 23:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @, being interested in a particular topic is one thing, however, Skafjr75's edits are almost exclusively related to CA/Alexander Nix. Media mention or not, I don't see how a polite encouragement to disclose a COI (if one exists) is in any way out of line here. Regards,  (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @. Thankyou for evading the question about whether the media interest brought you here. While you claim the Template:uw-coi is "polite" it is a warning template and reads almost as an accusation, though technically it may not be.  I also assume by the CA acronym you mean Cambridge Analytica. As your concerned about Skafjr75 then please explictly state that.  At first glance (and I very much mean first glance) I see "well-intentioned" "niche-interest" ... which perhaps not surprising given the possibly controversies surrounding Cambridge Analytica.  Skafjr75, if is helpful if you are able to review in the links in the template and explicately state "Yes I have a conflict of interest" or "No I do not have a conflict of interest".  You are not expected to do anything that could result in a WP:OUTING or otherwise affect RL, please read that section and its links very carefully.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I have no conflict of interest in any way whatsoever, no personal knowledge of any of them, and no economic stake in writing about CA. I don't really think my edits elaborating (often critically) on CA, Nix or other CA affiliated people, are doing them (or any other party for that sake other than the interested reader) a great favour either. I started working on CA and the background of its CEO in 2018 when the CA scandal originally erupted, and they all "went underground", probably not hoping for that kind of scrutiny. I have literally described Nix as a "villain" (as part of a quote) and included numerous sources highly critical of him. CA is pretty much universally viewed negatively, the company has been defunct for over two years, and I can't think of any scenario where anyone would have an economic reason to write critically about the company, based on its portrayal in mainstream sources, either. The Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal was one of the most discussed scandals back in 2018, so it's reasonable for people to be interested in the key participants involved in it, their social networks, related companies and so on. I like to delve into lesser known stories and background material, hence the articles about Nix's 19th century ancestors and so on. I don't mind being asked about it since I have focused a lot on CA related topics over the past couple of years, but I believe anyone conscientiously reading my contributions in that topic area will realise that it wouldn't make any sense for me to have any conflict of interest relating to any party. I consider this matter closed. --Skafjr75 (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Source hijack at Auspex International
hijacked 3 sources from the first sentence of the article onto your statement. Please provide a suitable breakdown analysis or it will be necessary to revert that edit. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As I understood it this sentence, which merely elaborated a little bit on the first sentence and provided a link to the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal and summarised uncontroversial materal also found in the main article, was also covered by the sources that were already cited. I've provided an additional source as well. If you feel the sentence still isn't covered by the cited sources, perhaps you can point out which part? --Skafjr75 (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Do any of the sources cite companies other than Data Propria or Auspex International to support  one of several companies founded by people formerly affiliated with Cambridge Analytica . (I haven't the time to trawl to sources but hopefully they mention another company).  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the BBC article at least mentions "Emerdata, which was also created in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal to continue the work it was doing". --Skafjr75 (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fine, thankyou for pointing that out. While I should have been able to spot that I'm a little tired at the moment. Sorry to trouble you. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Julian Wheatland for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Julian Wheatland is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Julian Wheatland until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Cambridge Analytica (film)
Hello, Skafjr75. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cambridge Analytica (film), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Cambridge Analytica (film)


Hello, Skafjr75. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Cambridge Analytica".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 17:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)