Hayleystlpark
|
August 2017
edit
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Kuang-Chi, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Bakilas (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
COI
edit Hello, Hayleystlpark. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Kuang-Chi, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:
- avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
- instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
- when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
- avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
- exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you must 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 WP:PAID).
Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies.
Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Matthew_hk tc 10:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Spam
edit Hello, I'm Matthew hk. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Metamaterial have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. In the source you provided it just mentioned the company name Kuang-Chi , it is non notable to add it to the wiki article, unless you can provide page number of the report to show the company did notable in the field Metamaterial, according to the research report. Or the report could just analysed Kuang-Chi but another conclusion. Matthew_hk tc 16:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
@Matthew hk: Hey Matthew, please note that in the meta-materials article, the edit I made was to reference several companies from around the world that commercialize meta-materials - it seems a very practical and helpful in an article about this technology to understand that it is used commercially (and not only theoretical). As an example, I cited companies (sourced from a standard industrial report) in Japan, China, Canada, Europe and the USA that commercialize this technology - of these companies, one is the one you mention (Kuang-Chi). Can you clarify the problem?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayleystlpark (talk contribs) 13:54 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- All you edit involve the company Kuang Chi. You can't cherry pick documents and then spam the name of the company all over wikipedia. For the research report, only the research report can verify the company important, but not the press release of the publication of the report. As the report priced few hundred dollar, no one able to verify it. Matthew_hk tc 14:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
@Matthew hk: Please limit your response to the questions I raised rather than disparaging comments - Is it an error for an article on a technology to mention the names of the top companies worldwide that commercialize this technology? If this is not in line with Wikipedia guidelines, then my addition was in error. If it is in line, then lets work together to ensure the highest quality of that content. You suggest a concern is that the source cited is a respected industrial report behind a paywall - perhaps the solution is to add further sources (easily done by adding media that references companies that commercialize this technology), rather than deleting content which adds to the understanding and accuracy of the article. Regarding the majority of my comments focusing on few topics, I had not understood that this is against Wikipedia guidelines. My understanding is that specialized expertise is normally encouraged to ensure higher level content. If the content I share is inaccurate or low quality, then that is grounds to reject it. But to reject it not in relation to the quality of the content seems unhelpful. My goal is to ensure the highest degree of accuracy on Wikipedia, starting with what I know and moving on from there - I do not see why this is bad practice or to be disparaged as "cherry-picking" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayleystlpark (talk • contribs) 16:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
- The simple answer is you can't spam the name of Kuang Chi all over wikipedia. It is not like Microsoft and Samsung, which they have ACTUAL PRODUCT. All you done is promoting your future concept stock. Conflict of interest and paid editing is a serious offense. Matthew_hk tc 14:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
@Matthew hk: you're response is factually false. Kuang-Chi has actual metamaterial commercialized products - as do the other 6 companies that I added to the metamaterial article and that you deleted. These 7 companies may not be as famous as Microsoft and Samsung but since when does Wikipedia only concern itself with companies that are as large as Microsoft. Moreover, Wikipedia content often includes products under R&D. Finally, you raise concerns of conflict of interest and paid editing - which you cannot substantiate. As noted, my edits on Wikipedia reflect my expertise, and every edit is cited by externally cited. If you can identify the content as inaccurate, please do so. But maligning the content by falsely attacking me or suggesting that only companies like Microsoft deserve Wikipedia attention is silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayleystlpark (talk • contribs) 07:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- you still dodge the question on your edit. You just can't explain every edits you made were involved Kuang-Chi. Wikipedia users were banned before for paid editing, what i really need to do was hand over to them to check you are the same person of previous banned user or not, or a different person but still blatant paid editing or not. Matthew_hk tc 08:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@Matthew hk: I am still trying to understand two points you have raised and not responded to: (1) is the material i added factually accurate and informative or not? (2) if one is an expert on only one subject, say Microsoft, and one limits their edits to only that one topic, say the Wikipedia article on Microsoft, is this a concern? Are Wikipedia editors required to have expertise on multiple subjects? Please note, i am not dodging any questions. My edits are focused on Kuang-Chi because I have relevant knowledge on that subject that is generally otherwise absent from Wikipedia - and as noted, factual and informative content presumably is always welcome. As noted, I limit my edits in the Wikipedia universe to subjects on which I have knowledge and can add to Wikipedia's content.