User talk:Drm310/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Holiday Swap Disclosure

Hi Drm310,

Please be advised that I have received no payment, direct or indirect for the writing/editing of the Holiday Swap page.

A copy of this disclosure will be posted on the Holiday Swap talk page - please advise as to whether I need to take any further actions in order to stop the page being deleted.

W0tti (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the social media pages you have discovered, if you could be a little more specific, maybe I could alleviate your scepticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W0tti (talk • contribs) 17:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The WP:PRIVACY policy prevents me from specifying this publicly. I contacted the administrator DGG with my concerns and perhaps he could weigh in on the matter. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

What I suggested doing in this case , and what is being done, is to deal with the article in our usual fashion, which in this case is the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holiday Swap (2nd nomination). Articles as promotional as this, will almost always be removed no matter who wrote it. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Submit a new page

Hello,

Thank you for advice, I submit a business page , I am new I need some guideline. Talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vectorbuilder I understand previous link was incorrect can you please check this flowing links .... are this relabel? or I am still wrong

https://www.livescience.com/64388-boy-encoded-and-injected-dna-bible-quran.html

https://finexaminer.com/2019/03/28/horrell-capital-management-boosted-microstrategy-mstr-stake-streamline-health-solutions-strm-shorts-down-by-7-23/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houston-media (talk • contribs) 06:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Houston-media: Please review Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). A company is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

The sources you provided have only brief mentions of the company, so they lack the required depth of coverage to establish it as notable. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

108th Aviation

Sir or Ma'am,

I am a member of the 1-108th Aviation, Kansas Army National Guard.

I am direct copying the information from the Unit History, attempting to update the Regiment's Wikipedia Page to contain accurate information and not be blank and empty.

Please let me know how I can help others who may be seeking out the History of this Regiment via Wikipedia. If needed, I can gladly provide my .mil email address and Office Phone Number to corroborate my authenticity.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coigligh (talk • contribs) 11:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

For starters, I would review Wikipedia's plain and simple conflict of interest guide. We advise users not to edit articles where they have a personal or professional connection with the topic. It is not prohibited outright, but discouraged because of the inherent difficulty in adhering to the required neutral point of view.

You should also place this code on your userpage (User:Coigligh):

{{UserboxCOI
|1=108th Aviation Regiment (United States)
}}

This will visibly disclose your connection to this topic. Other users will appreciate your honesty as a sign of good faith.

Most importantly, you cannot post copyrighted material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. In short, a copyright owner cannot offer Wikipedia a one-time license for use. Rather, the copyright to the material has to be released – permanently and irrevocably – into the public domain or under a free copyright license that is compatible with Wikipedia's licenses. This is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, so all content must be licensed for that purpose. You can learn more about this policy at Wikipedia:Copyrights.

If you'd like to use the copyrighted content in an article, you can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission on how to obtain the proper licensing. If you are the copyright holder, refer to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for how to grant us permission to use your content. Alternatively, you could write a new article that does not closely paraphrase the material available online. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. However, be aware that any content you submit can be edited by other users at any time, and can change substantially over time. Article content is arrived at by consensus, and no single editor has any right of sole ownership or editorial control.

My recommendation is that you use the article's talk page and use the {{request edit}} template to post your proposed changes for other editors to review. This will guarantee that an impartial third party will critique your additions, and make any changes that will lessen the likelihood that they are challenged in the future. Good luck. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Problematic username

Hi there, Vayyar2019 seems to have an organization for a username and links to that company from his userpage. They also seemed destined to violate COI rules, ARBIPA and a bunch of other stuff which gets newbies templated to death. Mind taking a look? Hydromania (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a pretty obvious WP:CORPNAME problem, and the userpage is spam and can't be left up. Aside from the warning you left them already, there's not much to do until they (hopefully) change their username. If they don't, I would take it to UAA. If they do, I'd remind them of WP:COI and WP:PAID. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I just didn't want to bite, as they seem to so far be editing constructively and don't seem to be an SPA. Hydromania (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

