|
Please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#March_4_Trump. Since you have a conflict of interest, I strongly recommend suggesting article edits on its corresponding talk page. Thanks, --- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi PeterBoykin. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia along with my regular editing. Thank you for disclosing here that you were one of the organizers of March 4 Trump. Your edit here which you have restored multiple times is apparently a picture of yourself. On both levels, this constitutes a COI in WP. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.
Hello, PeterBoykin. 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 COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the
conflict of interest guideline and
FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:
In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).
Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.
Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do.
Thanks again for disclosing that you organized this event; this means that you have a COI for this event, as we define that in Wikipedia.
A tag has been added to the article's talk page, so the disclosure is done there.
As I noted above, there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is a form of peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.
What we ask editors to do who have a COI and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:
By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (which I will say more about, if you want).
I hope that makes sense to you.
Will you please agree to follow the peer review processes going forward, when you want to work on the article or any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. And if you want me to quickly go over the content policies, I can do that. Just let me know. Thanks! Jytdog ( talk) 21:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I just want to make sure you are aware that repeatedly reverting is not OK. Please see the warning below.
Your recent editing history at March 4 Trump shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog ( talk) 21:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to March 4 Trump has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
Thank you. ClueBot NG ( talk) 21:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, you found Talk:March 4 Trump
The following will get you oriented to how this place works, and to the key policies and guidelines. It is as brief as I can make it...
The first thing, is that our mission is to produce articles that provide readers with encyclopedia content that summarize accepted knowledge, and to do that as a community that anyone can be a part of. That's the mission. As you can imagine, if this place had no norms, it would be a Mad Max kind of world interpersonally, and content would be a slag heap (the quality is really bad in parts, despite our best efforts). But over the past 15 years the community has developed a whole slew of norms, via lots of discussion. One of the first, is that we decide things by consensus. That decision itself, is recorded here: WP:CONSENSUS, which is one of our "policies". And when we decide things by consensus, that is not just local in space and time, but includes meta-discussions that have happened in the past. The results of those past meta-discussions are the norms that we follow now. We call them policies and guidelines - and these documents all reside in "Wikipedia space" (There is a whole forest of documents in "Wikipedia space" - pages in Wikipedia that start with "Wikipedia:AAAA" or for short, "WP:AAAA". WP:CONSENSUS is different from Consensus.)
People have tried to define Wikipedia - is it a democracy, an anarchy, secret cabal? In fact it is a clue-ocracy (that link is to a very short and important text).
There are policies and guidelines that govern content, and separate ones that govern behavior. Here is a very quick rundown:
In terms of behavior, the key norms are:
If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course. I know that was a lot of information, but hopefully it is digestable enough. Jytdog ( talk) 22:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. So, I do not recommend editing the Gays for Trump article directly, given your conflict of interest, but I did want to bring this page to your attention. You are welcome to post edit requests on the article's talk page, if you'd like. Take care, --- Another Believer ( Talk) 05:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
|
Please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#March_4_Trump. Since you have a conflict of interest, I strongly recommend suggesting article edits on its corresponding talk page. Thanks, --- Another Believer ( Talk) 19:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi PeterBoykin. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia along with my regular editing. Thank you for disclosing here that you were one of the organizers of March 4 Trump. Your edit here which you have restored multiple times is apparently a picture of yourself. On both levels, this constitutes a COI in WP. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.
Hello, PeterBoykin. 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 COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the
conflict of interest guideline and
FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:
In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).
Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.
Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do.
Thanks again for disclosing that you organized this event; this means that you have a COI for this event, as we define that in Wikipedia.
A tag has been added to the article's talk page, so the disclosure is done there.
As I noted above, there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is a form of peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.
What we ask editors to do who have a COI and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:
By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (which I will say more about, if you want).
I hope that makes sense to you.
Will you please agree to follow the peer review processes going forward, when you want to work on the article or any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. And if you want me to quickly go over the content policies, I can do that. Just let me know. Thanks! Jytdog ( talk) 21:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I just want to make sure you are aware that repeatedly reverting is not OK. Please see the warning below.
Your recent editing history at March 4 Trump shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog ( talk) 21:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to March 4 Trump has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
Thank you. ClueBot NG ( talk) 21:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, you found Talk:March 4 Trump
The following will get you oriented to how this place works, and to the key policies and guidelines. It is as brief as I can make it...
The first thing, is that our mission is to produce articles that provide readers with encyclopedia content that summarize accepted knowledge, and to do that as a community that anyone can be a part of. That's the mission. As you can imagine, if this place had no norms, it would be a Mad Max kind of world interpersonally, and content would be a slag heap (the quality is really bad in parts, despite our best efforts). But over the past 15 years the community has developed a whole slew of norms, via lots of discussion. One of the first, is that we decide things by consensus. That decision itself, is recorded here: WP:CONSENSUS, which is one of our "policies". And when we decide things by consensus, that is not just local in space and time, but includes meta-discussions that have happened in the past. The results of those past meta-discussions are the norms that we follow now. We call them policies and guidelines - and these documents all reside in "Wikipedia space" (There is a whole forest of documents in "Wikipedia space" - pages in Wikipedia that start with "Wikipedia:AAAA" or for short, "WP:AAAA". WP:CONSENSUS is different from Consensus.)
People have tried to define Wikipedia - is it a democracy, an anarchy, secret cabal? In fact it is a clue-ocracy (that link is to a very short and important text).
There are policies and guidelines that govern content, and separate ones that govern behavior. Here is a very quick rundown:
In terms of behavior, the key norms are:
If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course. I know that was a lot of information, but hopefully it is digestable enough. Jytdog ( talk) 22:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. So, I do not recommend editing the Gays for Trump article directly, given your conflict of interest, but I did want to bring this page to your attention. You are welcome to post edit requests on the article's talk page, if you'd like. Take care, --- Another Believer ( Talk) 05:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)