User talk:Mnycgurl8

May 2024[edit]

Hello. Your recent edit appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Dropout does have a pre-existing article, linked here. I linked to this article a few times in citations but linked to the actual subscription page for the title in the list. I am happy to clarify the citations/cite to the wiki article in the list via Dropout's title, but is there a problem otherwise? If so, I don't believe I understand and would appreciate clarification. Thanks! Mnycgurl8 (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mnycgurl8. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but 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 serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged 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:Mnycgurl8. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Mnycgurl8|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, do not edit further until you answer this message. MrOllie (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits. I am not affiliated or in communication in any way with Dropout or any members of its team. Mnycgurl8 (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete maintenance templates - they are required since you filled the article with promotion and minor details based on unreliable sources. The only other option would be to revert your edits wholesale. - MrOllie (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, though I cannot now reverse it, as you have put it back into place. I will let everything be, and do not plan to further edit this article. But once again, I am not being or plan to be paid for any of my edits for the page, and I have no connection or affiliation with the entity. Mnycgurl8 (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to believe that you are NOT a COI/UPE editor; it's also hard to believe that an edit like this comes out of nowhere. You've either practiced extensively perhaps under another account, or you are posting content for someone else. Either way, you should not be editing that article--and if you are that fluent in writing our code and formatting, you should know all the things that you just asked of User:Cyberlink420. Drmies (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am law student currently out of school for the academic year (as well as living in state on the other side of the country and not in the world of entertainment at all) who is prone to hyper-focusing. Utilizing sourcing and support is second nature. While I am a fan of the entity, I am certainly not being paid or compensated in anyway nor plan to be. I have no connections to Dropout other than as a subscriber. As a future lawyer (hopefully passing the bar after graduation next year!) I take those ethics seriously. There's no other way for me to prove that, but that's the truth.

I've had practice on a handful of articles on a fan wiki, but otherwise have not edited before, and have not edited on Wikipedia before under any other name or account. I do however follow Dropout closely, so was aware already of Dropout's history and articles about its existence, and wanted to make sure the Wikipedia page was up to date.

I guess I appreciate that my edits speak of competency, though am obviously frustrated they were reverted. I also appreciate that my edits read fluency in writing in code and formatting, so I guess know more than I think I do. I don't have a technical background in code at all, and primarily used the Visual editor or looked up if a code was going wrong. Mnycgurl8 (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I find it difficult to believe, and I wonder if MrOllie feels differently now. We have seen hundreds, maybe thousands such accounts and edits. I suggest you propose changing particular sections or paragraphs on the talk page, following the format outlined in Wikipedia:Edit requests. Drmies (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, and I'm sure it is frustrating and draining day in and day out not to know someone's legitimacy. If there is a way to prove my identity, I'm happy to do so. Seriously.

My changes to the page have been completely reverted, so I don't know that questions of my credibility even matter anymore, and I don't believe there is any universe now with this history and the page's editing history that any change I ever make on it will be accepted.

I will try in the coming days make suggestions on the talk page, but for the moment I'm going to step away to cool down. I don't want to further prove your point being just being a one-day user, but this whole process has been quite frustrating and cost me around 10 hours of work and sleep deprivation for no positive outcomes, either for the page or for my own personal sense of self of having my credibility and ethics repeatedly questioned. I, once again, was not compensated (nor was expecting to be!) for any of that time or work. Just like I'm sure you are frustrated by "hundreds, maybe thousands such accounts and edits," I am frustrated as a new user passionate about a topic to see those edits disregarded. While there is always more to learn to do better on sourcing, tone, and excessive detail, that's the kind of mistakes new, topic-passionate users make. Mnycgurl8 (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're exaggerating. If you make a change that's 30k and there's problems with it, don't be surprised if the whole thing gets turned back. Make smaller edits/edit requests, and this talk of "is there any universe"--well. I've already reinstated your first paragraph, with some minor tweaks. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I'm not kidding; I didn't know that was an exaggeration. I quite literally didn't know enough not to know I wasn't on a list somewhere or an automatic bot to have any changes to that page automatically reverted. That is not an attempt at any feigned helplessness, just literally the truth!

I appreciate your response and hope (though do not expect) that other edits in your day are easier. I'll still refrain from edits in the meantime, but will try to take your suggestion of smaller edits/edit requests in the future. Mnycgurl8 (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]