City of Clyde Texas

I am working on writing new material so please be patient. This is my job but I only work part-time. The City Administrator just wanted our material to reflect more accurate information about the City of Clyde, Texas. City of Clyde (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@City of Clyde: You should be aware of a few important points:

1. Copyrighted material that has not been properly released is not allowed on Wikipedia - not even for a short time. Copyright violations are removed as soon as they are discovered.
2. Your account name violates Wikipedia's username policy. We do not allow accounts to represent organizations, only individuals. Please request a change of username, as your account as it's currently named will be blocked from editing.
3. Article content is not owned or controlled by the subject of the article. Please be aware that any content you submit can be changed by other users, perhaps substantially over time.
4. We discourage users from directly editing articles where they have an inherent conflict of interest. Instead we advise them to request changes on the article talk page with the {{request edit}} template.
5. As you have stated that you are working for the city, you will need to declare yourself as a paid editor per Wikipedia's paid editing disclosure policy.
6. Wikipedia expects that content added is verifiable by providing citations to reliable sources that are independent of the article's subject. Primary sources can be used for basic facts and figures, but not interpretations of those facts.

--Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Signing posts

Tks for letting me know about signing articles. Saskatoon, by the way, had an excellent tram system, which seems to have been torn out for no other reason than "going along with (er, modern???) trends." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tramfish (talk • contribs) 15:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the streetcar system was discontinued sometime in the 1950s... long before I was born. By the way, you didn't sign your comment above... --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Kalpana Mohan Page

Hi, I really appreciate your guidance & help for a beginner. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yashkkaryan (talk • contribs) 18:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Kalpana Mohan Page

Thank you, Sir

Sir I have followed your advice writing in a neutral point of view and finding reliable sources in my case. Which I did the article of Times of India is a reliable source. Link: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/Shammi-Kapoors-Gulbadan-Kalpana-Mohan-dies-at-65/etarticleshow/11433606.cms?referral=PM

Sir, the line ” Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru often invited Kalpana, a trained Kathak dancer, to dance at the Rashtrapati Bhavan whenever dignitaries visited”. This line is a part of the newspaper article. It is the straight copy and pastes from the article. So the point why it is removed? It had not violated neutral point of view.

Sir if India 1st Prime Minister call you to perform at prestigious Rashtrapati Bhavan before Foreign dignitaries visited. It is indeed a great high in an Individual career. It is one of her career highlights. But her achievement was deleted, Could you please explain it?

Also, Sir an extra line, Which I quote “Her third film, Professor (1962), was successful. It starred Shammi Kapoor, who earned a Filmfare nomination as Best Actor. In 1965” My objection is to the line “who earned a Filmfare nomination as Best Actor. In 1965” Sir, my question is does this line is a Kalpana Mohan achievement? Then why it is on her page. It can be an achievement for actor Shammi Kapoor so it has to be on his page or in the film, Professor (1962) page but definitely not hers.

One more point I like to highlight does the Filmography I added differ from the name already mention on Kalpana Mohan Page. I have only added them in chronological order of release. I had already provided the link cite my source using a reference. Which I did but still I have been asked to provide more reliable citation links. The link was not reliable? My point of contention is Kalpana Mohan Page is based on the same above link.

Sir, I request can you please provide clarity on the above matter. The matter is looked by Masumrezarock100 Thank you, Sir, for your help in advance. Yashkkaryan (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Yash Aryan

Wik-authoring COI editnotices

Hi Drm310, I noticed that you placed several COI notices on a series of pages that I believe are those edited by user Wik-authoring. If so, please note that I, where that hadn't already been done, reverted this user's edits, so I don't think the notices are necessary. Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 15:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Lordtobi: Isn't the intent of {{COI editnotice}} to serve as a notice to extant and future editors with a COI not to edit the article directly, even if their edits have been reverted? --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Drm310, not really, since it is a banner that usually turns both editors and readers away from an article due to a preceived bad quality. The banner further suggests that the present state of an article was bugged with active involvement of COI'd editors, which is not the case. The user in question has also not been active since I reverted their edits (except for the partial discourse on their talk page, of course). Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 15:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Orgizational Editorials

Hello please refer to the "Canadore College" wiki page. I would like to know how to get back edits to finish what I have been tasked with as well as prevent content disruptions, as my manager had perviously made changes that were all reverted last year.

