User talk:Raph3988

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Hello Raph3988, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Home insurance has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Regardless of the copyright issue, Wikipedia articles should not focus solely on what is happening in the United States. Other countries have different regulations and different structures for their insurance policies. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note on my talk page and will send the email momentarily. Please note that adding huge amounts of additional material to the article on home insurance in the US is not appropriate, as different countries structure their policies in different ways, and the article is already very heavily weighted towards the way things are done in the United States, with two-thirds of the content already being about the way things are done in that country. — Diannaa (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Raph3988! Thank you for your contributions. I am ImperfectlyInformed and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! II | (t - c) 03:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see another person taking an interest in the home insurance article. I added back a bit that you removed and I noticed you got some edits reverted, but don't be discouraged!! It seems like you're doing some pretty good work. :) II | (t - c) 03:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia[edit]

Hi Raph3988. A bunch of your edits have focused on content derived from Shift Insurance's website. Would you please disclose your relationship with Shift? If you are paid by or an owner of Shift (e.g. here), you must disclose that per our WP:PAID policy and the WP:COI guideline. These are in place to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. Editors with a COI are still very much part of the community, there are just some things they need to do. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog (talk · contribs) Yes, I am the owner of Shift Insurance and am more than willing to disclose that but I do not feel like there is any COI on my edits pertaining to the home insurance page according to these examples:

Actual, potential and apparent conflict of interest

An actual conflict of interest exists when an editor has a COI with respect to a certain judgment, and he is in a position where the judgment must be exercised.

Example: A company owner has an actual COI if he edits articles and engages in discussions about that company.

A potential conflict of interest exists when an editor has a COI with respect to a certain judgment, but she is not in a position where the judgment must be exercised.

Example: A company owner has a potential COI with respect to articles and discussions about her company, but she has no actual COI if she stays away from those pages. An apparent conflict of interest exists when there is reason to believe that an editor has a COI.

Example: An editor has an apparent COI if he edits an article about a company and for some reason appears to be the company owner. In fact he may have no such connection. Apparent COI causes bad feeling within the community and should be resolved through discussion whenever possible.

I am not editing anything related to myself or my company but rather adding value to a topic I am knowledgeable about. According to an assumption of a COI in this situation, anyone who has worked in the insurance field would have a COI towards any pages related to insurance and should not edit pages they are actually knowledgeable about. I know that can't be the standard because an expert in the field would be the best person to contribute to a general topic like this. I have read and understand the basic principal of "not editing Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships"; however, I strongly believe my edits were in the best interest of the wiki page or I would not have added them. I know that the information I provided adds value and does not exist anywhere else in its entirety. My options were to source the information on Shift Insurance or use incomplete information from elsewhere. I choice what benefited the wiki page more. I can conclude that what I did is not a violation or COI based on this:

Citing yourself

Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work.

Honestly not wanting to use my source is not even a big deal. If you guys don't want to use the most comprehensive version of the information because it is mine, that's fine. Just don't try to attribute someone else's work to another source. I am open to your opinion about the overall quality of the page prior to my edits vs its current version and would like to hear from you if I am missing any major points. Raph3988 (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected as much, but I didn't say anything as there wasn't sufficient evidence. Frankly I think it's a bit dishonest for you to carry on about how the refs were the "best place" to find information on the topic without declaring that you're actually the publisher. You acknowledged that we didn't want commercial links yet you continued to add them without disclosing your connection, and even referred to Shift Insurance as "their site". I don't believe for a second that Shift Insurance is the most comprehensive source on the topic - all I had to do was Google the topic with the phrase "government" or "gov" and I was able to find pretty much the same material.-KH-1 (talk) 04:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KH-1 (talk · contribs) The table on Shift Insurance is the most comprehensive account of the topic. I know because I sourced actual policy documents to create it. Maybe the Shift Insurance website is not the "best place" for all the information on the wiki page but I never claimed it was for anything other than the tables. And regardless, according to your rational "pretty much" is good enough right... By your standards this:

The Basic Coverage Form (HO-1) As the name suggests, this form provides a minimal amount of coverage. It applies to both dwelling and personal property, and insures against fire, lightning, vandalism and malicious mischief, and extended coverage* perils. *Extended coverage perils usually include:riot explosion vehicles (in this context, generally means damage inflicted by, not to a vehicle) civil commotion smoke hail aircraft windstorm breakage of glass which is part of the building The Broad Coverage Form (HO-2) The Broad Form, which applies to both the dwelling and personal property, includes all the coverages of the basic form above, plus these named perils: Falling objects Weight of snow Sleet and ice Damage to water heating systems* Volcanic eruption Damage from plumbing or appliances * Freezing of plumbing or appliances Damage from artificially generated currents* * Coverage is provided for perils marked with an asterisk when the cause of damage is sudden and accidental, such as when an appliance bursts, burns or cracks apart. Damage due to gradual deterioration, such as rust or corrosion, would probably not be covered. Special Coverage Form (HO-3) The Special Coverage Form provides the most extensive coverage of all the forms. For a dwelling, the policy covers "open perils," which means that any cause of loss is covered except those specifically excluded in the policy--as a rule, these exclusions would be flood, war or nuclear accident. Personal property, however, is covered only to the same extent as in the Broad form. The Tenants Form (HO-4; also known as Broad Coverage Form, Contents) This form is designed to offer insurance to people who do not own the building they live in. It covers the same perils detailed in the broad form, but applies to personal property only, since the renter does not own the building. Many renters assume their landlord's insurance covers them. Most often it does not. This kind of insurance may be more reasonable to purchase than you think, and is sometimes cheaper if you buy it in combination with auto insurance from the same agent. The Condominium Form (HO-6) For personal property, this form provides Broad form coverage similar to the Tenant's Form. The degree of structural coverage will vary. You will need to talk to your insurance agent to learn what you are responsible for insuring under the by-laws of your condo association. The following product is worth noting but has very limited availability: Modified Coverage Form: This form provides minimal coverage similar to the Basic form. However, there are certain restrictions on the value of losses. It's primarily used to insure older or sub-standard homes whose cost to replace would be far greater than their market value.

Is more comprehensive and easier to digest than this:

Policy Form	Structural Coverage	Property Coverage
HO0 - Structural Only	Basic “named-perils”	No Coverage
HO1 - Limited Coverage	Basic “named-perils”	Basic “named-perils”
HO2 - Basic	Broad “named-perils”	Broad “named-perils”
HO3 - Standard	Special “all-risks”	Broad “named-perils”
HO4 - Renters	No Coverage	Basic “named-perils”
HO5 - High Value Homes	Special “all-risks”	Special “all-risks”
HO6 - Condo	Basic “named-perils”	Broad “named-perils”
HO8 - Older Homes	Special “all-risks”	Basic “named-perils”

Even after I translated all the information from vermont.gov into a table, which I also got the idea of a table from the content I did on Shift Insurance and that you wont find anywhere else in this format, you still only get this:

Policy Form	Structural Coverage	Property Coverage
HO1 - Basic	minimal	minimal
HO2 - Broad	Broad “named-perils”	Broad “named-perils”
HO3 - Special	Special “open-risks”	Broad "named-perils"
HO4 - Tenants	No Coverage	Broad “named-perils”
HO6 - Condominium	Varies	Broad “named-perils”

If you don't see the value in what I've added, then don't use it. It's that simple. At the end of the day it's your call. You can either choose to use the most comprehensive source or just keep citing the same sources that left the page with 3 broken links to out dated NAIC data from the 1990's with statistics so technical that nobody probably even bothered to verify or even update since the page was created. Raph3988 (talk) 06:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]