Arch303

December 2013

Hello, Arch303. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Young Presidents' Organization, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Promotional editing

Hello, Arch303. Your editing of Young Presidents' Organization‎ has looked, frankly, like straight marketing copy. You have included such expressions as "invaluable opportunity", told us that "With it's strong network of international connections, YPO aims to provide members with increased opportunities for success in the global marketplace", and that it provides "a confidential and supportive environment for members to gain useful advice and different perspectives". None of that is the sort of language used in normal detached third-party statements: it is the language used by people working in "marketing" or "PR" who are employed to promote the public image of an organisation. Even the parts of your editing which have not been expressed in marketing-speak have, by the selection of what facts you have mentioned and how you describe them, looked like an attempt to impress us with what a good cause the "Young Presidents' Organization‎" is. What you have written on another editor's talk page suggests that you are not employed to promote the organisation, which is surprising, as it certainly looks very much as though you are. However, whether you are employed to do so or not, and whether you intend to do so or not, what you have been doing is turning the article into something that looks more like a publicity brochure written on behalf of the organisation than like a neutral, third party, account. Such promotional editing is contrary to Wikipedia policy, and many editors who have continued to edit in this way after it has been made clear to them that it is unacceptable have been blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)