User talk:Wikiipedia-posting

Welcome!

Hello, Wikiipedia-posting, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Model mugging, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! ~ Rob^Talk 14:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Hello, I'm BU Rob13. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Model mugging seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ~ Rob^Talk 14:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

For the record, that's a generic message produced by a template. ~ Rob^Talk 18:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

Hello, Wikiipedia-posting. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Model mugging, you may have a conflict of interest.

Editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. If you have a conflict of interest, please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with (see WP:COI);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing, and autobiographies. 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 the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Storkk (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Wikiipedia-posting! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 18:58, Wednesday, September 30, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Clarification

Afternoon!

A fellow wikipedian left a note on my talk page that you had a grievance against me posted in the teahouse. I'd love to clarify a few specifics. The basics: I'm a guy, I've been here a while, I don't work for anything martial arts or self defense related. In fact my day to day couldn't be further removed. You claim there's a Conflict of Interest but you admittedly work for Model Mugging. I'd love to call your attention to the very definition of Irony. Not sure where you're getting your claims of Biography of Living Persons violation from. The article isn't about a living person and even if it were I hardly think two sentences of criticism in a fairly long article represents "lack of balance". I'd highly recommend you take a minute to read the BLP Policies As for disregarding consensus I'd like you to visit the talk page and read it one more time. It seems that consensus is pretty strong with you being the single and solitary hold-out. There's no consensus dispute when there's only a single editor who works for the company the article is about in disagreement with literally everyone else.

In the spirit of being constructive and in the hopes you can rationalize that there's no grand conspiracy against your company by some outside competitor the following are the reasons I've made my edits:

Wikipedia is not a platform to Advertise your business Your constant attempt to turn the page into a Publicity Piece is completely against the ethos of Wikipedia. When your version of the article has 3/4 of the page just listing indiscriminate media references under a section header titled "Publicity" I have a problem with that as do evidently all the other editors on the page. I'd have the same problem on any other page so please don't feel singled out.

When you whitewash an article by deleting any reference to properly cited yet negative material you skew the balance. If you look at the entire article very few sentences are negative, there was never a robust and long list of critique nor was there any hyperbole in any of the cited controversy. The controversy was properly cited and from a solid source just because you don't like it or agree with it doesn't justify removal and your personal opinions on the topic or about Peri aren't valid counter sources nor is your website or any of your personally published information on your website or your 20 year old newsletter.

In the end this isn't a fight I seriously doubt there's some sort of grand conspiracy or smear campaign going on and if there is I'm certainly not affiliated with it. If I could offer you one single bit of advice it would be to calm down a few notches. When you spend what appears to be hours and hours of your life making that PDF and writing long diatribes it usually turns out to be counter productive and then draws further attention to your conflict of interest and brings more people into the discussion some of whom will probably try to dig up even more controversy and publish it often times just because they find it entertaining to further spin up someone who's already become very emotionalized. I've been on the receiving end of that here with other articles I've worked with over the past decade so I know it first hand.

Nefariousski (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Nefariousski - I reached out to you in the beginning of all this, but received nothing in return from you. As a rookie to Wikipedia, I have spent more time figuring out the buttons than writing, which was why I whitewashed edits as you described it. The paper was easy to put together and save as a pdf.

I do not view your work as a conspiracy, but rather as an attack.

You have come across as wanting to harm.

The article IS about a living person with an approach and terms that have been insulting. FreeRangeFrog agreed in a prior post and then you went back again at it. Rumors are not a ‘solid’ source.

I completely agree with the term “irony”, which is exactly how you have come across regarding COI.

Please remember that Model Mugging never uploaded the entry into Wikipedia. My edit pointed out the complete unbalance difference about using a single source versus the hundreds of others written about the program. I tied in historical aspects into my edit around that single source. The title “Publicity” was chosen because I did not know what else to name it other than the approach you were insisting, which was solely negative publicity and the opposite of NPOV - the same could be said about your opinion of the article.

The newsletters were not mine, and again, 'ironically' written by the person who helped fueled this whole issue of the Peri article. The newsletter brings out some of the historical context of the article.

Base on your note - I truly hope my opinion of you is an exaggeration. You stated this is not a fight, but you have demonstrated an intent to harm in your related contributions. Your work on the two pages appears highly suspicious.