Any advice or guidance to not just resolve but also solve for the future would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan (Canadore College Marketing) (talk • contribs)

@Dan (Canadore College Marketing): I see that you have already started a talk page discussion, so I would encourage you to continue down that avenue. I can already tell you that your request to "relock" the article will not be accepted. As I mentioned on your talk page, your college doesn't own or control the article content, so it cannot insist that it remain at a version you prefer. Please see the full policy at Wikipedia:Ownership of content.

One last thing - when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed

Hello, I just had a question about editing, that I thought you could answer. Do edits on my personal talk page and the on the Teahouse count as edits for user groups such as Autoconfirmed users? Thank you! Eclipsefc(talk)

@Eclipsefc: Yes, I believe those edits count toward the minimum of 10 edits to become autoconfirmed. Your account also has to be at least four days old as well. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Can You help?

I definitely need help on the appropriate way to go about my User Page. Can you Please guide put me through? Thanks AM

Alex Mouth (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Alex Mouth: First of all, your motivation for writing on Wikipedia should not be to tell the world about yourself and your work. Wikipedia is not social media, nor is it a place to promote a topic with which you have personal involvement. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and most specially Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

Wikipedia's userpage guidelines provide details about what is considered acceptable content, as well as what is not. Userpages can contain a small amount of biographical data and a description of your interests, as they relate to working on the encyclopedia. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

New Page Deletion

Hi Drm310, thanks for the note on the reason for the speedy deletion of my new page. I have read all the footnotes and links and I do see those unintended errors and why my page was definitely flagged. I am new here and never read these guidelines on Autobiographies of living persons, writing about oneself etc. but now I get it. As I am trying to wrap my head around how best to re-present my articles, I will like to ask you this question, If my article about myself had been simply presented in a similar manner or tone like this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyosi_Akerele-Ogunsiji would it have survived deletion? This was one of my reference that I used for style and format of presenting oneself (as this page was simply an autobiography of her and what she's done) that I used in developing my article, and this is an accepted page about oneself, so am trying to understand what more I need to avoid. A larger part of my write up was in this format while I admit all the errors of external links and lack of references but if for example I write my page in this style and format and follow all the rules on references and external links (which I do have for most of my headlines which I plan to add at a later edit) would that survive wiki standard? Akinola Solanke (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Akinola Solanke: The page that you wrote your content on is not an article. It is your userpage, and it is not the same thing as an article. A userpage is meant to have a small amount of biographical information about you, and also your interests as they relate to editing Wikipedia. The userpage guidelines describe what is and is not considered acceptable content.

Wikipedia articles are about notable topics - those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention.

A person is considered notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. If the person is alive at the present time, then strict adherence to Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons is required. I feel compelled to point out an important difference: a biography is a writeup of a particular person, and an autobiography is a writeup of a person that is written by that same person.

Writing an autobiography is highly discouraged because it is difficult to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography, and there are many pitfalls. You might be tempted to cite your own personal knowledge or experience, which isn't allowed. You will also find it very difficult to write from a neutral point of view, even if you have good intentions. If what you have done in life is truly notable, then someone else will eventually write an article about you.

I can't speculate if writing your content in the same way as the example you gave would survive deletion. The existence of one article does not guarantee the acceptance of a similar article. Each article is judged individually on its own merits. There is a manual of style to maintain a standard layout and look and feel to articles, but this has little impact on whether the contents are suitable for inclusion.

