User talk:BuildGuru

Spam

Do not abuse Wikipedia as a vehicle to sell your software. Do not do this. This is an encyclopedia, not a social media marketing vehicle.

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 06:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, please note I have no intention of violating wikipedia rules. I feel my contribution has truly added value to the topic based on the following:

1. The Wiki page on project management software in its current form is inadequate by leaving out the application perspective. I feel the need to add it in.

2. It also lacks the benefit of having such software and hence I also added it in.

3. The content that I added was objective, I do not refer to any product or brand.

4. I validate my content with an article that is neutral, and the article is an output based on the input of prominent figure in the academia such as Professor Chris Hendrickson Civil and Environmental Engineering professor of Hamerschlag University and a study conducted by Texas Transportation Institute lead by I. Damnjanovic et al one of their associate professor.

Please have a look at my content and referred article again. Some of the content/referred article might have changed. I am satisfy all content and referred article do not contain any subjective view or promotional purpose. I am perfectly fine with the no follow tag. I appreciate your effort in assessing my input, as well as contributing to the quality of the Wikipedia site.

Thanks for replying! I think there are maybe some deeper issues we should talk about, before we discuss this proposed content.... please see below. Thanks again for replying! Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

BuildGuru, I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, which is what drew my attention to your edit. It seems pretty clear that you have some connection with Tenderfield. 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, BuildGuru. 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. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
• instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

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 familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Comments and requests

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 (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with Tenderfield? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia when you have a COI, and I can give you some information about how the community thinks about what we call "reliable sources" to give you some more orientation to how this place works. Please reply here - I am watching this page. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I am a little overwhelmed about the number of policies and guidelines governing Wikipedia posting, please excuse my slow response as I need to do some background reading first.

I personally have spent considerable amount of time studying a number of degrees from universities and I do respect the importance of disclosure which forms a basis of objective peer review.

I am a business consultant currently advising Tenderfield, my client, on product development relating to issues such as technology use, software development methodologies and software specification. There is no current sign this relationship is a periodic or recurring as product development is capital in nature. The scope of my service excludes marketing and promotion, I am a software development consultant and I do not get paid by contributing to Wikipedia. My remuneration is based on how Tenderfield has reached product development milestones against a predefined time schedule.

During my consultancy service I was aware of the number of resource articles on my client’s website, which I referred to during my edit. As learnt from my academic background, I was fully aware of the importance of objectivity and remained a neutral point of view when editing the wiki page in question. My edit was not requested by any person from Tenderfield, I felt the wiki page in question was inadequate and hence added the objective addition, including the referenced article which was based on 3 different groups of prominent academic figures which also provided an objective view in my opinion. I wish the above is suffice in disclosing my relationship with Tenderfield, but I am happy to answer any questions you have.

Hopefully you have the enough information to determine my extent of COI. Please note I have no intention of violating your rules, you may remove my edit if you feel it wasn’t objective but at the same time I would also like to contribute to Wikipedia content.

I am really amazed with the prompt reply from your end. As a reader of Wikipedia articles, I would also like to express my appreciation of the scrutiny in place to ensure the high quality of Wikipedia articles.

Hi, thanks for your reply. yes Wikipedia is a pretty mature project, and the policies and guidelines can be bewildering! I try to help new editors get grounded in how this place works. If you like, I can provide you a pretty concise rundown on the main ones, if you like.. when we get through with this discussion of COI.

Thanks also for disclosing that you are currently a consultant for Tenderfiield. The way that this place works, that relationship creates a conflict of interest in Wikipedia -- your "interest" in Tenderfield -- your commitment to helping them thrive, creates a conflict with your obligations to Wikipedia and its policies and guidelines - -with your interests as a Wikipedia editor. Having a COI with regard to some topic within WP is not "fatal" - nor is wanting to work on a topic where your COI is actually in play, as I wrote above.

I hope that makes sense to you. If it doesn't, please let me know. Jytdog (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• It makes sense. My opinion is the most time relevant edit would probably be contributed by COI editors as they are in the know in that moment. Update from retiree for example is COI free but the knowledge might not be current. I am glad that WP has a mechanism dealing with COI contributors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BuildGuru (talk • contribs) 03:45, 15 April 2016‎ UTC)

As I noted above, there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is what I call "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 viola 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.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft, disclose your COI on the Talk page using the appropriate template, and then submit the draft article through the WP:AFC process so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to propose content on the Talk page of the relevant article, for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself.

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, as I mentioned above).

I hope that too makes sense to you.

