User talk:Monarch87

Welcome

Hello Monarch87, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Monarch87, good luck, and have fun. – | Uncle Milty | talk | 19:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Templeton Dill

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Heather Tempelton Dill, and it appears to include material copied directly from https://www.templeton.org/who-we-are/about-the-foundation/heather-templeton-dill.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Heather Tempelton Dill

Hello Monarch87,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Heather Tempelton Dill for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI

I have noticed your recent edits at the John Templeton Foundation article, as well as the message on your user page declaring a connection. Editors who have a conflict of interest are strongly discouraged from editing articles about them, their organization, company, etc. For more information, please see WP:COI. Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 18:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. The previous version of the funding areas section was very outdated. We wanted to bring it up to date, so as to make it factual and accurate. We have provided reference links for each. We will take a look at the COI article in order the better understand the process. Thank you! - Monarch87 (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We did put these changes on the John Templeton Foundation article talk page two weeks ago, as well. - Monarch87 (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing in Wikipedia

Hi Monarch87. Paleoneonate, who left you the message above, made me aware of your activities here. I'd like to help you get oriented a bit further to Wikipedia, and to paid editing here. This will take some back and forth; I hope you can be patient with that.

For starters, would you explain this edit, made on 29 June? My sense from that is that someone took over this account from Alyssa. Is that accurate? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for your assistance. I am still the account holder, but made the description more generic, as some of the info changed, and I did not get a chance to further update it; however, I can certainly update it again to add more detail, if needed. - Monarch87 (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying! Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and so on. When that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. I hope that all makes sense. And you already have this part down, but at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit. That is how we know who said what to whom and when.

Please be aware that threading and signing are fundamental etiquette here, as basic as "please" and "thank you", and continually failing to thread and sign communicates rudeness, and eventually people may start to ignore you (see here).

I know this is unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that. Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for replying. The current message makes this appear to be a "corporate account" and that is not OK. In Wikipedia, an account is a person, not a corporate function. Would you please replace what is there with a simple disclosure like: "I work in communications for the John Templeton Foundation. I have a conflict of interest with respect to that article and related topics in Wikipedia".

Once you do that, I can walk through the conflict of management process here, and provide some orientation to the project more broadly. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, understood! Hopefully, I have made this indent properly! Yes, I will change the description momentarily. Thank you! - Monarch87 (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you got the the threading right. Thanks for being mindful of that. Thanks too for fixing your user page. I will open a new section for the guidance about editing where you have a conflict of interest. It is a bit long... Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nuts and bolts

OK, so...

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. Unmanaged conflicts of interest can also lead to people behaving in ways that violate our behavioral policies and cause disruption in the normal editing process. Managing conflict of interest well, also protects conflicted editors and their employers themselves - please see WP:Wikipedia is in the real world, and Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia for some guidance and stories about people and organizations who have brought bad press upon themselves through unmanaged conflict of interest editing.

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.

You have disclosed on your userpage, and I have added the disclosure to the article talk page. So the disclosure piece is done.

The second step of the COI management process, is a form of 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 voilà 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. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask of editors who have a COI or who are paid, 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 through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) 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

(i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page (again, this is already done at the JTF talk page); and

(ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section on the talk page, put the proposed content there formatted just as you would if you were adding it directly to the article, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) place the {{request edit}} tag to flag it for other editors to review. In general it should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once. Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example. This is OK to do but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.

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. (There are good faith paid editors here, who have signed and follow the Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms, and there are "black hat" paid editors here who lie about what they do and really harm Wikipedia).

But understanding the mission, and the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission, is very important! There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Learning and following these is very important, and takes time. Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian - you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians.

I hope that makes sense to you.

I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about where the company has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content. If you are not sure if something is uncontroversial, please ask at the Talk page.

Will you please agree to learn and follow the content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and to follow the peer review processes going forward when you want to work on the JTF 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. Once you reply I will have one more thing that I will want to communicate, and that will be it from my end, for now. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this all makes sense, and apologies for misunderstanding the process. We did put our edits on the talk page two weeks ago, but were unaware of the request edit tag. Thank you for all of this useful information, we agree to follow all of this in the future. - Monarch87 (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. You said "we". Would you please tell me, who is "we"? Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, as a communications person and as someone who works on a team, I have a habit of using the "royal we." - Monarch87 (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought, but wanted to be sure. Please avoid using "we" - it will put people here off. Everything you do here, is you. :)

If any members of your team edit WP for your company, each of them should create his or her own account, and should make the same disclosures and follow the same process above; you want to be really transparent and avoid "teaming up" in any way that is not transparent.

And now for that "last thing" I mentioned.

The Wikipedia page on the foundation is very, very poor quality. Most of it is just a proxy for the foundation's website, and this is not at all OK. (Please read WP:PROMO). I am going to clean it up. You and your colleagues may find that upsetting, and if so, I am sorry about that. But Wikipedia articles need to be driven by independent, secondary sources. We use "primary sources" (like an organization's website) to fill in around the edges where needed, but having big swaths of the content derived from the organization website is not OK here. (it happens! but that is a bad thing).

So please be prepared for that. I do hope you take the time to read User:Jytdog/How to get grounded on our mission and how we realize it.

If you want to talk about the foundation article, please do post at the article talk page. If you want to talk about anything else, you can drop a note here or at my talk page.

Thanks for going through this with me. See you around the encyclopedia! (unless you have any immediate response, of course) Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I know the quality of the article is not the best! Hopefully, that can be rectified (which I was attempting to do by replacing old info with new/accurate info...but I will read the WP:PROMO article). I will review the article with my colleagues when you have completed the cleanup, and if I have any questions or concerns, I will raise them on the talk page. I really appreciate all of this information and your help! :)