Upoon7

Welcome!

Hello, Upoon7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 05:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Paid editing?

Hello Upoon7. 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:Upoon7. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Upoon7|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) 05:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not being paid for my edits -- and all of them were backed up by facts. In fact I am unaware of any actual controversy with my edits. --Upoon7 (talk) 06:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

copied response here, left on my talk page in this diff Jytdog (talk) 06:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Why did you revert all my edits? - they took a while to do - and were all right -- there was no current information about MDPI on that page. I cited all facts and they are not particularly controversial. I responded on my talk page but I am not being paid to edit - and do not work for MDPI. Upoon7 (talk) 06:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC) --Last thing I have no intention of getting into an 'edit war' so please revert your deletion. Thanks Upoon7 (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Representatives of MDPI have been all over this page in WP for a long time. Your edits are very, very similar to theirs in that they are promotional, badly sourced, and you, like them, suggest that the WP page should become a proxy for MDPI's website. Jytdog (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not really familiar with the history here - but I am very confident all my edits were factual and not really promotional. I did want to include the table as the most noteworthy part of MDPI - not make wikipedia a proxy for their website. If you question any of my actual edits please let me know - otherwise -revert the edits so I can keep working on the article. Thanks --Upoon7 (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

You are brand new; how could you be so confident that your edits do not violate Wikipedia's policies? I wrote here and when I reverted that there are problems with your edits. You demoted negative content about the company and the only sources (but for two) you used were from the company website in your two sets of edits (here and here. This is 100% promotional editing which itself is problematic with respect to our content policies. They are very typical of an agent of a company, which is a behavioral problem that the message above addresses. You appear to be connected with the company. Please disclose any connection you have with MDPI. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

You are right I do not know the intricacies of wikipedia's rules - but all my major addition edits were facts added in good faith - that I dont think are controversial. -- please address these first and revert your deletion. The sources were the best I had available - and I honestly as an editor in good faith see no real problem with them. We can address why I think moving the negative edit down to controversies after we have this sorted. --thanks Upoon7 (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Please disclose any connection you have with MDPI - you did not respond to that. Please do. Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes -I did -- I am not a paid editor and I do not work for MDPI, their parent company, etc.! 17:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any connection to MDPI or to persons affiliated with MDPI? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at MDPI 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) 05:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Again - all the changes I made are not particulary controversial -- one editor changed one of my moves - and doesnt seem to have a good reason. --Upoon7 (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Promotional editing is controversial. Jytdog (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I dont think they were over promotional - they were just facts and none of them were particularly promo facts...I said things like how many journals they published...not that they are the best journals etc. I updated to current facts - the current version is factually wrong --Upoon7 (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

If you disagree that they are promotional, the notice above tells you what you should do. Please actually read it and follow it. "The talk page" mentioned there is Talk:MDPI. Please first finish the discussion in the section above first. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Done - Upoon7 (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I dream of horses - Help

@I dream of horses: I decided to start editing Wikipedia because I was trying to decide if I should submit a paper to an MDPI journal. The wikipedia page on MDPI seemed more about a defunct librarian's blog than the publisher and had no current information - so as I did my own research and concluded they are legit-- and as I had already done it, I thought I would share it to save the next person from wasting their time. I believe that I made factual non-promotional edits to the page - but after a good bit of work to figure out how to edit the page they were removed within a few minutes and I was threatened with being kicked off Wikipedia. I had read before about how Wikipedia was in decline [1] and now I understand why no one new wants to stick around and edit. Frankly I feel bullied. The other editors have ignored me on the talk page for MDPI. You are the only one that has been nice to me since I got here -- Would you please review the edits I made to MDPI and reinstate them. Thanks - Upoon7 (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

While I'm flattered, I'm not going to do any edits on your behalf so you don't get in trouble for edit warring. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 06:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: What I mean - is that I think you - as a reasonable neutral 3rd party should read it and edit as you see fit -- I hadnt read the talk page before I edited but now that I have - I see I stumbled into a rats nest and the editors that are there for a long time appear to have a conflict of interest of some kind. I am not going to get in an edit war - and frankly I wont edit Wikipedia anymore if it turns out just to be a waste of my time. -- Upoon7 (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I find it best to avoid rats' nest, particularly early on in a Wikipedian editing career. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 18:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Many editors tracking MDPI's wikipedia with major COI's. Any positive change gets immediately reversed. Indeed it is a waste of time.62.202.7.117 (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)