User talk:Ferncarlos

February 2015

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Outsourcing. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using your own blog as a reference

sourcefit.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.sourcefit.com

Hello, Ferncarlos. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, McGeddon. I'd really appreciate it if the article is reconsidered. I'm new here so I was not sure that I have made my COI clear enough. But as you can see, I used the same name that appears in the article, and not used a different name. That article is 2,823 words and it cites, among others, the following sources of information: 1. The New York Times 2. Stanford Law School website 3. Harvard Business Review website 4. Union Square Ventures 5. Wikipedia 6. Digital Always Media 7. searchenginewatch.com

The article I used in the citation is not about the organization I am affiliated with, it's about SOPA and PIPA. I know that the link has the nofollow attribute. The article itself does not promote the company. It talks about SOPA, PIPA and highlights what people who opposed SOPA PIPA have to say about these proposed laws. I think it's relevant, helpful and informative - it talks about the topic and points to more sources of information.

The article also gives more details and provides reference to this paragraph, which it can provide inline citation to: Effects on websites, web communities and user-generated content - The scope, language, definitions, procedures, remedies, and provision for immunity following wrongful allegations was seen as insufficiently narrow and well-defined. Legal analysts suggested that draconian court orders could be obtained without undue difficulty to "take down" an entire site, without dialog or notification, due process, or liability for compensation if incorrect, even if the site were legitimate.

( WP:SCOIC )

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. As stated by McGeddon. If you want to take the issue further, I would try the Reliable Sources Noticeboard

Thanks! Ferncarlos (talk) 04:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you've written a blog entry that uses the New York Times as a source, it would be more appropriate to edit that same information into Wikipedia using the New York Times as a source directly. --McGeddon (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]