User talk:Wilberterra

September 2020

Hello Wilberterra. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. 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. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

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:Wilberterra. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Wilberterra|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. MrOllie (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! COI info for Enea AB edits

@MrOllie:

Hi Mr. Ollie, thank you for the COI info. I used to contribute to Wikipedia as an SME on tech topics and was well versed with the guidelines pertaining to verifiability, a neutral point of view, proper sourcing, etc., but I never delved into the COI topic. I haven't contributed (ashamed to say) in about a decade (email acct used then no longer active & couldn't remember user name so I created a new acct). I do indeed have a COI as Enea AB is a client, though updating Wiki pages is far outside the scope of the work I am doing for them. They just asked if anyone had experience updating Wiki pages, so I offered to help.

The current page has outdated and incorrect info which needs to be corrected. Public company profiles should be accurate and up to date. Per close association editorial best practices Wikipedia:Best_practices_for_editors_with_close_associations, making uncontroversial edits directly aren't prohibited as long as they are uncontroversial updates or corrections. But, disclosure guidelines must (and should be!) followed. So, I will:

1) Disclose my COI by making a statement on the talk page

2) Ensure edits are in accord with close association guidelines, and all guidelines pertaining to verifiability, citations and POV neutrality (it is not a new page, just an update, but all info will meet the best practice guideline for new organization pages :"articles should be written in natural, but neutral, language and merely summarize factual information from third-party articles, studies, reports and books that are already in print." Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations)

3) Request a peer review on COIN, which is a valid alternative to requesting someone else make the changes on the talk page ("you may propose changes on talk pages (by using the request edit template), or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed" Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest), and in this case, is more practical given that the number of updates and corrections required

I will wait until later today to make the 2nd and 3rd changes above so that you have an opportunity to see my reply. I want to request the peer review as soon as the updates are posted, but I'll want to be sure the page is not reverted before I can get peer review feedback (and I invite you to join in the peer review if you have availability and interest).

Thanks! --Wilberterra (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a promotional rewrite of a page (as you did) or listing your clients products on other pages (as you did) is never going to be noncontroversial, so please use talk pages going forward instead of adding this stuff in the article space yourself. - MrOllie (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updating a page without disclosing a COI is absolutely the wrong way to do it. However, the procedure I outlined above is 100% in line with Wikipedia guidelines and best practices. As for the edits themselves, there is not a single statement or update in the revised content that is controversial. It is all verifiable public information presented in neutral manner. I will proceed as stated above for the Enea page, and request a peer review for the page on COIN.

As for the addition of ixEngine on the list of DPI engines on the DPT page that I discovered when I was updating the Enea site, I do plan to simply suggest that as a change on the Talk page, disclosing the COI status with Enea. The same applies for any future edits to any Enea-related content, though again, this was a one-time request for help unrelated to my work, and I don't anticipate making any future updates. Thanks --Wilberterra (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case the penny hasn't dropped yet, we don't treat some random little form with 300 employees the same as we treat Apple, IBM or even IKEA, for the very simple and obvious reason that there is no parity whatsoever. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an expert admin, I have a serious question for you Guy - as I have complied with COI guidelines and disclosures (including a COI banner on the Talk page), may I help Enea address some of the issues on the new page headline banner, i.e., additional citations for verification, references primary sources, and reliability of listed sources, post-ban? If not, I will let them know. As for Enea AB's notability, true the company is not an IBM or Apple, but it is a public 660-person company that is very important in Sweden (it is a 50 year-old company that is intimately tied to the development of the Internet there), and worldwide, it's embedded tech has enabled the shift from mobile voice to data comms (through to 5G now), i.e., it's a household name in telco & networking. If you or MrOllie harbor any anger toward me, I can't say I understand it, that's fine, but please do not redirect it toward Enea AB.

o