User talk:Somapsyche

Welcome!
Hello, Somapsyche, and welcome to Wikipedia!&#32;Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Francis Thompson (film director), which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article.&#32;Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * Best practices for editors with close associations
 * Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Somapsyche. I've moved the comment you left on my user talk page here because it's better to keep things in one place. While I'm sure you mean well, I do believe your relationship with Thompson is going to be considered a conflict of interest when it comes to Wikipedia; so, once again I think it would be better for you to propose the changes you feel should be made to the article on its talk page as explained in Wikipedia:Edit requests instead of trying to make them directly yourself. This will give other editors unconnected with the subject and perhaps more familiar with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines a chance to assess what you're proposing and figure if there's a way to incorporate into into the article. The statement I did know the subject of the article but not in a way that compromises my objectivity. If anything, I am better able to find and screen various resources for information. to be completely honest is the type of statement many editors with a conflict of interest make and that is in a way part of the problem: a COI editor feels that since they know the subject matter better than others that they are better qualified to make changes in a fair and impartial way. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's experience over the years has been the opposite and these well meaning editors often end up creating problems that need to be sorted out by others. You could argue that you are the exception to that rule perhaps, but this edit summary and this edit are not a promising indication of that. All of the content you added is unsourced and appears to be primarily based on your personal knowledge of the subject matter, and not really what reliable sources have reported on the matter. I believe it's probably true, but Wikipedia requires verifiability. Even something as trivial seeming as adding an "E." to Thompson's name or adding his date of birth needs to be properly supported by a citation to a reliable source. I'm not trying to be disrespectful or discourage you in any way, but most of what you added will probably need to be removed if corroborating reliable sources can't be found. Even if reliable sources are found, some of the content might still need to be rewritten or removed per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Of course, you don't have to agree with my assessment of things and your welcome to seek further input about this at the Wikipedia Teahouse or even Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard if you like. Regarding the maintenance templates that were added to the article, I was the one who did so because those are some of the issues that I believe the article has. The Sections template mainly has to do with formatting as explained in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. The other two templates indicate more serious issues that might be harder to resolve. They are pretty much self explanatory, and they too can be resolved over time. If you know of any reliable sources that can be cited to support the information you added to the article and you could post about them on the article's talk page, other editors will be able to assess them and figure out the best way to incorporate them. By doing this, perhaps a WP:CONSENSUS about what content is OK to leave in and what (if any) needs to be removed will be established, and the article will be improved. It might not perhaps be the version you may prefer, but it will probably be the version that is best for Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding to the above, every direct quotation must have an inline reference to the source of the quotation, as this is required by the core content policy verifiability, which says "Attribute all quotations, and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged, to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." In short, this is mandatory and not negotiable. There are quite a few unreferenced paragraphs that tell interesting anecdotes. The same verifiability policy requires that references to reliable sources be provided for each substantive assertion, or any editor will be justified in removing them. Expanding an article is great, but only if the expansion complies with policies and guidelines. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Somapsyche. I've moved the comment you left on my user talk page here because it's better to keep things in one place. While I'm sure you mean well, I do believe your relationship with Thompson is going to be considered a conflict of interest when it comes to Wikipedia; so, once again I think it would be better for you to propose the changes you feel should be made to the article on its talk page as explained in Wikipedia:Edit requests instead of trying to make them directly yourself. This will give other editors unconnected with the subject and perhaps more familiar with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines a chance to assess what you're proposing and figure if there's a way to incorporate into into the article. The statement I did know the subject of the article but not in a way that compromises my objectivity. If anything, I am better able to find and screen various resources for information. to be completely honest is the type of statement many editors with a conflict of interest make and that is in a way part of the problem: a COI editor feels that since they know the subject matter better than others that they are better qualified to make changes in a fair and impartial way. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's experience over the years has been the opposite and these well meaning editors often end up creating problems that need to be sorted out by others. You could argue that you are the exception to that rule perhaps, but this edit summary and this edit are not a promising indication of that. All of the content you added is unsourced and appears to be primarily based on your personal knowledge of the subject matter, and not really what reliable sources have reported on the matter. I believe it's probably true, but Wikipedia requires verifiability. Even something as trivial seeming as adding an "E." to Thompson's name or adding his date of birth needs to be properly supported by a citation to a reliable source. I'm not trying to be disrespectful or discourage you in any way, but most of what you added will probably need to be removed if corroborating reliable sources can't be found. Even if reliable sources are found, some of the content might still need to be rewritten or removed per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Of course, you don't have to agree with my assessment of things and your welcome to seek further input about this at the Wikipedia Teahouse or even Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard if you like. Regarding the maintenance templates that were added to the article, I was the one who did so because those are some of the issues that I believe the article has. The Sections template mainly has to do with formatting as explained in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. The other two templates indicate more serious issues that might be harder to resolve. They are pretty much self explanatory, and they too can be resolved over time. If you know of any reliable sources that can be cited to support the information you added to the article and you could post about them on the article's talk page, other editors will be able to assess them and figure out the best way to incorporate them. By doing this, perhaps a WP:CONSENSUS about what content is OK to leave in and what (if any) needs to be removed will be established, and the article will be improved. It might not perhaps be the version you may prefer, but it will probably be the version that is best for Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding to the above, every direct quotation must have an inline reference to the source of the quotation, as this is required by the core content policy verifiability, which says "Attribute all quotations, and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged, to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." In short, this is mandatory and not negotiable. There are quite a few unreferenced paragraphs that tell interesting anecdotes. The same verifiability policy requires that references to reliable sources be provided for each substantive assertion, or any editor will be justified in removing them. Expanding an article is great, but only if the expansion complies with policies and guidelines. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)