User talk:AGVT

Here's wishing you a welcome to Wikipedia, AGVT. Thank you for your contributions. Here are some useful links, which have information to help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit notes

Please don't remove sourced content without giving a specific reason. If you have a problem with the sources used, please discuss on the article's talkpage and don't revert again. Are you connected with Patrick Bet-David? Bishonen | talk 20:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

May 2016

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Patrick Bet-David. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Your heavily promotional addition to the article just now convinces me that you're either Patrick Bet-David or are being paid to promote him. Please read the conflict of interest guideline, and state below what your connection with the article subject is before you edit the article again. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia, please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Bishonen | talk 20:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC). Bishonen | talk 20:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AGVT (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)AGVT How do you make a general update if information is old and, how do you avoid bullies from posting conflicting allegations. What should be a personal page is being bashed about other items? to: Bishonen[reply]

You misunderstand the nature of Wikipedia: Patrick Bet-David is not a personal page. I repeat what I just said above: Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia, please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Informative negative content, if it's sourced and well-balanced, is as appropriate as positive content, and posting it is not bullying. And as for your "general update", it was copypasted from Bet-David's own self-promotional website; it was pure advertising, which is not what Wikipedia is for. I'm still waiting for you to answer my question: Are you connected with Patrick Bet-David? Or rather, now that I've seen you "update" the article with all sorts of compliments and praise for the subject, I'll rephrase: how are you connected with him? Editing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. See WP:AUTOBIO. Are you actually clicking on the links to informative policies and guidelines I'm linking you to..? Bishonen | talk 21:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

P.S., another question: are you using the IP 104.48.101.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? Or is it pure coincidence that the IP supports your edits? Please always log in to your account to edit. Bishonen | talk 21:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

AGVT (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)AGVT to Bishonen:[reply]

I am very sorry about this and in no way was I avoiding your question. Yes, I do work with PHP Agency, Inc. and Patrick happens to be the CEO. I recently got a promotion to do marketing, PR and associated things. I was trying to do something good for Patrick and impress him but when I posted the BIO, I saw your response. My bad - very sorry.

There was a CMO formerly at PHP who apparently helped write the original bio many years ago and as far as I can tell he followed the guidelines that Wikipedia requires (you can go back and review). I was trying to impress Patrick by giving the wikipedia page a facelift. Again, my bad.

I think perhaps my broader mistake was that instead of trying to edit Patrick's Wikipedia, I needed to create new page for PHP Agency Inc. on Wikipedia.

So, the new sentence in Patrick's bio referenced a couple links from Ripoff Report. The date on those goes back 5 years to May of 2011 and the situation was handled - per the notes.

Patrick's background is from Morgan Stanley Dean Witter and eventually he started PHP Agency. Can you please consider removing that comment on his bio and reverting back to what it was before I started this mess?

If you would like to contact me directly to discuss this further, I can be reached on my cell at XXX-XXX-XXX.

thanks,

Mario (really me)

Hi again, Mario. There are a lot of complaints on the web that are later than 2011, for instance here. But I agree with you that write-in complaints of this kind are hardly reliable sources. The trouble with PHP Agency is that there's hardly anything on the web altogether, so your idea of writing an article about the organisation rather than the person probably won't fly.

The article was seriously promotionally written from the start and should never have been moved from draft space to "mainspace" =to being an actual article. (I think I know why it was — it was a sort of accident, see my post on WP:COIN.) Your colleague did his best, I'm sure, but I've learned during my years at Wikipedia that it's very difficult for people who work in marketing to write a neutral text. It's just not their natural (acquired) style. I may clean up the "Career" section, where the problem is, when I get the time. Unless I nominate the article for deletion — the references are really very poor. To establish notability, we require reliable third-party sources.

The reuters.com link and the dailytoreador.com links are dead. Also I refuse to register at issuu.com just to take a look, but the impression I get is that it's for self-created content, otherwise known as advertising. The interview about PBD's beautiful home and tips for home-buying in the lifestyle > Home & Garden section of the Denver Post… is, well… really useless for establishing notability, you know. It's probably tactful to say nothing about hellobeautiful.com and several of the others, which are basically interviews where PBD explains how wonderful PHP is. They show that he has an active and skilful publicity department, nothing else. The cnn.com and foxbusiness.com are borderline decent sources, I suppose.

On second thoughts, I've brought the problem to the conflict of interest noticeboard for more input by experienced users. Please take a look, and feel free to join in the discussion if you like, here. The people who patrol that board can be a little impatient with marketing people, which is caused by our bad experience of people using Wikipedia to promote themselves and their employers. I've pointed out in my post that you've been very upfront and honest with me, which I hope will impress them. It's not our usual experience. Bishonen | talk 18:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Copy and pasting

We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. See also Wikipedia:Copy-paste. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to grant license. But appears you understand that now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AGVT (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)Thanks, Doc James- I reviewed your link earlier today. Definitely a learning curve but wanting to do it the right way.[reply]

Conflict of interest and paid editing in Wikipedia

Hi AGVT. I work on conflict of interest issues in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing. Thanks very much for being so forthright in disclosing your conflicts above, and also for being so self-aware and open about the learning curve here in WP. Both are wonderful and refreshing.