Please look at Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about YOU. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Reply: Thank you Drm310 for providing broader context, I do get it and will read further the links youve shared and keep in touch for additional guidance if i needed. Outside of the personal information in my write up, you will notice my core interest and notable works has been on the subject of Nigeria's national flag and what we have done with respect to the Designer of the flag which are worthy information that needed to be recorded for history which i was part of to improve the subject of the flag and of the designer who already has a biography written on Wiki. I will focus on contributing to that subject as you have highlighted in some of your thoughts for now and see how things lead from there. THanks again and I will keep seeking your guidance and that of others to ensure my contributions here aligns with wiki, with so many rules to bear in mind, its proving to be a tricky path to walk in. --Akinola Solanke (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Drm310,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

• Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
• Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News

• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Discussions of interest

• A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
• There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
• What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not paid to edit any pages and never have been.

Hi DRM310,

I don't really understand why I have to answer your questions or even if you have any regulatory authority over my ability to use Wikipedia. On the chance that you do have such authority, (I have no idea how any of this works honestly) I am responding to your menacing message to me and your command to not make any further edits until I have responded to you.

Here is your message to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Theoslater#Disclosure_of_employment

I have never been paid by anyone to write anything or edit anything on Wikipedia. I don't know why you assume that I have. The California National Party is an all-volunteer organization, and therefore no one has ever been paid to do anything on its behalf (though obviously, we pay vendors for our website etc.)

Anyway, long story short, not only have I never been paid to edit content related to the CNP on Wikipedia, but I have never been paid by anyone to edit anything on Wikipedia.

In the future, I advise you to ask more questions and make fewer assumptions.

Regards,

-Theo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoslater (talk • contribs)

@Theoslater: The "menacing" message I wrote is nothing more than the preformatted text of the template {{uw-paid1}}. You can click on the link to read it in its entirety. After seeing your post at the Teahouse, where you identified as the chair of the CNP, I felt it was valid to leave you that notification. It was not possible for me to determine whether your position was a paid or volunteer one.

Conflict of interest and undisclosed paid editing is a pervasive problem on Wikipedia, and weeding it out is an important and neverending task to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia. As a user with 10+ years of experience and good understanding of Wikipedia policy and editing culture, helping with this effort is part of my contributions. Tagging as many problematic edits and users as possible is frequently what the job ends up being. Dropping boilerplate messages and moving on to the next one is regrettable, but often necessary.

I, like the overwhelming majority of editors here, are volunteers with jobs and busy lives outside of Wikipedia. I'm sorry if you found the message to be impersonal and took offense, but I usually don't have time to write personalized messages to every editor. Will I always get it right? No. Even the second last sentence in the template acknowledges this possibility: "If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message." If you say that you aren't paid, then I accept your word and thank you for your explanation. Nonetheless, you do have a conflict of interest and should review Wikipedia's plain and simple conflict of interest guide, if you haven't already done so.

Users who are personally or professionally connected to the topics they write about are rightly subjected to a higher level of scrutiny as a result. My actions are motivated only by a well-intentioned desire to keep Wikipedia free from bias, by curtailing the actions of users who might use it for self-serving purposes. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 07:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Rashad Naqawah/sandbox

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Rashad Naqawah/sandbox, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
• It appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. (See section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Aspening (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Jim Harmer

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Jim Harmer, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing: Continental Express, Inc.

Hello Drm310,

I am sure as you know I am new to the wikipedia universe and so far it seems as though everyone likes to pick on the new guy. With that being said, if you could please explain and cite specific examples in my article Draft:Continental Express Inc of how I wrote in a manor that 'gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic' that would be great. I AM NOT paid, I have never been paid, nor will ever be paid in any which way to create an article pertaining Continental Express, Inc. So if you can find any specific examples of wording that denotes that I might be paid or be biased in writing the article, I will gladly look over the discrepancies and make changes in my wording where need be.

The page Draft:Continental Express Inc is written for the sole purpose of providing factual, non-biased, information about the company Continental Express, Inc. and its founder Russell Gottemoeller. There are numerous of articles on the wikipedia universe that provide non-biased, factual information over a company's history and its founder. Once again I have never been paid nor am I being 'compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests'. If you would please re look over my article and lift your sanction that would be great. Or at the bare minimum help me bring article up to standards.

