User talk:El Dorado Adventurer

Mike Maloney

Hello, El Dorado Adventurer. 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 need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest including WP:NOPAY.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People with a close connection to a subject need to be aware of Wikipedia's policies;

• Advertisements masquerading as articles
• Conflict of interest
  • Paid advocacy, public relations, and marketing
  • Editors who have a conflict of interest
  • Accounts used for promotion
  • Law Of Unintended Consequences
• What Wikipedia is not
  • Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. You may also wish to avoid giving the impression that your account is to be used for promotional purposes. Regardless, doing so does not exempt you from compliance with the content policies or mean that you should not exercise great care in editing about subjects related to you. --Hu12 (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Response

I'm not a paid editor and I use my best efforts to keep things neutral. I've removed language that could be interpreted as promotional however, in the interest of providing completeness, I do work to keep in all relevant information. This includes notable appearances in industry conferences and broadcasts. As my name suggests, my interest, and consequently my knowledge, tends to have certain focuses. El Dorado Adventurer (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The content that has been purged from that article is content which has gone unverified for a long period of time, plus claims from non-reliable sources, unremarkable information (he spoke at a conference: so what? my kid spoke at a notable conference when she was five years old; but that doesn't make her notable, just clever), and information sourced to YouTube videos and the like. What's left is what can be verified and sourced, and is what the article will be judged by. Don't expect us to restore the junk just to make the article look better. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Response User:OrangeMike

Hmmm.... The Silver Summit is a highly regarded conference within the precious metals industry and RT (TV network) is a worldwide broadcast where the subject matter has been an invited guest to share his knowledge. YouTube videos are reliable and verifiable because those posts replay the same footage that was originally broadcast and this is the most direct way to verify the claims made. Further, all my responses have been very respectful and I always assume good faith. It's hard to read your comments in a way that can be interpreted other than as insulting. Please be more respectful in your comments so this discussion can be more productive. Thank you. El Dorado Adventurer (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)