| Revision as of 18:47, 11 October 2009 editM.nelson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers12,176 edits →Gatineau Park - possible conflict of interest?: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:36, 11 October 2009 edit undoAhunt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers229,417 edits Some words of adviceNext edit → | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| Hi Stoneacres, though you've added a lot of well referenced material to ] and ], the overall tone of your contributions suggests that you have some sort of connection to the topic (such as an affiliation with the Gatineau Park Protection Committee) that would suggest a ]. Per ], ''"Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their ] and on the ] of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your ]. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Misplaced Pages."'' If you do not have any conflict of interest, then my apoligies; either way, I look forward to your edits in the future. -''']''' (]) 18:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC) | Hi Stoneacres, though you've added a lot of well referenced material to ] and ], the overall tone of your contributions suggests that you have some sort of connection to the topic (such as an affiliation with the Gatineau Park Protection Committee) that would suggest a ]. Per ], ''"Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their ] and on the ] of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your ]. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Misplaced Pages."'' If you do not have any conflict of interest, then my apoligies; either way, I look forward to your edits in the future. -''']''' (]) 18:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ==Some words of advice== | |||
| As an experienced Misplaced Pages editor I want to give you some words of advice to prevent you from ending up blocked and the organization you represent being disgraced. On both ] and ] you have engaged in ] to try to force your own way. You have broken the ] on the latter article today. I didn't report you, which would have resulted in an automatic 24 hour block, because I wanted to warn you about this in advance. You have denied being in a ] twice now, but have previously admitted that you represent the ]. You have also given lots of obvious clues as to your identity, which make your constant denials of COI very disingenuous. | |||
| My advice to you is this: as per the ] declare your involvement in the issue. Other users, like for instance ] have done so and it has made their contributions to the encyclopedia welcome and helpful. If you choose to continue with your edit warring, reverting other editors, misrepresenting consensus and heavily pushing your organization's POV, it is most likely that you will attract a permanent block and your participation in editing these articles will end up embarrassing the GPPC in a public way, in a similar manner to ] where COI editors made the national news to the great embarrassment of a Canadian federal cabinet minister. | |||
| You are fortunate in that you have two editors willing to work with you to create articles on Gatineau Park that are fair, balanced and conform to Misplaced Pages's policies and thus stand a good chance of remaining in the encyclopedia. You should be working with us on these articles, discussing changes, gaining consensus rather than constantly reverting us, misrepresenting what we have or haven't said and generally trying to drive us off the article. That won't happen. Hopefully we will soon have a larger number of editors working on the articles, ensuring that these important issues are presented in a fair, balanced and unbiased manner. Misplaced Pages articles turn out best when there are lots of editors working on them. As I have stated before, a non-consensus, highly biased article will not remain on Misplaced Pages, it will either be brought into a fair and balanced state, as Misplaced Pages policies require, or someone will nominate it for deletion and all that work will be deleted. | |||
| So I am making this one last appeal to you - please work with us to make these articles better. - ] (]) 23:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:36, 11 October 2009
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, Stoneacres, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For tireless efforts to make the article about Gatineau Park more complete, scrupulous referencing and willingness to work well with other editors. Ahunt (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC) |
Politics of Gatineau Park
As discussed at Talk:Gatineau_Park#Split_proposal I have created this new article and split most of the political story of the park off there, along with many of your photos. I hope you will continue to work on both articles! - Ahunt (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- You can note that I went to Commons and added a category to all your Gatineau Park photos as Politics of Gatineau Park so that they will be easier for other language Wikipedias to find and use, too. - Ahunt (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Sign in?
Hi, just a request, I think that was you who was editing as User: 70.31.216.199 User:70.51.188.11 and User:70.51.188.11, among other IP addresses. It would help out other editors a lot if you could sign in to your account before editing so we know it is you and therefore who we are dealing with. IP edits are often viewed more suspiciously for vandalism and could lead to sockpuppet questions in the future. - Ahunt (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Gatineau Park - possible conflict of interest?
Hi Stoneacres, though you've added a lot of well referenced material to Gatineau Park and Politics of Gatineau Park, the overall tone of your contributions suggests that you have some sort of connection to the topic (such as an affiliation with the Gatineau Park Protection Committee) that would suggest a conflict of interest. Per WP:Conflict of interest, "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Misplaced Pages." If you do not have any conflict of interest, then my apoligies; either way, I look forward to your edits in the future. -M.Nelson (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Some words of advice
As an experienced Misplaced Pages editor I want to give you some words of advice to prevent you from ending up blocked and the organization you represent being disgraced. On both Gatineau Park and Politics of Gatineau Park you have engaged in edit warring to try to force your own way. You have broken the Three revert rule on the latter article today. I didn't report you, which would have resulted in an automatic 24 hour block, because I wanted to warn you about this in advance. You have denied being in a conflict of interest twice now, but have previously admitted that you represent the Gatineau Park Protection Committee. You have also given lots of obvious clues as to your identity, which make your constant denials of COI very disingenuous.
My advice to you is this: as per the policy declare your involvement in the issue. Other users, like for instance this one have done so and it has made their contributions to the encyclopedia welcome and helpful. If you choose to continue with your edit warring, reverting other editors, misrepresenting consensus and heavily pushing your organization's POV, it is most likely that you will attract a permanent block and your participation in editing these articles will end up embarrassing the GPPC in a public way, in a similar manner to this article where COI editors made the national news to the great embarrassment of a Canadian federal cabinet minister.
You are fortunate in that you have two editors willing to work with you to create articles on Gatineau Park that are fair, balanced and conform to Misplaced Pages's policies and thus stand a good chance of remaining in the encyclopedia. You should be working with us on these articles, discussing changes, gaining consensus rather than constantly reverting us, misrepresenting what we have or haven't said and generally trying to drive us off the article. That won't happen. Hopefully we will soon have a larger number of editors working on the articles, ensuring that these important issues are presented in a fair, balanced and unbiased manner. Misplaced Pages articles turn out best when there are lots of editors working on them. As I have stated before, a non-consensus, highly biased article will not remain on Misplaced Pages, it will either be brought into a fair and balanced state, as Misplaced Pages policies require, or someone will nominate it for deletion and all that work will be deleted.
So I am making this one last appeal to you - please work with us to make these articles better. - Ahunt (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)