74.132.29.232

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, 74.132.29.232. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Thomas Woods, 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 or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} 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 WP:Spam);
• 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. Grayfell (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

No COI

@Grayfell: Hello Grayfell. I have no conflicts of interest to declare with respect to Thomas Woods. I find his work interesting, and I expanded his page with useful and neutral information about his views. I will be reverting the page to make it similar to my most recent edit. Since I have no COI to declare, we can work together from there to add/remove/change sources. If you find specific statements that are false, misleading or superfluous, let's work on those rather than canning the whole thing. I would like to discuss further on the talk page of the reverted article. 74.132.29.232 (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

No. Please review WP:BRD. The burden is on you to gain consensus for the changes you have made. A COI is merely one of many issues. The information you added was neither neutral nor "useful". Wikipedia isn't a trophy case or resume hosting service. Discuss on the article's talk page before restoring. Do not edit war. Grayfell (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Hello Grayfell. I reverted the article before I saw your reply here. I think you are replying to the wrong editor if you are talking about a "trophy case". I will read the WP:BRD you suggested. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.29.232 (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

With this edit you added Template:BLP primary sources to the article. The use of templates such as this suggests prior familiarity with Wikipedia. I encourage you to log into your account, if you have one, to avoid WP:SOCK issues.

As for the changes to the article, summarize WP:IS. Primary sources should only be used sparingly for vital, non-controversial information, or with attribution for specific WP:BLP issues.

Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I think you give me a little too much credit. I saw your addition of the tag to the controversies section, and I modified your work. Maybe I will get an account eventually. I don't mind using my IP for these edits presently. I am looking at WP:PRIMARYCARE. "An article about a person: The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the person says about himself or herself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements." The statements that were referenced with primary sources were mostly about Woods' own views. These statements were non-controversial, because a statement about what Woods' criticizes or advocates is not the same as the article advocating those views. As stated in the reversion, I aim to add secondary sources in the near future. I am paging through your links now. 74.132.29.232 (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

---