Hello, TimSlavin. We
welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things
you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a
conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. MrOllie ( talk) 23:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Ollie, I'm confused: is this message for me? Is it related to my comment on the WAMP Comparison page earlier today? If so, I have zero affiliations or conflicts of interest with any WAMP vendor. Indeed, I'm a writer/journalist for two sites I control, one ReachCustomersOnline.com is about to go defunct while the other is a new monthly magazine I'm launching in August 2013. In this case, I'm writing an article about how to install all in one software packages like XAMPP, WAMP, LAMP, MAMP. I'm looking for all possible vendors so my article can reflect the best options. Indeed, I wish Wikipedia covered this category of software (it's more than WAMP) and had a neutral comparison chart. Let me know if I'm the issue or if I got this inadvertently. I can tell you, if I'm the issue, there is no issue. I'm neutral and simply writing about the software space. Thx.
TimSlavin (
talk)
02:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's related to your linking of your own site on the Editorial caldendar article, and to your edits on the article for Monica Rich Kosann. - MrOllie ( talk) 11:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, I've not worked for that client since 2011 (MRK). The editorial calendar article I linked to, at the time at least, was the most comprehensive article on the topic. Plus I deliberately linked to other resources that addressed pieces of the editorial calendar puzzle, for example, using paper instead of spreadsheets and people who did videos. My article was comprehensive not least because I read every article on the topic, the first 8-10 pages of Google search results, and incorporated the best of what I found with links to these resources. Most people, I found, wrote about editorial calendars as link bait (worst case) or to note something they encountered on the topic (best case). Let me know if somehow I'm a threat to humanity. 8-) Thanks for clarifying. TimSlavin ( talk) 22:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, TimSlavin. We
welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things
you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a
conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. MrOllie ( talk) 23:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Mr. Ollie, I'm confused: is this message for me? Is it related to my comment on the WAMP Comparison page earlier today? If so, I have zero affiliations or conflicts of interest with any WAMP vendor. Indeed, I'm a writer/journalist for two sites I control, one ReachCustomersOnline.com is about to go defunct while the other is a new monthly magazine I'm launching in August 2013. In this case, I'm writing an article about how to install all in one software packages like XAMPP, WAMP, LAMP, MAMP. I'm looking for all possible vendors so my article can reflect the best options. Indeed, I wish Wikipedia covered this category of software (it's more than WAMP) and had a neutral comparison chart. Let me know if I'm the issue or if I got this inadvertently. I can tell you, if I'm the issue, there is no issue. I'm neutral and simply writing about the software space. Thx.
TimSlavin (
talk)
02:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's related to your linking of your own site on the Editorial caldendar article, and to your edits on the article for Monica Rich Kosann. - MrOllie ( talk) 11:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, I've not worked for that client since 2011 (MRK). The editorial calendar article I linked to, at the time at least, was the most comprehensive article on the topic. Plus I deliberately linked to other resources that addressed pieces of the editorial calendar puzzle, for example, using paper instead of spreadsheets and people who did videos. My article was comprehensive not least because I read every article on the topic, the first 8-10 pages of Google search results, and incorporated the best of what I found with links to these resources. Most people, I found, wrote about editorial calendars as link bait (worst case) or to note something they encountered on the topic (best case). Let me know if somehow I'm a threat to humanity. 8-) Thanks for clarifying. TimSlavin ( talk) 22:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)