User talk:StreamBird

StreamBird, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi StreamBird! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Dathus (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hi StreamBird. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing. Your edits to date are entirely focused on Peer Bork and are promotional. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, StreamBird. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with Bork, directly or through a third party (e.g. a PR agency or the like)? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 05:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply. Please do not continue editing until you reply - the WP:APPARENTCOI is very clear here. Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Peer Bork 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) 13:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PAID

Hello StreamBird. 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:StreamBird. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=StreamBird|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) 01:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

paste replies here, that were left on my talk page in these diffs Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Hello,

Please remove all my contribution on "Peer Bork" and restore to its original status and remove the warning headline. I'll keep me out.

Thank you

Yan — Preceding unsigned comment added by StreamBird (talk • contribs) 11:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Dr. Yan P. Yuan who edited that page. I'm working in the Peer Bork's group.

As from today on, I've removed my contribution/or any description on that page about Peer Bork. I'm wondering why your editors still reverted that page to its previous state where I didn't nothing on it and kept the COI warning in the headlines. So please remove that COI template on that page. I didn't put anything there.

Many thanks.

Best regards

Yan — Preceding unsigned comment added by StreamBird (talk • contribs) 13:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

your COI page is overloaded with all kinds of information. I feel lost. Where I've found a URL for "reply" here, after I've clicked on it, it just redirected me to another page full of information about COI. Ok, I know this, but where is the real reply button or field? Is it the talk page again?

I'm very frustrated by this kind of setup / pipeline. Nothing is obvious.

Best regards Yan — Preceding unsigned comment added by StreamBird (talk • contribs) 13:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. If you are not going to edit further, there is no point discussing this further. If you are going to edit, we should finish. Please let me know. Please reply here, just below this. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog, Currently, that page looks totally ugly and a lot of information was just removed by another your controlling person: Justlettersandnumber! So please let me know what else I can do to put the correct information into it.

Thank you. Best regards Y.

May 2020

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Marius Sudol, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]