User talk:Palladiainc
Welcome, Palladiainc! Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 47,495,708 Users
Hello, Palladiainc, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! I'm Magister Scienta, one of the many editors here, and I hope you decide to stay here and help contribute to Wikipedia.
|
Here are some links to get you started: |
And here are some Do's and Don'ts:
|
|
If you need further help, you can: |
Or even: |
Alternatively, drop a note on my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.
If you enjoy being here, there are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
Remember to always sign your name on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post; this will automatically insert your username, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
As always though, the best way to learn about something is to experience it. Go and explore Wikipedia, the more time you spend on it, the more you'll know, and don't forget to have some fun!
Sincerely, Magister Scienta (talk) June 4, 2024.
License tagging for File:Palladia logo.png[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Palladia logo.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Conflict of interest username / group account[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the username you have chosen (Palladiainc) seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of a group, company or website.
There are two issues with this:
- It is possible that you have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, you must exercise great caution when editing on topics related to your organization.
- Your account cannot represent a group of people. You may wish to create a new account with a username that represents only you. Alternatively, you may consider changing your username to avoid giving the impression that your personal account is being used for promotional purposes.
Regardless of whether you change your name or create a new account, you are not exempted from the guidelines concerning editing where you have a conflict of interest. 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.
Please be aware that writing about yourself or the organization you work for is exceptionally difficult to do with a neutral point of view. If Palladia, Inc is truly notable, someone will write an article about the company eventually. Please also be aware that Wikipedia is not an advertising medium.
I'm very sorry, but I will be reporting this username to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention for blocking. You are welcome to create another account that represents only yourself, but please be aware that continuing to write about yourself and/or organizations you represent will generally not be acceptable. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please replace the code {{help me-helped}} on this page with {{help me}}, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
{{adminhelpme}}
With regard to above post, I wish to express contrition and make apologies for not taking into account any Conflict of Interest that may have arisen from my selected username. The fact of the matter is that I am indeed writing this article on behalf of an organization, and am therefore taking steps to change the username to avoid blocking. Morally, though, this does not seem to me a real way to resolve the Conflict of Interest. If I am still who I am, writing in the same manner, on behalf of the same group using the same article, then what does it matter if the username is changed, really? Is that all I have to do to resolve this issue? If not, what are the chances of this article I'm writing being considered actually objective, insofar as anything can be objective? To which I would add the fact that the article in question has not yet been published. Is it a validating fact that, while I am writing on behalf of said organization, I do actually believe in the standalone importance of the group in question, and that I feel I am truly filling a void of information? Which is more important, then? The creation of the article or the changing of the username? I will personally vouch for the verifiability of all the information in the article, and have given external and internal citations and links to real sources. If I were to change the username I would then, ostensibly, be able to retain everything already written in the unpublished article, no? If it is still a conflict of interest since it is known that I am beholden to the organization about which I write, then must the article be abandoned entirely until, as fate would have it, someone someday may find the time to write something?
What is, truly, the crux of the matter here? One of protocol or one of information dissemination? My belief is that the article is valid and should be written, and that I am writing it as someone who has the ideals of objectivity and transparency held dear. I am ready and willing to provide a full discourse on why I believe this article is worth writing and the organization's notability for anyone's perusal. If I am, ipso facto, a biased writer and the organization has no right whatsoever to put forward in encyclopedic form information about its history and operation, then so be it. The article and account will both be removed. This does not, then, preclude me from simply reproducing the article again under a different name. Is this different or any more valid a process than simply changing the username?
Again, apologies for the unintentional COI issue, and thank you to TParis and Hammersoft for their vigilance. No hard feelings.
L Meyer
Palladiainc (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- The user name and the conflict of interest are two separate issues.
- Wikipedia accounts must be for individuals only, who are personally responsible for them, and shared accounts or accounts whose names appear to be those of organizations or groups are not permitted. You can change your username easily: choose a username which will represent only you - this can be related to your real name or not, just as you please - and apply at WP:CHU. Read down to the bottom of that page, and click on "Simple."
- So far as the issue of WP:Conflict of interest goes, it is preferred that editors do not have a COI, because experience shows that it is hard for COI editors to avoid writing promotionally and thinking of Wikipedia as a notice-board for their organization's manifesto; but we would rather have a declared COI than a concealed one, and there is a code of WP:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest. In brief: don't post articles or make changes yourself, but suggest them, declaring your interest, and let uninvolved editors decide. ("Editor" means just the same as "user" - there is no superior class of "editors"). For articles, you should make a draft and propose it at WP:Articles for creation; for changes to existing articles, propose them on the article talk page, declaring your interest in both cases.
- There is one point I should stress, an important way in which Wikipedia differs from the sort of site like Myspace where people and organizations write about themselves: nobody WP:OWNs a Wikipedia article, not its first author and certainly not its subject. If you write an article about your organization, you will not own it, other people can and will edit it, you will not be able to insist on your preferred version, and you may encounter Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences.
- You will find useful advice at WP:Your first article and the WP:FAQ/Organizations, and should perhaps also read Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause.
- One last piece of advice: Wikipedia is very resistant to being used for any kind of promotion. Anything that looks like an advertisement is speedily deleted. When writing about your organization, take care to avoid marketing/PR-speak and "peacock terms", and put out of your mind any idea that you are writing for the organization. You should think of yourself as writing from outside a neutral description, plain facts cited to reliable sources.
- Having read the articles you suggested, I have concluded that the best course of action would be to change the username AND to place the article within a Project - the Organizations Project - in hopes that someone will find interest in writing the article. I would appreciate it if you would read the unpublished article and giving me some indication of where there is puffery or unverified information. With regard to notoriety and the "Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause" article, I don't think I've pushed any of those boundaries. It would be helpful if you (or someone else) could point out where I have transgressed. I understand that this is quite an imposition on you in terms of time, but I really could use a little constructive criticism that pertains directly to what I've written. And yes, I was wrong to say that I was writing for the organization in my comments on my talkpage. That distinction was well pointed out. Thank you so much for your assistance.
- Palladiainc (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think you might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Article Incubator. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
- I will have a look, but it may be a day or two before I have time. You could post a request for comments at WP:Requests for feedback. My remarks were not particularly aimed at your draft, which I have not read, but were general advice that I have found COI editors often need - we are so keen to encourage everyone to come and edit that we do not do as much as I think we should to explain in advance what Wikipedia is not for. The incubator is a possibility, I'll comment after I have read it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Palladia logo.png[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Palladia logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. We hope (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
So....[edit]
I apologize for getting back to you so late, I realize much has happened since you sent me that message, right now, what (if anything) do you need help with, or are you all sorted out? Magister Scienta talk 22:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
August 2011[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice. Thank you. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)