User talk:Penelope1114

/Archive 1 Penelope1114 (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paid contributions disclosures

Here please find a list of articles I am currently being paid to propose changes to that are factual and referenced by high quality sources:

Here is a list of articles I was previously paid to improve:

Here is a list of articles I was paid to improve before disclosure for such work was mandated in the terms of use. This section is all about disclosure, isn't it?

Thank you, however you must disclose all past articles you received compensation for work on as well. You deleted several articles you had previously disclosed here in the very edit you made these disclosures. Jbh ^Talk 03:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to oblige. Working on updating my talk page. Penelope1114 (talk)

Thank you. Please note that per the ToU you must disclose both client and employer for all paid edits. There are templates for this.

Please read make sure you have read and understand WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY. You must place {{paid|client=Who paid for your edits|employer=Who pays you}} on your user page for each client/employer and place

{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=Youruser name|U1-employer=Who pays you|U1-client= Who paid for the edits|U1-otherlinks= Any additional information}}

on the article talk page. You must also disclose your paid editor status in the edit summary of any edits relating to your paid status, such as on the article, its talk page and deletion or noticeboard discussions by including Paid edit as part of the edit summary. Thank you for your understanding.

If you have a problem filling in the templates you can just post the material and I can fill them out for you if that would help. It is best practice to do a {{paid}} for each job since client and employer may change from job to job. It keeps things cleaner too since by using the templates you can be sure to be in compliance with the ToU. Cheers. PS if someone hires you directly you can set Client= and Employer= to be the same and the template script will take care of things. Jbh ^Talk 14:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have a fundamental misconception of what this project is and what you may do here. If you are paid to work on an article, obviously you have a financial relationship with the subject, and thus a WP:conflict of interest; conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing articles directly. Your edits to Benjamin Genocchio are unacceptable. Also, please make sure you avoid edit-warring – if your edit is rejected, discuss on the talk-page, don't make the same edit again. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors who are perhaps not so involved as Justlettersandnumbers in articles concerning Benjamin Genocchio should review my edits to his BLP and decide for themselves. Thank you Penelope1114 (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have done so, and as a result I've reverted them. BMK (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, I have disclosed my status as a paid editor on my talk page as per WP:DISCLOSEPAY. So that would not be grounds for reverting my text. Kindly undue your action. Penelope1114 (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, BMK, you've apparently only reverted one of the two mass additions made by Penelope1114 to Benjamin Genocchio. Did you intend to revert them both? Penelope, please try to understand that a paid editing relationship, even when correctly and properly declared, still gives rise to a conflict of interest (you have a "personal or professional relationship" with Genocchio). Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly. In actual practice, about the only way we have of "strongly discouraging" them is to revert their edits. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I did intend to do both edits, and I have now corrected that oversight. BMK (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Penelope, do please respond at WP:COIN to the concerns raised there. It's not a good idea to spread the issue over several noticeboards (indeed, that's known as forumshopping, or "asking the other parent", and is frowned on). As you can see, your complaint at WP:ANI isn't in any case gaining any traction, and at the same time we miss your input at WP:COIN. I realize the proliferation of noticeboards can be confusing, but WP:COIN is the right place for this. Bishonen | talk 14:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen thank you for your clarification. I appreciate it and will respond further on WP:COIN. Penelope1114 (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting Interests

For all interested parties, I wanted to say that I understand now why paid editing is a conflict of interest. I was previously declaring no conflict of interest because my primary goal is to improve Wikipedia with every edit I make. I now understand the two are not mutually exclusive.

