User talk:Yearsofwisdom

December 2020
Hello Yearsofwisdom. 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:Yearsofwisdom. 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) 12:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

I did respond elsewhere too and stated that I do not get any financial compensation for the edits I did, neither do those help me directly financially anyway. In addition all the information I added and edited are public domain and I did very specific references to each paragraph and section and even sentence. --Yearsofwisdom (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie, did I miss the clue? Since I have donated to Wikipedia, is that the conflict of interest here you talked about? Or is it the financial model to make sure that any company related or business related now have to be paid edits to Wikipedia? I noticed my edits were taken down so I am just trying to understand the reason. Yearsofwisdom (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , There is a long history of paid editing on that article, and your edits were promotional in nature. No article on Wikipedia may be made into marketing materials. MrOllie (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie, so you punish me for someone else getting paid? OR you want me to pay for the edits? Not sure which one? Please cite the source specific the promotional material I used? That was not my purpose and that is why I used sources, public knowledge and not opinions. Yearsofwisdom (talk) 13:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I want you to comply with the policies of Wikipedia, particularly WP:NPOV, and not add promotional copy to articles. MrOllie (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie, we have the same goal except that lack of information or not complete information is manipulation of information. As you would know working for a media company. So please clarify to me where I used promotion on the articles? I am happy to comply, so how do you reference a website or article content? Since I did not change the words, I did not add an opinion, I listed things and then referenced where it is from. Yearsofwisdom (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , "As you would know working for a media company" - I have no idea what you are talking about. At any rate, that you found the promotional copy elsewhere and cut and pasted it into Wikipedia does not somehow make it not promotional. MrOllie (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

MrOllie, I mean I consider Wikipedia a media company and that is the impression I have been getting when they have asked me to donate money as well. But not sure how the organization is officially defined. I agree with your statement, if I take an advertisement from online and copy it here it is still an advertisement. But if I take a business website content (which yes is for all the world's profit and non-profit companies promotional) and copy it here and the website represents not marketing or advertisement materials but general information and public information I don't understand how it would not be allowed. If a reference to a website, ie. company own website would not qualify for a reliable source then you would need to probably take down all the business wikipedia pages. I checked as an example PricewaterhouseCoopers, Toyota and Huawei. All the pages have references back to their own website and also other media pages which can promote their content or they can buy advertisements in. So it must not be that. Now I am getting really curious about this. Also I read the WP:NPOV you reference and can't find a conflict from that what the problem is. Yearsofwisdom (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)