User talk:N2225Lba2

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

Hello N2225Lba2. 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 employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. 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:N2225Lba2. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=N2225Lba2|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. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Can you please explain? I'm a beginner here, and I’m wondering which of my edits caused you to paste that templated message on me. N2225Lba2 (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, so this is related to the discussion on the Teahouse page. I have a connection to DIW but am not compensated for any edits.

Just to clarify, I am not editing the DIW article directly and will only be discussing policy and sources. Hope this helps. N2225Lba2 (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

What is the general nature of your connection to the website? 331dot (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

My connection is non-financial. I know people associated with the website, but I am not involved in any compensated editing. N2225Lba2 (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

You initially said "I have a connection at DIW", not with DIW. You also didn't deny being an employee in response to the "find a new employer" comments. Are you employed by DIW? 331dot (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I’m not a native English speaker, so my wording may have been unclear. I am not employed by DIW, receive no payment, and will not edit DIW articles directly. N2225Lba2 (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. 331dot (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I think I may have made a mistake when I posted that topic in the Teahouse. Should it be deleted or moved? What do you think? N2225Lba2 (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

That discussion is already closed. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

So, it can't be deleted or moved? N2225Lba2 (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

That topic has been archived, which is fine. However, I’d like to know whether it can be moved from the Teahouse to the appropriate talk page, or if that would be against Wikipedia guidelines. Am I allowed to copy the entire discussion, or the edited version, into the correct talk page myself? N2225Lba2 (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

If you need to reference the discussion, you can link to it from the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. N2225Lba2 (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello N2225Lba2! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Sourcing Review Requested for a Website’s Inclusion in the Fake List, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

You noted that you used AI to help you "polish" your answers. Can you elaborate? What is your process when creating discussion posts? EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m happy to explain. I start with my own thoughts and research, writing a rough draft in both my native language (in Roman script) and English. As a non-native speaker/writer, I then use AI as a final-stage tool to polish grammar, spelling, and readability. I carefully review and edit the final message to ensure my original meaning is preserved. I provide the substance of the content, and AI helps only with formatting and clarity. I take full responsibility for everything I post. N2225Lba2 (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

You've started two talk threads in two different places -- thread#1 Request for Review of Three News Websites’ “Fake” Status, and thread#2 Should “fake news” be added to Words to watch?. (In thread#2 you make a comment about a matter that EducatedRedneck brought up in thread#1; I'll comment there.) There's a guideline WP:BITE -- be decent with newcomers, so this is not a warning that your two threads might appear to be conflicting with a policy, WP:NOTFORUM. It's just an expression of hope that you read it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)