User talk:Dmikesic

Welcome!

Hello, Dmikesic, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Navajo Nation Zoological and Botanical Park, have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can place {{helpme}} on your talk page along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Rhinopias (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hello, Dmikesic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Navajo Nation Zoological and Botanical Park, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms our use and policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Rhinopias (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dmikesic. I understand your intentions, but I have two concerns with your current activity: 1) my purpose in sending you the "Conflict of interest" message is that I saw your edits to the article on Apr 27 and 30 which used the word "our", implying you're an employee or close to the organization. Since you have said you're an employee, you need to explicitly state your conflict of interest on your userpage (which doesn't exist yet – click here) and you should post it to the article's talk page (at Talk:Navajo Nation Zoological and Botanical Park) so that other editors are aware of your relationship with the subject and can review your edits for neutrality (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) and proper sourcing (Wikipedia:Verifiability + Wikipedia:No original research). Please read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, especially "How to disclose".
2) Wikipedia articles aren't web pages, so reference tags and sources can't just be removed in an effort to "update" an article. My initial response to your first edits was to restore reference tags which you removed (e.g. here). Removing a reference that is a broken link or outdated is fine, but only if it's replaced in the same edit with a new reference which directly supports the information. On broken links, sources used in articles do not need to be accessible online, so a broken link can still be utilized to source content (see Wikipedia:Link rot: "Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online"). Broken links can also be repaired (WP:DEADLINK).
Please also read WP:PRIMARY, which discusses primary vs. secondary sources and when it's appropriate to use primary sources. Using the zoo's website for some basic information is fine, but it's probably not appropriate for all of the facts and figures and most of the content of the article to be sourced to the website. The article is classified as a good article, but it's going to be delisted (Wikipedia:Good article reassessment) if you degrade the accuracy of the article's sourcing and the quality of its writing. Rhinopias (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]