Adtwiki

Welcome!

Hello, Adtwiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Worksoft, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Mediran (t • c) 23:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Editor Opinion of Paid editing

Hello Adtwiki. 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:Adtwiki. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Adtwiki|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) 22:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

moved here from place it was originally put in this diff Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

‪Jytdog‬, I have already gone through this discussion once and have disclosed both that I am not Paid or have any conflict of interest in this topic or associations that I'm a part of. If you review the previous/initial entry there is no promotion of any organizations in the content and the content follows all of the guidelines, recommendations, and requirements of Wikipedia. Yes, I am an expert in the larger field of marketing and slaes technology... and simply wishes to add to the content to better inform and educate the community on this and other related topic to have an informed understanding.

By making the alterations, the Wikipedia entries now cloud and confuse rather than inform and educate. Adtwiki (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

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.

This is as fundamental as "please" and "thank you" here. Please indent and sign. Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Replying on the substance... where did you go through this discussion? Please provide a link.

Your edits are exactly like those of a paid editor, or someone with a conflict of interest. Please disclose any connection you have with companies or entities developing this sort of marketing software, including this "The Customer Data Platform Institute " entity. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the edit etiquette. Replying via mobile didn't preserve the indents. Jytodog, first, I get that you have to review 1000s of edits and defend wikipedia's integrity. As someone who has done this diligent work over wikipedia or moderating BBS', its very possible to misjudge and get hung-up. So your 'your edits are like a paid editor' seems a bit intentionally inflammatory. This article has been up for nearly a year, then was being vandalized. Including what seems to be removing the discussions, wiped out, gone. So I get that your first reaction was to move it. It the opinion is based on the reference to the Customer Data Platform institute? If so, then I/we can reference something else. When you take the time to search the news about CDPs they are becoming more ubiquitous and readers need to understand the difference. It's like gutting the entry on Wikipedia and cramming it under the definition/entry of Encyclopedia and redirecting. As I've offered in my previous, now erased discussion, I'm open to working together to make this better as more continues to develop on CDP. However, categorizing this under CRM is an error.

Thanks for replying. Would you please respond about any connections you have with companies or entities developing this sort of marketing software, including this "The Customer Data Platform Institute " entity?

In case it isn't clear, my goal is not to shut you down or beat you over the head. If you have relevant external relationships that generate a conflict of interest, we need to manage it, is all. This sort of stuff is not a big deal; it becomes one if unmanaged. thx. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from. I work for consulting and advisory company and it has no affiliation with selling marketing software or the institute.

Nomination of Customer data platform for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Customer data platform is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Customer data platform until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)