User talk:Musyimi s

April 2022

Hello, I'm Victor Trevor. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Steve Down—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Victor Trevor (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Steve Down, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. PureRED | talk to me | 21:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing with a conflict of interest

Hello, Musyimi s. 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 conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Steve Down. scope_creep^Talk 17:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I need to rewrite the content. Musyimi s (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting is one thing; whitewashing is another. You appear to be doing the latter, removing all negative information about Down. —C.Fred (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes removing the negative information. Musyimi s (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that you're trying to spin the article away from neutral point of view? —C.Fred (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you assist in doing that because he wants a new write up in his own story other that someone else's version. Musyimi s (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Wikipedia is encyclopedia. The stories presented here are based on secondary sources about the subject. Any subject who wants to tell their own story should do so on their own website.

Also, how do you know "he wants a new write up"? Have you been requested or solicited by him to edit his article? —C.Fred (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is more of content that I would like to add about his current ventures. Yes I happened to bump on him and I was touched by how a secondary source decided to give only negative information about him. It was a malicious intent as he told me, more so the content is semi-protected to never be edited. Musyimi s (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there cost implications incase of such situations where whitewashing is requested? Musyimi s (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If secondary sources have covered only the negative aspects of his career, then that's all that goes in the Wikipedia article.

Could the article be supplemented by adding more "positive" material? Probably, but as stated, it must be sourced to reliable sources.

I took a little dig into the article's history. Over the past two years, a number of accounts—including two claiming to be Down—have edited the article, particularly removing the negative material. Thus, there are more signs of malice, or at least noncompliance with policy, by those actors attempting to remove negative material than by any other editors on the article. There may be some aggressive removal of "fluffy" positive material because it's been done by those same editors, so it's been viewed through a promotional lens.

The article has not been semi-protected since 2018. The instances of disruption have not gotten so frequent that it has proven necessary. Oddly, it might prove useful, because it would require the new accounts who come to the page to make a case for changes on the talk page.

Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by "cost implications". Wikipedia is a volunteer project, so cost is not an issue with respect to articles. —C.Fred (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One other observation. Take a look again at this revision to the article, an edit you made. The combination of the unprofessional picture and the redundant text are all hallmarks of malicious editing—i.e., vandalism. This hardly looks like a serious effort to improve the article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]