User talk:Tempcontrolexpert1

March 2021
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. 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 websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website 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 page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it.  MrOllie (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. MrOllie (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for notifying me of Wikipedia's guidelines - I am new to contributing and did not realize the link I was adding would be seen as promoting a product or website - I will remove the link and any associations before publishing my next edit. MrOllie Will this align with Wikipedia's guidelines? unsigned


 * No, the promotional text and the product placement image are inappropriate even without the company links. - MrOllie (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Tempcontrolexpert1. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Tempcontrolexpert1. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. MrOllie (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie... I do not have an undisclosed financial stake. I run a blog on temperature control equipment and enjoy informing the scientific community on liquid temperature control (thus why I am trying to add a section for the laboratory community. The text I have given is informational, the image reflects the type of machine used in this setting. The links themselves are also informational, but I could understand how they may be perceived as promotional which is why I removed them in my latest edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempcontrolexpert1 (talk • contribs)


 * This image File:Durachill_PowerOn.tif is a clearly staged marketing photo produced by the manufacturer, but you tagged it as your 'own work'. How did that happen if you are not associated with this company? - MrOllie (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I found it online and screenshotted it....I did not actually take that picture? I wanted something which would reflect a chiller in the laboratory setting. If the issue here is that I am supposedly profiting from this somehow, as I said before I am not. If the issue is the image, I can easily not include it. My aim is to provide information on chillers in laboratory settings, is this disallowed? I am confused as to what the problem with my addition is at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempcontrolexpert1 (talk • contribs)


 * That's a violation of copyright. The promotional language is also an issue, but uploading images you don't own the rights to under a false license claim is a serious issue in its own right. I will tag the image for deletion - but you must not do something like that again. Look, you added text that sounded like it was pulled from a marketing brochure (one example 'combines technological innovation with precise temperature control'), you added two external links to a particular vendor, and you copied one of that vendor's marketing images and placed it in the article. Surely you can understand why that came off as promotional. Going forward, you should be fine if: 1) You do not upload any images that you have not created 100% from scratch yourself, 2) You do not mention or link any vendors or manufacturers, instead relying on high quality sources such as peer reviewed articles, and 3) you write as neutrally as possible. Since you mentioned running a blog I'll also mention that Wikipedia generally does not use self published sites such as blogs as sources. I know all the policies can be a lot to adsorb, if you have any questions I recommend asking at the Teahouse, many helpful editors will see your questions there. - MrOllie (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)