User talk:Abursey
|
Sorry you are confused. If you still have this question.... please be more specific; Which article are you referring to??? Type your answer below here and I will see it.
Ariconte (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey![edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at Wikipedia:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you either received an invitation to visit the Teahouse, or edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests page.
Click here to be taken to the survey site.
The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!
Happy editing,
J-Mo, Teahouse host, 15:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Message sent with Global message delivery.
Replaceable fair use File:Ontario's sixth Ombudsman, André Marin.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Ontario's sixth Ombudsman, André Marin.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the media description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —innotata 16:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by NtheP (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Your edits[edit]
Please note that Wikipedia is not a venue for the publication of sanitized or subject-approved public relations profiles — it is a venue for as complete as possible coverage of our article topics, including any notable controversies or criticism that the subject may have been involved in. If you have an issue with the way in which a controversy is being handled in a Wikipedia article, you may raise the issue for discussion and resolution on the article's talk page — but you may not arbitrarily deem that a notable controversy about the person or organization gets completely swept under the rug or goes completely unacknowledged on here. Under our conflict of interest policy, in fact, you really shouldn't be editing articles related to the Ontario Ombudsman at all, except to correct strictly factual errors. We strive to be fair to our article subjects, absolutely, but it is not our job to be a venue for the organization to publish its own "scrubbed completely clean of any controversies or criticism whatsoever" content about itself, or for any of the organization's staff to publish what amounts to a thinly veiled rewrite of their own résumé, to the exclusion of anything that other people have said or published about them. Our mandate here includes covering all aspects of an article topic, including notable controversies or criticisms. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Conflict of Interest concerns: Ontario Ombudsman, Andre Marin[edit]
Hello Abursey,
Until very recently, you used the same handle on Wikipedia as you did on other social media and you publicly disclose your direct employee/employer relationship with the subject of the pages you are editing: Ontario Ombudsman and Andre Marin. You also publicly disclose that you manage his communications. I wanted to draw your attention to Wikipedia: Conflict of interest policy. I’ve included portions I believe apply to you in these two cases (paid advocacy, political):
"While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to be a Wikipedian. Any external relationship (any secondary role) may undermine that primary role, and when it does undermine it, or could reasonably be said to undermine it, that person has a conflict of interest.
Paid advocacy, public relations, and marketing
Paid advocacy – that is, being paid to promote something or someone on Wikipedia – is a subset of paid editing. Sue Gardner, executive director of theWikimedia Foundation, wrote in October 2013 that the Foundation regards paid advocacy as a "black hat" practice that "violates the core principles that have made Wikipedia so valuable for so many people."
If the following applies to you:
you are receiving, or expect to receive, monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (as an employee or contractor; as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public-relations purposes; as owner, officer or other stakeholder; or by having some other form of close financial relationship with a topic you wish to write about), then you are very strongly discouraged from directly editing Wikipedia in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral. If you have a financial connection to a topic – including, but not limited to, as an owner, employee, contractor or other stakeholder – you are advised to refrain from editing affected articles directly. ...
The writing of "puff pieces" and advertisements is prohibited.
Political
Editors should not edit articles in which they have a political conflict of interest. Examples:
Government employees should not edit articles about their agencies, government, or political party, or articles about their political opponents, opposition groups, or controversial political topics, with the intent to slant or spin an article in a manner that is politically advantageous to their employer." I hope this is of some assistance. Thissilladia (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- While this is true, the remedy is not to pile on original research with a contrary point of view. Stick to what the sources actually say. Otherwise, your single-purpose account may appear to be for an "unsuitable agenda". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
This is to let you know that I have put the following on the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard page:
Ontario Ombudsman and Andre Marin pages are edited and maintained by two of the subject's employees, his communications director Eljadubya and his digital/social media person Abursey. Both use the same username on other social media and links directly to their profiles that name them, place of work and positions at Ontario Ombudsman. According to the protocol as I understood it, I first informed them of my COI concerns with as it pertains to paid communications and to political relationships. I will also inform each, according to protocol, that I have placed this here. I am new to Wiki and had not planned on spending all my time on these two sites, so if any help is available, that would be greatly appreciated. Thissilladia (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thissilladia (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Conflict of interest warning[edit]
Hello, Abursey. 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.
If you have not read WP:COI please do so. Also, please see the article Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia - conflicted editing often bounces back to the public embarrassment of people who do it. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Jytdog. Thanks for your note. I'm not a frequent editor and I appreciate any tips, links, etc, you can share. In the interest of transparency, earlier today I reached out to an editor about this same topic. As I noted, I explained my affiliation with the office, and would like to propose factual changes to the page to correct inaccuracies; I will post them on my User page for editors to examine and determine if they meet Wiki's community standards. (I have seen this done by other users and it seemed to be an accepted way to handle this sort of situation.) Please let me know if you think this isn't an appropriate course of action. I really appreciate any advice or suggestions you can give me. Thanks again. Abursey (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)