User talk:Cwechsler0803

Welcome!

Hello, Cwechsler0803, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Jim Schultz did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Introduction tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Introduction to referencing
• Help pages
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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 personal help ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  —C.Fred (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Hello Cwechsler0803. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Jim Schultz, 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:Cwechsler0803. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Cwechsler0803|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. ... discospinster _talk 18:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. And your inference is speculative at best. The name isn't even right! And god forbid, you let me take the actual time to source the material before you pull it down while working through an actual draft of his bio. I am not being compensated for my edits. You bots ruin everything. As it is currently published, this ( and others) is inaccurate, cobbled-together, and unauthorized. I am trying to do the same with my own, but apparently that won't work either. Where do I lodge a formal complaint since this god forsaken website doesn't allow you to do what they advertise you should be able to do? Cwechsler0803 (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Pull it down if you won't allow the edits Cwechsler0803 (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

As a general rule, when somebody removes tarnishing content (like connection with former President Trump) and replaces it with glowing, unsourced content, it looks like a conflict of interest edit. Since you imply that your edits are "authorized", that indicates that you have some connection to Schultz, even if you aren't compensated for editing. Am I correct in that? Or should I instead infer that you have no connection to Schultz—which leaves us with a situation where you have made major edits to the article without giving us any indication of where the information you changed came from. —C.Fred (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Nowhere is it advertised that you can use a Wikipedia article for promotional purposes. In fact it is the opposite of what Wikipedia is for.

"Schultz has two decades of experience providing counsel to major corporations, institutions, government leaders and government organizations. He has successfully managed strategy and policy matters across wide-ranging areas, including government engagement, legislative initiatives, government contracting and procurement, federal and state ethics protocols, and administrative law matters."

That's not an encyclopedia article, it's a covering letter for a job application. If you had taken the time to get familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, instead of barrelling in and wiping out existing (reliably sourced) content, you would know this. You'd also know that there is a specific area of the site where you can work on a draft without having it removed. ... discospinster _talk 23:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)