User talk:CorneliusVanDyck

Send me your comments here. Thanks. CorneliusVanDyck (talk) 15:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COI warning

Hello CorneliusVanDyck. You have declared a financial stake in promoting a topic. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:CorneliusVanDyck. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=CorneliusVanDyck|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. ElKevbo (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ElKevbo and thanks for the message. I will stop editing as requested. I understand there could be a COI, in that I work for AUB, but I am not paid directly or indirectly for my edits and I am sticking to NPOV through. Please check my latest edits on the AUB page for evidence of this. I am seeking to ensure a factual representation of the university in an environment where its article and its president's BLP have been subjected to repeated single-purpose editing from a non-neutral point of view on Wikipedia. I have been trying to work transparently with the volunteer editing team and admins to achieve this. Please also refer to the Talk page on the BLP of Fadlo_R._Khuri for further details. CorneliusVanDyck (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ElKevbo, Cornelius Van Dyke is the name of a past president of user "CorneliusVanDyke's" employer and is being used pseudonymously and not transparently. His/her allegation of "single-purpose editing" of his/her employer's current president is inaccurate as many editing users, including myself, have edited multiple pages, and s/he presents no evidence that any point of view involved is "non-neutral," while fully admitting that s/he is employed by a subject's institution and has a conflict of interest. Contrary to his/her assertions, s/he has not ensured "factual representation" but, like all other users associated with his employer who edited the page in question, merely section blanked factual, verifiable, and independently-sourced third-party information of which he or his employer disapproves without fulfilling Wikipedia's requirement that it be countered with verifiable and independent information disproving or calling into dispute the deleted information. He should be prohibited from further edits for COI and multiple policy violations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djuventus78 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please use "they/them." For the record Djuventus78 was created on Sunday, if memory serves, and was barred shortly thereafter by WP admin Johnuniq for picking up a previous campaign by another barred account to turn the current AUB president's BLP into an attack page. The user has now turned up here in order to influence ElKevbo evidently as part of the same campaign. This behavior seems to me to run counter to spirit and letter of WP rules and underlines the original purpose of my creating this account. I am happy for the neutrality and accuracy of my contributions to be judged by third parties and posted on the talk page of the AUB article for that purpose. Thanks CorneliusVanDyck (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "neutrality" from "CorneliusVanDyke." They/them already admitted to a conflict of interest and was asked to refrain from editing associated subjects. There is no "campaign" to create "attack pages." Multiple users have documented and edited accurate information that "CorneliusVanDyke" and other AUB-associated users have never refuted with even one fact or source. Instead they section blank in repeated violation of Wikipedia policy and then claim neutrality when they are obviously not neutral. "CorneliusVanDyke"'s should be prohibited from further edits and their section blanking reversed in all cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djuventus78 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]