User talk:CarlThompson

December 2014

Please read the WP:COI guideline. Hired editors are not looked upon with favor here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Had you heeded the request above, you would have read in the guideline that editors with a conflict of interest, as you appear to have, should discuss substantive changes on the article talk page rather than trying to insert them yourself.

Also, when you created an account here, you agreed to abide by Wikimedia:Terms of Use, which requires you to disclose any paid association or conflict of interest publicly. Please do so, preferably on your user page.

Finally, one last bit of friendly advice: See Wikipedia:Edit warring. Continuing down the path you're on will result in this account being blocked. WP:BRD is good practice to follow. If someone reverts you, don't edit-war, try to gain consensus for your revision on the article talk page instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Conflict of interest account repeatedly inserting promotional material. Thank you. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Archived here. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

PCSO-524

I note that you have posted to Wtshymanski's user page questioning the actions that he took relating to your ammendments to the above article. I can tell you that any other user here will take similar action and revert any changes that you make. This is because your account has a very clear conflict of interest with the subject matter and it is also very clear that you are an employee of the company involved.

Putting aside Wtshymanski's given reasons, Wikipedia does not allow employees conected with any company related to the subject matter of any article to directly edit the article. This is even more so when the person is being paid to edit the article.

If you believe that the article is inaccurate, then Wikipedia would encourage the article being more factually correct without adding any bias. If you wish to achieve that, then there are a coulpe of things that you can and must do.

1. You must declare your connection with the company (including that you are paid by them) on your account user page.

2. You must document any changes that you believe should be made to the article on its talk page. You can do this using the {{request edit}} template (this template flags a conflict of interest edit, but also alerts those who can review the edit). You need to state what is in the article that needs changing and what it needs to be changed to (or what needs to be added) and why. Importantly: you need to provide third party evidence to support the change you want made (that your company's scientific panel has approved the change is unacceptable). Once the proposed edit has been reviewed, the reviewer will alter the template to say the edit has been done (or may authorise you to make it yourself), or state that the edit was declined (and why).

If you believe that the changes are likely to be controversial or complex, it may be better to initiate a discussion of the matter before implementing the {{request edit}}. A discussion where there is good consensus prior to an edit request is more likely to succeed.

HTH

Properly formatted an edit request may look like this:

Requested edit

{{request edit}} (Expands as)

It is requested that an edit be made to this article that the user below does not want to make because of a conflict of interest. Please review the request below and make the edit if the edit is well cited, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

---

Please consider reading the instructions on how to review and submit request edits, including decline and accept parameters.

I request that the phrase, "<Some example piece of phrase>" be changed to "<A somewhat different phrase>". Reason: (say) The original text does not correctly state the properties of the material. The replacement text more accurately reflects those properties. Supporting reference: DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Conflict Of Interest

You have a clear conflict of interest as shown in the following comment:

"I work for the owners of PCSO-524. The content that was placed there yesterday was approved by the directors and the scientific advisory panel of Pharmalink International, which owns the product and the patent. - Carl Thompson"[1]

Please note that editors with conflicts of interest are allowed to contribute to Wikipedia in the areas where they have a COI by following our Wikipedia plain and simple conflict of interest guide. If you read it and follow the guide, you will be able to improve the PCSO-524 without anyone undoing your edits. --20:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Ways to improve Martin Blochwich

Hi, I'm Maestroso simplo. CarlThompson, thanks for creating Martin Blochwich!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. It appears as though this page was copied from it's page on the German wikipedia de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Blochwitz. If so, it needs to be properly referenced according to Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Maestroso simplo (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)