I would like to help you get oriented to the WP:PAID policy and our process for working with paid editors, and I would also like to give you a quick rundown of how this place works. Would you be open to that? if so, please just reply here and we can get rolling. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AGVT (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)AGVT to Bishonen and Jytdog: Thank you for getting back to me. I officially dub myself a Wikipedia-Padawan and I am definitely open to learning the WP:PAID policy and process.[reply]

After taking some time to read through other figures who are somewhat similar to Patrick, I can actually see how some of this page is still somewhat promotional. For example: In the early life section, mentioning George Will is somewhat promotional. In the career section: The part about him opening up a financial services firm called PHP Agency is written twice. I think one can be dropped. The part about the radio show, although correct about 52 episodes, also sounds promotional. I would recommend the deletion of Rick Santorum and Steve Wozniak interviews which are real interviews but are not linked to credible sources. If possible, I would replace them with two interviews about entrepreneurship featured on Entrepreneur.com. Those interviews are Mark Cuban and Robert Kiyosaki. (I have links to the site if needed or allowed). Patrick did create a free website called GoAskNewton.com which is an abridged version of Investopedia to educate on the basics of money but I'm not sure if it belongs in Wikipedia. (Sounds promotional). He did run a show on YouTube called 2 Minutes with Pat but the channel is now Called Valuetainment. That's where the main interviews are hosted. On the books section: Based on what I've seen on other authors, I just think it needs to be changed to books without explaining them because again it sounds promotional. It can simply read: Patrick has written two books. The Next Perfect Storm and 25 laws for Doing the Impossible. I know I have a patrolled username or account at the moment, so rather than altering or touching the page, I thought to post my comments here to let the experts chime in. Thank you for your time on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AGVT (talk • contribs)

Thanks, AGVT. The best place to propose changes is at Talk:Patrick Bet-David. Please sign your posts on talkpages with four tildes, ~~~~, which will convert automagically to your username and timestamp when you save. A good trick for you, Padawan, is to "ping" people that you're talking to: if you link their username, as for instance User:Jytdog, they get an alert that you've mentioned them. For example, I pinged you at WP:COIN; you should have got an alert, that is, a little pink "1" in the top row of links on this page. Click on the "1" and it'll tell you who mentioned you and where. Bishonen | talk 23:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for replying AGVT. So I will walk you through the COI thing, and then walk you through the policies at a high level.

OK, the COI management has two steps, really, each with some parts. The first step is disclosure. So above you acknowledged that you work at PHP which is great. Next is to post that on your Userpage, User:AGVT; that is where we look to see what a WP editor is up to here. Only you can put things there. Would you post a simple disclosure like: "I work at the PHP Agency where Patrick Bet-David is the CEO; I have a conflict of interest for that topic." If you end up editing any other pages for work, you should post that there as well. If you want to post anything else about what you are up to in Wikipedia, please feel free, but just nothing promotional. More information about what is OK to do there, and what is not, is at WP:Userpage)

I added a tag to Talk:Patrick Bet-David, so the disclosure is done there. Once you disclose on your user page, the disclosure piece of this will be done.

Would you please do that?

The second step is the "peer review" step. 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 viola 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.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI 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, disclose your COI on the Talk page using the appropriate template, and then submit the draft article through the WP:AFC process 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 propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. You can make the edit request easily - and provide notice to the community of your request - by using the "edit request" function as described in the conflict of interest guideline. I made that easy for you by adding a section to the beige box at the top of the Talk page at Talk:X - there is a link at "click here" in that section -- if you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request.

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. (which I will say more about, if you want).

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.

Will you please agree to follow the peer review processes going forward, when you want to work on 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 we are done with this, I will go over the content policies with you, so you know what kind of content proposals will fly. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jytdog I have clicked around to the pages you cited and read some of the information and will review more at a slower pace to understand. It's simple yet extensive. I will definitely be using the Peer Review Process going forward when I find the need to create a new page. I also disclosed on my user page about the COI. Thanks. AGVT (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)AGVT[reply]

Thanks much! I will go ahead and provide for you my mini-primer on the policies and guidelines. If you just read it without clicking links it explains how we operate and the links are there for deeper diving. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to add - the "peer review" thing works both for edits to existing articles (proposing changes on the talk page for review) and for new articles (submitting them through AfC). Either way paid contributions are reviewed for neutrality and sourcing before they are published. Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were mentioned at COIN

This is a pro forma notice that your name was mentioned at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. It is non punitive. - Brianhe (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Bish told them above. But good thing to make sure. :) Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How this place works

OK, so I would like to get you oriented to how Wikipedia works. There are some non-intuitive things about editing here, that I can zip through ~pretty~ quickly....

