User talk:Inlinetext

Courtesy notice

I didn't use your name in this COIN thread, but it does mention some of your statements. You are of course welcome to contribute to the discussion. Brianhe (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the courtesy :-) I have no problem editing under this name. Inlinetext (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note about COI stuff

Hi Inlinetext. You may or may not know that I worked a lot on COI issues at COIN until about 6 months ago, when I made a mistake and violating OUTING and got a TBAN for that (my contribs at COIN). I just recently got that lifted.

Looking at the COIN history, your participation there began a few days ago (your contribs there).

I would like you to understand, that a lot of us have been working on addressing COI issues for a long time, and that this work is somewhat controversial. There are some hardcore/strident anti-COI people, the big bulk of the community doesn't much like COI/PAID editing but doesn't like drama either, and there are some hardcore "content not contributor" people who don't mind COI/PAID editing but harshly oppose any discussion of editors based on who they are. The community has been moving slowly toward doing more to address COI/PAID editing. This is a good trend. But that trend can change.

I hope you can hear this but in my view your postings about the Vipul matter in particular, and about COI matters generally, are way too strident, and you are making claims that go well beyond the evidence.

You are free to do as you like, of course, but please hear me that:

a) in my view, these kind of strident claims harm the overall effort to manage paid/COI editing; they create noise and drama that turns people off

b) in my view, these kind of strident claims create a distraction from dealing with the Vipul matter.

c) If you continue making claims that go beyond the evidence, you yourself can become subject to sanctions.

Would you please tone it down, and keep it toned down? As I said, you are free to do as you like, but it would be better for you and everyone else if you did. Thx Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has been ages since I posted to COIN. I'll be cooler in future, if at all.

It's not that the evidence is not there, it's that it can't be presented publicly over here under the present system. For instance I would not have linked to his employers the way you can. Perhaps I'm old skool.

The immediate problem: How do you propose that paid/conflicted edit disclosures are communicated effectively/conspicuously so that readers/consumers are likely to notice and understand them ? I don't think that article talk page disclosure is adequate, and neither is pasting a COI template "on article" since it is hidden in mobile view.Inlinetext (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything Jytdog just said. Most recent example: the accusation that someone is associated with Majestic SEO because of a coincidentally similar username, was not helpful. I can attest from my examination of the evidence that there is an active center of recruits from Pacific Northwest high schools who are in all likelihood somewhere between simply gullible and unaware of the scope and nature of the enterprise, or aware that it is nefarious but unaware of the impact in participation will have on their future reputations. Pardon the mixed zoological metaphors, but we will have enough fur flying in this case without fishing for red herrings. - Bri.public (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to butt-in here and say thank you ALL of you for the attention and considerations that you have created with this COI situation. Jytdog especially for speaking out since this whole thing looked fishy and the outing issues are a little twisted in this case. If Jytdog had not taken up this group for COI, I believe that they would have continued unstopped. I'm not afraid to be bold but sometimes getting involved in a problem like this is just so far off of what regular wiki-gnomes and editors do, that I think many editors like myself tend to back away from trying to really fix something like this. TeeVeeed (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another piece of free advice. Please use words like "apparently..." or "indistinguishable from..." more freely. When you say "X did Y" then the burden of proof is on you, and people's feathers get (more) ruffled. - Bri (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thanks for proposing Wikignoming on the Providence (religious movement) page! Didn't know that it was a technique that exist. Avataron ^talk 21:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Hi there, re: this, I think you're confused about what original research is or isn't. Summarizing a film's plot doesn't qualify as original research, because the film itself is a primary source and can be used for non-controversial content like plot. Interpretations of the plot, if unsourced, or if based on one's own opinion, would be original research, as original research refers to content for which there is presumably no reference. Your edit has been reverted. Please see WP:FILMPLOT for more info. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WP:FILMPLOT is a guideline, whereas WP:PLOT is policy and policy says To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. IMHO, a film cannot be an independent source about itself. MOS:PLOT also speaks of a mix of primary and secondary sources; to be used be dealt under WP:RS. What was deleted was apparently an editor's interpretation of their personal viewing. Inlinetext (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about undisclosed paid editing‬

Hi there, responding to your comment about undisclosed paid editing for Jubilee (DJ). I received no monetary compensation for this article. There are also ample sources that cover all of the information included in this article, so if there is a particular source that is in dispute, I'm happy to swap it out for a better one. While I am a fan of this artist's work, I am not at all associated with her marketing or promotions and do not believe this article violates conflict of interest. Thanks, luvtoucans

".. compensation" means an exchange of money, goods, or services.". Since there is a local policy known as WP:OUTING, I can only allude to my concern about 2 citations which I have retained in the article. Please feel free to improve the article with better sources, preferably mainstream ones, since this is about a living person and we have to be extra careful. Inlinetext (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]