User talk:UCL CLIE

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, UCL CLIE. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. — Trey Maturin™ 14:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have made changes to an organisation that I do work for in order to ensure the information is accurate. It was previously very inaccurate. UCL CLIE (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given you work for the organization, it is REQUIRED that you declare that on your User page (see WP:PAID) and FORBIDDEN that you edit the article directly regardless of what you deem inaccurate. You are limited to posting requests on the Talk page of the article so that a non-connected editor can implement or deny. David notMD (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As David notMD says, you should make an appropriate paid-editor disclosure before making any other edit. You'll also need to change your username to something that represents you as an individual – at the moment you appear to be editing as the University College London Centre for Languages and International Education, and institutional usernames are not permitted here – usernames are for individual personal use only. I can rename your account if you wish (choose a name and mention it here), or you can make a request at this page. Once those two basic things are sorted we can guide you through what you may and may not do as a paid editor here. Take care, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the needlessly mean spirited response to correcting inaccuracies - not what I deem to be inaccuracies, but inaccuracies that exist objectively - is unnecessary, inappropriate and a waste of time for all of us.

I have been accused by Trey Maturin of "editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted" - this is not true. Again, not an opinion, but an objective fact.

Next, David notMD should not be using aggressive capitalised words to communicate with others. This is the mean spiritedness. Again, objective observation.

Thank you Justlettersandnumbers for a full and kinder response.

I'm just going to delete the account and let the information be inaccurate. That's the outcome you appear to want, so it's the one you're getting! I think you should really give some thought to how you're speaking to others and especially to how you speak to new users. UCL CLIE (talk) 08:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia advises experienced editors to be kind and patient with new editors. That said, Wikipedia had rules and guidelines. As a new editor, you inadvertently crossed a few rules: 1) choice of User name; 2) requirement to declare Paid; 3) editing an article when in a paid situation; 4) adding copyright protected content. Also a guideline: presenting content in a neutral point of view versus promoting, etc. David notMD (talk) 11:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unintended consequences[edit]

UCL University Preparatory Certificate has now been nominated for deletion, primarily because all of the references are to UCL, this not qualifying as independent confirmation of notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. You are free to indicate at the AfD that you support Keeping the article. David notMD (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The wrong decision and part of a needlessly aggressive over reaction. UCL CLIE (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Hello UCL CLIE! Your additions to UCL University Preparatory Certificate have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]