User talk:FacileEditor

June 2020

Hello, I'm David Gerard. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Oxford University Conservative Association, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please do not add, or re-add, deprecated sources - WP:BURDEN requires re-added material to be supported with a WP:RS David Gerard (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:RS you need to give sufficient time to find alternative sources. Clearly the statements are verifiable, the outdating of these specific links does not suddenly render the statements unverifiable and justify complete removal. Please actually consult the links you quote. FacileEditor (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are a single-purpose account with 25 edits. How about listening instead of lecturing? Guy (help!) 22:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All this means is that I should be subjected to more scrutiny. I have quoted the rules, and all I'm arguing for is including some out of date sources, so I would kindly request you actually give me reason to believe that I'm wrong - I'm more than willing to listen, so I apologise if I have made any errors. FacileEditor (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guy I would like to add that these sources are not actually deprecated! I appreciate that these links could be one sided, but surely there should be some discussion on the talk page rather than an immediate removal of the sources? Thank you for assuming good faith, I will not revert your changes, but I would like to express that I think they are not well justified. The fiat policy against using daily mail (seems to me) to be against new uses of it, and given that the dailymail sources were present before the RfC, I would like to see some discussion before removal. FacileEditor (talk) 22:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, FacileEditor. 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 WP:Spam);
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. Guy (help!) 23:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for raising this issue but I am more than aware of WP:COI. I have raised issues in line with that policy before when I noticed that the current president of OUCA was editing the OUCA page. I know this is unhelpful, but I only infrequently edit Wikipedia, and hence mostly don't use an account - hence why I may appear single purpose. However I do not have a COI to declare and do intend on editing a wider range of articles in the future. FacileEditor (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]