I will suggest and only make edits that will improve Wikipedia. Other editors are welcome to contact me on my talk page if I appear to be doing otherwise. Thanks! Penelope1114 (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You still must declare, on each article, who you are working for on that article and mark all paid edits ie any edit about or relating to any article or topic where you have a paid-COI, in any namespace cf talk pages, noticeboard and AfD discussions. If you have not read it please read WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY. Please use {{Connected contributor (paid)}} for the talk pages of articles and {{paid}} for your user page for each contract. You should go through and tag any prior article you have worked on for compensation as well. Thank you for your understanding. Jbh ^Talk 01:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure per WP:ToU and WP:PAID

Here [1] you disclosed a COI, but your userpage User:Penelope1114 does not disclose it at all, or any previous COI. Please see WP:PAID. Ignorance, or failure to understand or comply within a reasonable timeframe is no excuse. Any flaunting the letter and spirit of your legal obligations of your job just reflects badly. Widefox; talk 16:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to pile on here, but making that declaration and then adding "Penelope1114 is an independent Wikipedia editor" suggests that you still don't or won't understand what an independent Wikipedia editor is. An independent Wikipedia editor does not edit for pay; someone who edits for pay is not an independent Wikipedia editor. You can't claim to be independent at Melissa Chiu, as you have received or expect to receive financial compensation for your efforts there. Please remove that untenable claim from that notice, and also from that at Talk:Benjamin Genocchio. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please engage with this discussion Penelope1114. When you going to comply with WP:PAID? In particular, full disclosures at each article and on your userpage. You've put some on this (user talk page), which is not the correct place. You're removed some. Can you point out where it says you can remove them? Pls respond. Widefox; talk 15:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The terms of use state that one must make the paid-contribution disclosure in at least one of the following ways: a statement on your user page, a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions. I have added the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template to the recent articles talk pages to disclose my relationship there. Additionally, Widefox, all articles I have been paid in reference to are mentioned on my talk page. It seems like you prefer that info live on my user page, is that correct? Penelope1114 (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note your answer to my question about ToU and PAID, omits PAID.

For reason (4.) below, my answer is a helpful checklist. Please confirm that you: a) acknowledge each of the following apply to you b) have fully addressed them c) get confirmation from others that they agree (say per consensus that you have addressed all points all editors have put to you for each one here, at COIN, article and elsewhere):

a) ,b) ,c) TBC=ToBeConfirmed

0. WP:TOU (TBC,TBC,TBC)

1. WP:PAID (TBC,TBC,TBC)

2. WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY (TBC,TBC,TBC)

3. WP:COI (TBC,TBC,TBC)

4. WP:PAYTALK (TBC,TBC,see 4.1)

4.1 speed and brevity of ticking these off will suffice Widefox; talk 03:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC) reword Widefox; talk 10:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Editing

Articles I am working on:

The Great Depression

Make suggestions here:

Continuing the discussion

Jbhunley, I had to feed and put my kids to bed and at least wanted to respond to one of your requests so added the first name to the COI mention for Benjamin Genocchio. I will do my best to address other concerns shared by you, Widefox and Bishonen. Thanks Penelope1114 (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think 4.1 is going? Widefox; talk 01:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think my user page is starting to comply Penelope1114. Penelope1114 (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two days and none yet, correct? How much longer do you need for doing all the checklist? Widefox; talk 02:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Penelope1114 thank you for getting started. It really is necessary to get all of the disclosures done properly and to continue doing so. I think the people involved in dealing with this issue are pretty close to running out of patience. All things considered I am pretty sure the community here is going to hold you to best practices because of a loss of trust in your willingness to be fully transparent in your disclosures. That means the next step in all this will probably be a temporary loss of editing privileges. Even though it was worded pleasantly you should consider Bishonen's comment [2] to be the customary warning before sanctions are imposed. Jbh ^Talk 10:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Penelope1114 I see you have filled out {{paid}}'s on your user page, I checked your talk before your user page came up on my watch list. Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 10:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear in mind that disclosing that you are paid does not in any way diminish the obligation not to edit for promotional purposes, and to edit from a neutral point of view. 79.123.70.207 (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Penelope1114. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tad Martin (entrepreneur)

The article Tad Martin (entrepreneur) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Standard internet-investor CV. No indication of more than working at other people's famous companies.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Calton | Talk 03:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]