User talk:Cenedanicolo

Welcome!

Hello, Cenedanicolo, and

! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• And feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cenedanicolo. 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 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. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely 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

]

I do not understand why updating a Wikipedia page and removing a subjective and non-factual statement would give the impression that I have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic. I am a researcher at Imperial College London and I am not affiliated with Deutsche Bank, nor do I receive direct or indirect compensation for my edits. I am however ready to argue why the statement I removed should not be included in the Overview section of Deutsche Bank's page. Is an author's (or news paper's) thought on the integrity of a company worthy of the Overview section of a bank? If yes, should we add similar opinions on Morgan Stanley's page as well? But most importantly, how is this piece of information objective? Cenedanicolo (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And why have my edits on the updated financial results been reverted? I provided official, legally-binding references. Cenedanicolo (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More than half of your editing has been on Deutsche Bank's article, and you removed sourced criticism of the bank. Wikipedia does not require that all information shared be 'objective' - notable subjective information can and should be shared as well.

MrOllie (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I have two questions:

1. Why have the updated financial results been removed?

2. What is the line that defines which non-objective statements can be added to a Wikipedia page? Is it acceptable to add comments by notable subjective sources that have claimed that this institution had files for bankruptcy even though it was not true? Cenedanicolo (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]