User talk:Mati Roy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

July 2015[edit]


A cup of warm tea to welcome you!

Hello, Mathieu.roy.37, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you are enjoying editing and want to continue. Some useful pages to visit are:

You can sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you need any help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. We're so glad you're here! 7&6=thirteen () 7&6=thirteen () 19:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

reviewed article[edit]

[1]in reviewing the article it seemed somewhat promo-ish should you wish to reintroduce the text it may be best to condense the text to avoid this, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

  • per [2]what difference is there with or without the logo??(per COI[3] do you have any relation to do article direct/indirect)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)


Hi Mati Roy. I see you responded to Ozzie10aaaa's COI concerns. Thank you for doing so. I've come across some of your edits and had the same concerns.

While you've been editing Wikipedia for some time now, you haven't done much editing. You may not be aware, but you are editing in topics where special editing restrictions apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

Speaking only for myself, the the reason I was concerned about a possible COI, is because much of your editing borders on being advocacy. While it's common for editors to want to write about topics that they find extremely interesting or exciting, this can often make neutral editing even more difficult than it already is. My general rule of thumb is to work primarily from independent, reliable sources.

Editing Wikipedia can be very fun and rewarding, but it there's much to navigate that can blindside even experienced editors. I hope you find this of help. --Ronz (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Ronz (meta: should I be replying here, or on your talk page?)
Thanks for taking the time to write to me. I will have a look at the pages you linked. When stumbling on a Wikipedia page I want to improve, is there an easy way to see if special editing restrictions apply to it (like a tag or something)?
I don't think I have a COI as I didn't write about "[myself], family, friends, clients, employers, or [my financial relationship]". However, I made a few edits about an organisation to which I'm a client; I don't think this is a COI? I could also see myself write about any given causes (say environmentalism, animal welfare, or assisted suicide) even though I support those causes to a certain extent; I don't think this is a COI? Except of course if it becomes advocacy, then that would be an issue. And extra-diligence needs to be taken to maintain a neutral POV, I agree. If you give me an example of an edit I made that "borders on being advocacy", maybe that would help me knowing what types of edits to avoid.
Recently I've been editing a couple of articles about cryonics. I've noticed that a few of those articles had authors with a COI, and a couple don't have a neutral POV, and a lot could used more sources. Given that I think it's an important topic, I wanted to improve those articles. For example, I added a section "Disadvantages" to the Neuropreservation article.
One mistake I did is to use primary sources; I wasn't aware that this was an issue, and will now be more careful about this. Is it always a problem to do that? For example, it seems that when it comes to information such as the number of members an organisation has, it's very hard to have a third party verify that information.
Thanks again Ronz. -- Mati Roy (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Glad to help. Let me see if I can answer all your questions:
By linking my username as you did, I received a notification from Wikipedia. Using {{ping}} is a slightly better way to notify an editor. Some editors have a preference for where to respond, but I don't.
If there's an easy way to tell what's under special editing restrictions, I don't know what it is beyond checking the link I mentioned, Wikipedia:General sanctions. Article talk pages will often have notices at the top. In general, it's best to assume that controversial topics will be under sanctions, or at least being held more closely to our content policies.
If you're a client of an organization, you definitely have a COI with that organization.
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is in my mind the most complicated content policy in Wikipedia. I try to keep it simple by referring to the need for independent sources. If there are no independent sources, there are almost certainly POV problems. If there no independent sources and the content is promoting viewpoints rather than basic statements of fact that would be expected in the context of the article, there are almost certainly problems of advocacy and soapboxing.
I'm distinguishing independent sources from Wikipedia:Primary sources. Yes, there are many problems that can be caused with using primary sources.
The number of members in an organization is a good example. Here's a recent discussion were there were no independent sources availalble: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Membership_number_from_the_organization. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ronz: Got it. Thanks for the reply. Funny that you had had the same discussion about number of members a few days ago ^^
I guess being a client of a small organisation might be more prone to COIs, than with mass consumer products, schools, or countries, although even then it could be. --Mati Roy (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)