![]() |
Hi Mkingsense! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
I've linked it. The link is red but will turn blue when an article is created. Redlinks are meant to be used when you think the subject is notable. Please read WP:ORG, WP:LAYOUT and WP:CITE if you haven't edited much. Dougweller ( talk) 19:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Mkingsense. I just reviewed your recent edits to the Betsy Mitchell article. You have made a number of unsourced changes to the infobox and text, including changing the subject's full name and birth place, which are contrary to reliable third-party sources (see, e.g., Sports-Reference.com). You also did not include any sources for the changes you made regarding the subject's university degrees. All statements about living biographical subjects must be verifiable with reliable sources per WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS, otherwise they are subject to being reverted for lack of sources. Please advise. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 16:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible
conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. I'm not necessarily accusing you of anything, I just think you may have more detail on your relationship with CIRM that may be useful to get on record.
MarginalCost (
talk)
19:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello Mkingsense. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.
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, and if it does not, 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:Mkingsense. The template {{
Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Mkingsense|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}
. 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, please do not edit further until you answer this message. --
Jytdog (
talk)
20:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I have zero COI with this. I am receiving zero compensation from CIRM.
Which part do you need explained?
I have made extensive edits to this page based on input from CIRMIf you are making edits based on input from CIRM, you have an external relationship with CIRM and that is a COI. That is not
zero COI. Paid editing is not the only form of COI.
You said "If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message."
I did exactly that. I stated I am not being compensated by CIRM. Zero compensation.
I guess what you said earlier wasn't what you meant.
So what is it that you want? You are asking what "relationship" I have with CIRM. What does that mean? The COI policy, and what you are trying to dig at, is about financial COI. I don't have one. How many times do you need me to say that? I am not being paid by CIRM. Or compensated by CIRM. In any way. For anything.
If you have any further questions, please make them very specific. If they actually pertain to the COI policy, I will answer accordingly, as I have done so far.
Perhaps I need to remind you, though it is visible immediately above, that this is what you wrote in your original false accusation:
"The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.
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, and if it does not, 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:Mkingsense. The template
![]() | This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by {{{employer}}} for their contributions to Wikipedia. |
can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:
![]() | Mkingsense, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by InsertName for their contributions to Wikipedia. |
."
Where is MarginalCost's user page?
This is beginning to feel like harassment. Very shady.
No, you wasted my time as the lackey of someone without a user page.
Some of the content you added in this diff series was copy/pasted from CIRM's website without quotes or attribution.
I am asking the content to be revdelled.
One of your recent additions has been removed, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing. See
Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.
Jytdog (
talk)
21:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, so you will help me with the details. Great! Thanks. And if you don't want to accept my edits, please make sure the page is updated. It was way out of date, as had already been noted in Wikipedia well before I tried to edit it.
Happy to note where the information is from, as I tried to do with all the citations I added.
I'm getting confused now, though because, for example, with their mission statement: I *did* put that in quotes and cite it, which is just what had been done in the previous version. And it seems like you are saying that what I did was wrong. Please advise.
I can now tell you are attacking me (or perhaps CIRM??) personally. You said "I am done. I will report at COIN that you refuse to disclose your conflict of interest. You are wasting my time. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)"
And yet, here you still are. Spending even more of your precious "wasted" time on this (you said your time was being wasted, remember?) But you're not actually being helpful, and in fact, you're trying to be condescending and a bully. You've been burned as someone who had COIs in the past and are hell-bent on trying to force someone into saying they have one when they do not. And all related to a Wiki page about a *public* entity about which all information is made public, and yet the Wiki was grossly out of date - as had been noted on the page itself. It needs updating. Good job blocking that, and for what?
You clearly have no interest in making Wikipedia better. That's fine. It'll get done eventually. I look forward to seeing how much more of your time, which you were so concerned about having wasted, you spend on this. It's becoming entertaining.
![]() |
Hi Mkingsense! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
I've linked it. The link is red but will turn blue when an article is created. Redlinks are meant to be used when you think the subject is notable. Please read WP:ORG, WP:LAYOUT and WP:CITE if you haven't edited much. Dougweller ( talk) 19:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Mkingsense. I just reviewed your recent edits to the Betsy Mitchell article. You have made a number of unsourced changes to the infobox and text, including changing the subject's full name and birth place, which are contrary to reliable third-party sources (see, e.g., Sports-Reference.com). You also did not include any sources for the changes you made regarding the subject's university degrees. All statements about living biographical subjects must be verifiable with reliable sources per WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS, otherwise they are subject to being reverted for lack of sources. Please advise. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 16:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible
conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. I'm not necessarily accusing you of anything, I just think you may have more detail on your relationship with CIRM that may be useful to get on record.
MarginalCost (
talk)
19:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello Mkingsense. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.
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, and if it does not, 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:Mkingsense. The template {{
Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Mkingsense|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}
. 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, please do not edit further until you answer this message. --
Jytdog (
talk)
20:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
I have zero COI with this. I am receiving zero compensation from CIRM.
Which part do you need explained?
I have made extensive edits to this page based on input from CIRMIf you are making edits based on input from CIRM, you have an external relationship with CIRM and that is a COI. That is not
zero COI. Paid editing is not the only form of COI.
You said "If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message."
I did exactly that. I stated I am not being compensated by CIRM. Zero compensation.
I guess what you said earlier wasn't what you meant.
So what is it that you want? You are asking what "relationship" I have with CIRM. What does that mean? The COI policy, and what you are trying to dig at, is about financial COI. I don't have one. How many times do you need me to say that? I am not being paid by CIRM. Or compensated by CIRM. In any way. For anything.
If you have any further questions, please make them very specific. If they actually pertain to the COI policy, I will answer accordingly, as I have done so far.
Perhaps I need to remind you, though it is visible immediately above, that this is what you wrote in your original false accusation:
"The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.
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, and if it does not, 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:Mkingsense. The template
![]() | This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by {{{employer}}} for their contributions to Wikipedia. |
can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:
![]() | Mkingsense, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by InsertName for their contributions to Wikipedia. |
."
Where is MarginalCost's user page?
This is beginning to feel like harassment. Very shady.
No, you wasted my time as the lackey of someone without a user page.
Some of the content you added in this diff series was copy/pasted from CIRM's website without quotes or attribution.
I am asking the content to be revdelled.
One of your recent additions has been removed, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of
permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing. See
Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.
Jytdog (
talk)
21:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, so you will help me with the details. Great! Thanks. And if you don't want to accept my edits, please make sure the page is updated. It was way out of date, as had already been noted in Wikipedia well before I tried to edit it.
Happy to note where the information is from, as I tried to do with all the citations I added.
I'm getting confused now, though because, for example, with their mission statement: I *did* put that in quotes and cite it, which is just what had been done in the previous version. And it seems like you are saying that what I did was wrong. Please advise.
I can now tell you are attacking me (or perhaps CIRM??) personally. You said "I am done. I will report at COIN that you refuse to disclose your conflict of interest. You are wasting my time. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)"
And yet, here you still are. Spending even more of your precious "wasted" time on this (you said your time was being wasted, remember?) But you're not actually being helpful, and in fact, you're trying to be condescending and a bully. You've been burned as someone who had COIs in the past and are hell-bent on trying to force someone into saying they have one when they do not. And all related to a Wiki page about a *public* entity about which all information is made public, and yet the Wiki was grossly out of date - as had been noted on the page itself. It needs updating. Good job blocking that, and for what?
You clearly have no interest in making Wikipedia better. That's fine. It'll get done eventually. I look forward to seeing how much more of your time, which you were so concerned about having wasted, you spend on this. It's becoming entertaining.