User talk:Editor103122

October 2022

Hello Editor103122. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Editor103122. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Editor103122|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. MrOllie (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No disclosure necessary -- there is no financial stake whatsoever, neither is there any paid advocacy whatsoever. In addition, my edits were completely factual in nature capturing important recent company events. All of this is already public information (see the sources cited), and no opinions of any kind were included in my text. I will be restoring my prior edits in the next 24 hours or else creating a new page with the factual information included. Your choice. Editor103122 (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can either comply with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines by suggesting changes on the associated article talk page, or you can be blocked from the article for edit warring and disruption. Your choice. Wikipedia includes material published by reliable sources independent of the subject - this is not an extension of your website or social media platforms.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am in full compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines. As I already stated, I have zero financial stake, zero paid advocacy, zero conflict of interest. Furthermore, I have not initiated edit warring or disruption of any kind -- please have a look at the revision history. My edits were removed without my consent prior to any discussion, not the other way around. Specifically which portions of the content I submitted do you find objectionable? Appointment of a CEO? Appointment of an Executive Chairman? It's all public information and all from reputable sources, including the company's own website. Editor103122 (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and pasting promotional language from company press releases is definately not in 'full compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines'. MrOllie (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can remove that language and thanks for helping me understand your point. I was attempting to let the sources speak for themselves but I can see how one might construe a different intent. Having this clear discussion on the real issue is much more profitable than the long-winded discourses above, don't you think? Certainly better than the ready, fire, aim approach. Editor103122 (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]