User talk:Troylloyd

Important message
— Paleo Neonate  – 09:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Potential COI with Falun Gong
Hello, Troylloyd. 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. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
Hello Troylloyd. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Vision China Times, 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:Troylloyd. 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. — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 14:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Blablubbs, thank you for your message. In response to your comment above, I confirm I am not being compensated directly or indirectly for my edits on Vision China Times. I have been following the story closely as a China-Australia community watcher and have found many factual errors in the ABC report. The report itself is also unclear whether it is referring to Vision Times or Vision China Times. The edit to the Vision China Times page about the ABC report have also carried over this conflation, where there were a few quotes which referred to Vision Times, rather than Vision China Times. This was the reason it has been deleted as I do not believe Wikipedia should be carrying comments which cannot be verified. Media reports which are subject to complaint reviews and defamation proceedings should only be quoted once there has been an outcome from these reviews/proceedings. Please refer to report in The Australian: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/abc-falun-gong-story-unethical-defamatory/news-story/776e630ea0bd1a0dadf2393a0e88c69c

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Vision China Times, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet, if you insist on putting in Ben Hurley's unverified blog, with his own anecdotal account, which only mentions Vision China Times once, then you should at least put in Vision China Times response to the ABC article. It is you who is violating neutral point of view policy, not me. TroylloydTroylloyd (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)