User talk:WorthMedia

January 2018[edit]

Hello, I'm Everymorning. I noticed that you recently removed content from David L. Katz without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Most of the content which you removed was well-sourced. Also, the content you added was very promotional in its wording (e.g. "...organization established to promote messages about healthy, sustainable diet and lifestyle"). Every Morning (there's a halo...) 20:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with a few initiatives associated with Dr. David L. Katz, and noticed that the current content is heavily dependent upon student publications not subject to peer review, which were then covered by the Huffington Post. The subject of the article is a physician contributing to evolving public debate surrounding health and diet, and I'm not sure the negative bias evident in the revision history is an appropriate way to relate basic details about the career of a notable public figure. Another user posted updated content (pulled from a bio on his personal domain). That content was biased, but more comprehensive and less dependent on suspect student editorials. I removed the biased content and retained the factual and cited content.WorthMedia (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing[edit]

Hello WorthMedia. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

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, and if it does not, 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:WorthMedia. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=WorthMedia|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, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being paid to edit this content (or any Wikipedia content). Also not a huge fan of the implication of bias. I'm familiar with a few initiatives associated with Dr. David L. Katz, and noticed that the current content is heavily dependent upon student publications not subject to peer review, which were then covered by the Huffington Post. The subject of the article is a physician contributing to evolving public debate surrounding health and diet, and I'm not sure the negative bias evident in the revision history is an appropriate way to relate basic details about the career of a notable public figure. Another user posted updated content (pulled from a bio on his personal domain). That content was biased, but more comprehensive and less dependent on suspect student editorials. I removed the biased content and retained the factual and cited content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorthMedia (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit. That is how we know who said what. I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that. Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing, along your username, makes it very unlikely that you are not being paid to work on this article. Being paid to work in WP is OK (tolerated not loved) as long as people disclose and don't edit directly, and take the time to engage with the policies and guidelines here. Not sure you are aware of that, or of the Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms.

Please reconsider your response. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the counsel on talk. I've fiddled with Wikipedia a few times, but nothing significant.WorthMedia (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I own a social media marketing firm. Dr. Katz is not one of my clients. Have you read the article? First line - "unaffiliated with Yale University" is innacurate (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale-Griffin_Prevention_Research_Center). Second line is a self description, not credentials. The entirety of the first paragraph is falacious or inappropriate to the medium. His academic background isn't mentioned at all, aside from a "voluntary" position. This article was written with malicious intent. Look, I've got three graduate degrees. Peer review is something I care about. This article is weak . "A position he no longer holds" and "now discontinued" are significant subclauses indicating negative bias WorthMedia (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior is terrible and not acceptable here. See the notices below. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning[edit]

Your recent editing history at David L. Katz shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 22:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]