The first thing, is that our mission is to provide readers with encyclopedia articles that summarize accepted knowledge, and to do that as a community that anyone can be a part of. That's the mission. As you can imagine, if this place had no norms, it would be a Mad Max kind of world interpersonally, and content would be a slag heap (the quality is really bad in parts, despite our best efforts). But over the past 15 years the community has developed a whole slew of norms, via loads of discussion. One of the first, is that we decide things by consensus. That decision itself, is recorded here: WP:CONSENSUS, which is one of our "policies". (There is a whole forest of things, in "Wikipedia space" - pages in Wikipedia that start with "Wikipedia:AAAA" or for short, "WP:AAAA". WP:CONSENSUS is different from Consensus. ) And when we decide things by consensus, that is not just local in space and time, but includes meta-discussions that have happened in the past. The results of those past meta-discussions are the norms that we follow now. We call them policies and guidelines - and these documents all reside in Wikipedia space. There are policies and guidelines that govern content, and separate ones that govern behavior. Here is very quick rundown:

Content policies and guidelines

WP:NOT (what WP is, and is not -- this is where you'll find the "accepted knowledge" thing)
WP:OR - no original research is allowed here, instead
WP:VERIFY - everything has to be cited to a reliable source (so everything in WP comes down to the sources you bring!)
WP:RS is the guideline defining what a "reliable source" is for general content and WP:MEDRS defines what reliable sourcing is for content about health
WP:NPOV and the content that gets written, needs to be "neutral" (as we define that here, which doesn't mean what most folks think -- it doesn't mean "fair and balanced" - it means that the language has to be neutral (the fewer adjectives, the better, generally speaking), and that topics in a given article are given appropriate "weight" (space and emphasis). An article about a drug that was 90% about side effects, would usually give what we call "undue weight" to the side effects. We determine weight by seeing what the reliable sources say - we follow them in this too. So again, you can see how everything comes down to references.
WP:BLP - this is a policy specifically about articles about living people. We are very careful about these articles (which means enforcing the policies and guidelines above rigorously), since issues of legal liability can arise for WP, and people have very strong feelings about other people, and about public descriptions of themselves.
WP:NOTABILITY - this is a policy that defines whether or not an article about X, should exist. What this comes down to is defined in WP:Golden rule - which is basically, are there enough independent sources about X, with which to build a decent article.

In terms of behavior, the key norms are

WP:CONSENSUS - already discussed
WP:CIVIL - basically, be nice. This is not about being nicey nice, it is really about not being a jerk and having that get in the way of getting things done. We want to get things done here - get content written and maintained and not get hung up on interpersonal disputes. So just try to avoid doing things that create unproductive friction.
WP:AGF - assume good faith about other editors. Try to focus on content, not contributor. Don't personalize it when content disputes arise. (the anonymity here can breed all kinds of paranoia)
WP:HARASSMENT - really, don't be a jerk and follow people around, bothering them. And do not try to figure out who people are in the real world. Privacy is strictly protected by the WP:OUTING part of this policy.
WP:DR - if you get into an content dispute with someone, try to work it. If you cannot, then use one of the methods at that link to get wider input. There are many - it never has to come down to two people arguing. There are instructions here too, about what to do if someone is behaving badly, in your view. Try to keep content disputes separate from behavior disputes. Many of the big messes that happen in Wikipedia arise from these getting mixed up.
WP:TPG - this is about how to talk to other editors on Talk pages, like this one or Talk:Patrick Bet-David. At article talk pages, basically be concise, discuss content not contributors, and base discussion on the sources in light of policies and guidelines, not just your opinons or feelings. At user talk pages things are more open, but that is the relevant place to go if you want to discuss someone's behavior or talk about general WP stuff - like this whole post.

If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course. I know that was a lot of information, but hopefully it is digestable enough.

SO... Anytime you want to create an article, here is what to do.

look for independent sources that comply with WP:MEDRS for anything related to health, and WP:RS for everything else, that give serious discussion to the topic, not just passing mentions. Start with great sources.
Look at the sources you found, and see if you have enough per WP:Golden rule to even go forward. If you don't, you can stop right there, as it is unlikely that the community will accept an article.
Read the sources you found, and identify the main and minor themes to guide you with regard to WP:WEIGHT - be wary of distortions in weight due to lots of press given to recent events
Go look at manual of style guideline created by the relevant WikiProject, to guide the sectioning and other style matters (you can look at articles on similar topics but be ginger b/c WP has lots of bad content) - create an outline. (For example, for biographies, the relevant project is WP:WikiProject Biography) and for companies, the relevant project is Wikipedia:WikiProject_Companies/Guidelines.
Create the article in draft space. Create the talk page, and disclose your COI there. If you have any difficulties with this, please let me know and I can help.
Start writing the body, based only on what is in the sources you have and not on what you already know, and source each sentence as you go.
Make sure you write in neutral language.
When you are done, write the lead and add infobox, external links, categories, etc
Consider adding banners to the Talk page, joining the draft article to relevant Wikiprojects, which will help attract editors who are interested and knowledgeable to help work on the article.
The completed work should have nothing unsourced (because the sources drove everything you wrote, not prior knowledge or personal experiences; there is no original research nor WP:PROMO in it.
Submit your article for review via the WP:AFC process - again I can help there if you like. You will get responses from reviewers, and you can work with them to do whatever is needed to get the article ready to be published.

There you go! Let me know if you have questions about any of that Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]