User talk:MediaExpert1979

Hi MediaExpert1979! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

An article you recently created,

Hello MediaExpert1979. 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 Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:MediaExpert1979. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=MediaExpert1979|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. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Usedtobecool, sorry for the delayed response. I didn't see your message because I am still learning how to use Wikipedia properly and take breaks from it! I am not receiving any financial gain from using Wikipedia or am being paid to make contributions, that is why there are huge lapses in my edits and my time on here. I actually would just like to become better at it and a bigger part of the community, and I find a lot of the rules confusing. I chose two very different topics I know a lot about for my first two pages to create, but they were both rejected. I would love to learn more. Is there anyway I can get the rejected content, re-edit it to Wikipedia's standards and try again? Nothing is important to include in it as I am doing it to learn for myself, but I would like to learn how to do it, and I spent a lot of time on those and researching how to do it. I thouht I did it right! Thank you for your time. MediaExpert1979 (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're just trying to become a Wikipedian and don't care about any particular topic for other reasons, I advise that you not attempt to create articles on living people, active companies/organisations or products for a while. You can start by improving existing articles or create new articles about topics that are not prone to spamming: history, geography, etc. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this is very good advice! So I've already made a lot of changes in Wikipedia, so I already did that. This was my first attempt at MAKING articles though. So it's easier for history, geography, etc? Those seem harder to find topics that haven't been done before. That's why I chose the two I did. I also put a LOT of time and effort in them which is why I figured I would just continue to work on at least one of them!MediaExpert1979 (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Liz, I have no conflict of interests, employment or financial gain with any of the posts I have tried to create thus far. I will revisit my edits to make sure I have no COI with any past edits as well. I hope I can create a Wikipedia page on a subject (any subjecgt) soon.MediaExpert1979 (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: so she will see the reply above. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@jimfbleak Thank you for your help. I'm just really new here and don't know what to do! I'm just going to try with one of them and see if I can get it to work, I don't really care which one.MediaExpert1979 (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for message. I've pinged Liz above so she will see your reply. You are bound to be asked about COI after submitting what amounts to two promos, but despite having looked I can't see any connection between the two.

Harding

• When you write about a person, you must provide
  independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that they meet the notability guidelines
  . Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the person or an associated organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the person claims or interviewing them. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls.
• You must write in a
  non-promotional
  tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.
• There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
• You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in
  this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here
  ; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

• I didn't check for copyright violation, but the absence of proper refs and hardly any wikilinks at all, eg Nashville, Tennessee, ketone doesn't bode well.

Organic

much the same criteria apply, but the notability guidelines for organisations and companies are stricter. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:

1. significant coverage in
2. independent,
3. multiple,
4. reliable,
5. secondary sources
   .

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability.

• Again, the sources include many interviews and PR releases, and it's not clear to be why, say, a university student newspaper is seen as an impeccable sources when we might be expecting to see references to the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal or London's Financial Times for proper business coverage. You also quote him, hardly an independent sources
• The company seems not to have any headquarters, number of employees, turnover or profits.

• You find room for awards, but no criticism
• same problem with spamlinks in text and lack of wikilinks, eg New York City
• The text is much more promotional, eg Patrick personally travels to each facility and implements rigid standards. Organic by John Patrick has helped to innovate the use of botanical dyes, digital print techniques, recycled fabrics and organic wool textiles, and resurrected traditional practices such as hand-weaving. Though Organic by John Patrick is committed to local production and local sourcing in areas such as Red Hook, New York, the company has also pushed for best practices abroad by working with vendors to create sustainable textiles and helping factories adopt more environmentally sound manufacturing methods. Patrick said he uses recycled materials, such as recycled polyester, in every one of his collections. - so basically, he thinks he's doing a pretty good job, even though we have no real facts here to support anything

Perhaps more later Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@jimfbleak thank you for this! it seems I have more information i.e. sources for the fashion designer so I should work on that one and practice there. this was really helpful. I never realized quoting from a person or company in the article was actually a detriment! I really appreciate your help! I will use this as a guide and limit what content I put in as well and see if I can do better. hopefully the next one I do goes more smoothly.MediaExpert1979 (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC) UPDATE: I checked the standards for notability and both subjects meet them, as they each have had 10+ articles in national and in John Patrick's case, international publications.MediaExpert1979 (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and @jimfbleak, where can I find the content you deleted to edit it? Sorry if it's obvious but again I am new to this. They said I need to ask you to retrieve it. Can you please tell me where to find the articles? I have been. regularly checking since I pinged you yesterday and the other users directed me to you. Thank you!MediaExpert1979 (talk)

When content (drafts, articles) are Speedy deleted, there is no View history for the draft and the contributions are not shown for the creating editor (you). As you did, you can request the SD administrator for the content. Appears you have started over at Draft:Organic by John Patrick. David notMD (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, is that okay to start over like that? Is that in the right spot? Thank you very much for your help!MediaExpert1979 (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too many of the references are directly connected to him, i.e., not independent. That includes his website. companies he is with, the resort, etc. Also, I deleted a lot there and at Organic that was not about the articles' topic. David notMD (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @David notMD! Thank you for your help. As you can probably see, I am really working hard on trying to figure out the next step about being part of the Wikipedia community which is getting a page approved. So can I not use an individual's website or company's site for secondary information? I asked this in the tearoom and I thought I used it correctly in this way. I can delete all the information pertaining to him in this way, as there are enough other notable sources to carry the page. I am just wondering when it's appropriate to reference an individual's personal website or company page as secondary information because I see this done on so many pages on Wikipedia. Any help would be greatly appreciated! I really thought I had got it this time. I cut so much info out and studied Wikipedia rules! Thank you for your help.MediaExpert1979 (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An individual's personal or business websites are considered primary. Those can be used for some types of information, but count for naught in establishing notability. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources. As for "what about article _____ as an example?", there are tens of thousands of existing articles that do not meet current standards. David notMD (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid

when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

not clear what makes him

notable

?

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Christopher N. Harding and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Christopher N. Harding, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bonadea were:

This submission appears to

independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid

when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

What does "heritage brand" even mean? "hallmark bias slip dress"? "dust bowl creativity "?

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Organic by John Patrick and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Organic by John Patrick, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

bonadea contributions talk 23:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Hello, MediaExpert1979. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MediaExpert1979. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]