User talk:Supperclubgene

November 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Arizona Organic Act has been reverted. Your edit here to Arizona Organic Act was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG9ivuwUXrg) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Supperclubgene. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.  DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * User:DGG, I pledge that I am not affiliated with any topic I write about. My motivation is to learn. I learn by writing. And it's fun here. Thanks!! Supperclubgene (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To explain why I asked, I find it difficult to imagine anyone other than a paid press agent creating something like  your first version of  America’s Infrastructure Alliance (and, after I trimmedthe article, introduced long promotional quotes in the guise of references like you did here or entering the details about the legislative history of uncontroversial water rights legislation bills that Senator Jeff Flake introduced--including some articles praising the bill that barely mentioned him, along with details of his individual speeches in support of various legislation, or bring interested in the article on the lobbying group Associated Equipment Distributors that you are currently drafting in your sandbox. Those are your main contributions. Difficult, but of course not impossible. Good faith contributors should be able to learn not to write like PR people (PR people tend to have done so much work in their own style that they find it difficult to learn how to write for an encycopedia). I await seeing whether you have learned how to fix these articles.  DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll try to fix them. I wish I was paid for my hobbies, but I'm afraid I'm retired, friend. Supperclubgene (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey DGG, I'm curious - please help me understand. What criteria do you use to pick out Wikipedia writers for scrutiny? I found another trade association that's highly positive and PR/slick looking. Check out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_Research_and_Manufacturers_of_America Those guys are pretty powerful, surely they have MadMen-type folks slicking up their wikipedia page! Supperclubgene (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm always glad to look at another--my guess is we probably have at least a hundred thousand highly promotional articles that need to be rewritten or removed. This is indeed one of them, and remarkably unsubtle.  After dealing with  it, I will then as usual check other articles by the same editor--but he edits under his own name, and has specified COI in one of the fields he works on.  DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)