Will you please agree to follow the peer review processes going forward, when you want to work on any 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. Jytdog (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• I agree to follow the peer review process. Please advise in the context of my proposed edit, would you like me to recreate my proposed edit under the talk page for now? or my COI is too serious that I should defer my proposed edit until such time I am no longer be associated with Tenderfield in anyway? Your valued suggestion is most appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BuildGuru (talk • contribs) 03:45, 15 April 2016‎ UTC)

I am glad all that makes sense to you - thanks for taking time to read it. Feel free to propose your content on the Talk page! Please. it is not the kind of thing we usually use as a reliable source but folks who work on that article might like it. Please note that when I am trying to help new editors get oriented, I try to be swift. Actual work on articles can go much slower, so please be patient with folks. And please feel free to ping me if you want any help with anything. I will leave an overview of how this place works - just so you have it. Jytdog (talk) 05:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

How this place works

OK, so if I may, I would like to get you oriented to how Wikipedia works. There are some non-intuitive things about editing here, that I can zip through ~pretty~ quickly....

The first thing, is that our mission is to produce articles that provide readers encyclopedia articles 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 loads 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". (There is a whole forest of things, in "Wikipedia space" - pages in Wikipedia that start with "Wikipedia:AAAA" or for short, "WP:AAAA". WP:CONSENSUS is different from Consensus. ) 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 are policies and guidelines that govern content, and separate ones that govern behavior. Here is very quick rundown:

Content policies and guidelines

• WP:NOT (what WP is, and is not -- this is where you'll find the "accepted knowledge" thing)
• WP:OR - no original research is allowed here, instead
• WP:VERIFY - everything has to be cited to a reliable source (so everything in WP comes down to the sources you bring!)
• WP:RS is the guideline defining what a "reliable source" is for general content and WP:MEDRS defines what reliable sourcing is for content about health
• WP:NPOV and the content that gets written, needs to be "neutral" (as we define that here, which doesn't mean what most folks think -- it doesn't mean "fair and balanced" - it means that the language has to be neutral, and that topics in a given article are given appropriate "weight" (space and emphasis). An article about a drug that was 90% about side effects, would give what we call "undue weight" to the side effects. We determine weight by seeing what the reliable sources say - we follow them in this too. So again, you can see how everything comes down to references.
• WP:BLP - this is a policy specifically about articles about living people. We are very careful about these articles (which means enforcing the policies and guidelines above rigorously), since issues of legal liability can arise for WP, and people have very strong feelings about other people, and about public descriptions of themselves.
• WP:NOTABILITY - this is a policy that defines whether or not an article about X, should exist. What this comes down to is defined in WP:Golden rule - which is basically, are there enough independent sources about X, with which to build a decent article.

In terms of behavior, the key norms are:

• WP:CONSENSUS - already discussed
• WP:CIVIL - basically, be nice. This is not about being nicey nice, it is really about not being a jerk and having that get in the way of getting things done. We want to get things done here - get content written and maintained and not get hung up on interpersonal disputes. So just try to avoid doing things that create unproductive friction.
• WP:AGF - assume good faith about other editors. Try to focus on content, not contributor. Don't personalize it when content disputes arise. (the anonymity here can breed all kinds of paranoia)
• WP:HARASSMENT - really, don't be a jerk and follow people around, bothering them. And do not try to figure out who people are in the real world. Privacy is strictly protected by the WP:OUTING part of this policy.
• WP:DR - if you get into an content dispute with someone, try to work it. If you cannot, then use one of the methods here to get wider input. There are many - it never has to come down to two people arguing. There are instructions here too, about what to do if someone is behaving badly, in your view. Try to keep content disputes separate from behavior disputes. Many of the big messes that happen in Wikipedia arise from these getting mixed up.
• WP:TPG - this is about how to talk to other editors on Talk pages, like this one, or Talk:Project management software.

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. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog, earlier I have "request edit" under Talk:Project management software according to my understanding of the information you have previously provided. If I have done anything incorrectly, please let me know I will try to rectify it. Thanks again for your guidance.BuildGuru (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

thank you so, so much!! yes you did that fine, i just cleaned it up a little. Ok, let's see how other folks react. It may take a while! this is a volunteer project.  :) Jytdog (talk) 07:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog, after 8 months my edit was rejected with the following comment "The content is quite promotional, you may wish to see this for more information. Request declined. Regards, VB00 (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)", I would like to seek your objective comment whether this is the case, and what are my options. I have referred to the resources he mentioned and don't feel the comment was justified.