On a side note, I do not see in any which way how my article is different than that of:

CR England

Knight-Swift

Werner Enterprises

Brad Gottemoeller (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Brad Gottemoeller: The article was deleted by the administrator Deb. Since I am not an admin, and I cannot see deleted pages, I cannot comment on what made it qualify for the WP:G11 criteria for speedy deletion. If you feel the administrator has erred in applying the speedy deletion criterion, please contact Deb directly. If you discuss but are unable to resolve the issue on their talk page, it should be raised at Wikipedia:Deletion review.

The articles you listed are not perfect either (CR England is particularly dreadful) and need work. That's why we often caution people that basing articles off of existing ones is not a guarantee of success - mimicking a badly written article just results in two bad articles. With 5.8 million+ articles in Wikipedia, it's difficult for an entirely volunteer-based editing community to find and fix problems with all of them right away. Poor articles will sometimes exist for years before being noticed.

As for my note about undisclosed paid editing, Wikipedia has a strict policy about posting personal information about another user that they have not already volunteered. As such, I will not discuss this matter publicly. If you wish, we can continue privately via email. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

DRM310 - I would gladly continue to discuss these matters privately via email. Thank you. Brad Gottemoeller (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, Brad Gottemoeller, do you have any personal or professional connection to "its founder Russell Gottemoeller"? If so you have a conflict of interest, and should keep within the guidelines given in that page. Please note that Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion of any kind anywhere in any of its pages. Your draft was also copied more or less verbatim from here, and so was also a copyright violation. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Your e-mail

Hi. For some reason your e-mail hasn't come through to me - maybe a temporary server problem or something - but I'm guessing you found the same things I did. I expect I'll be able to read it later tonight. Thanks for flagging it and I'm sure the problem will shortly resolve itself one way or the other! Deb (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, it turned up in an unexpected folder called "Social". There's irony for you!:-) Deb (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Drm310,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

hey buddy

my motive for making this page was not to promote any company but just to make my companies page so that people can read about. I am Non for profit Organisation working in the domain of road safety and that why we started this to promote Road safety and not to earn any profit. I hope you will understand the cause and will unblock my page for the better good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.82.86.219 (talk) 09:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, because you are logged out, I cannot tell what account you use and what page I nominated for deletion.

Please see WP:NOBLECAUSE. Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about the work of a worthy cause. Only if the organization meets Wikipedia's notability criteria will it be accepted. No distinction is made between for-profit businesses and non-profit organizations in this respect.

Also, you should not write about your own organization, as it is an inherent conflict of interest. Wikipedia has little interest in what an organization wants to say about itself; we only care about the writings from reliable and independent sources. If you are in a paid position with this organization and intend to write about it, then you are required to disclose this information per the mandatory and non-negotiable paid editing policy. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your warm welcome

Hello Drm310,

This is my first time using the talk page and I just wanted to reply to the message you sent a few days ago welcoming me. I appreciate the thought and I hope I can make an impact on here. Pbnj1518 (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Pbnj1518

@Pbnj1518: You're welcome! I hope that your course goes well and that your experience on Wikipedia is a good one. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

COIN invitation

Hi, you may like to comment at WP:COIN#Glass Lewis. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Thanks. I have expressed doubts about the veracity of the IP's claim. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

GT Dave

Hi Drm310, I noticed the undisclosed paid template you added to GT Dave and I was curious if I can remove it and if not, what the process is to do so. I agree that the article creator possibly had a COI but shortly after the article was created I rewrote basically the whole article and removed puffery and added additional sources. Thanks! SamCordes^Talk 16:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@SamCordes: Sure, if you've cleansed the article then feel free to remove the template. Thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

UOChurch

Hello!

On the draft:Uviversalist Orthodox Church page, I added a news article and removed the website content until our license waiver is processed. Would you be able to give the article another once over? Any help would be great. :)

-FrMaximus — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrMaximus (talk • contribs) 20:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@FrMaximus: An administrator (I'm not one) would normally decide the fate of a page nominated for speedy deletion. I see, however, that you have blanked all the content and requested deletion yourself.

I'll emphasize the part of the message I left to you that deals with conflict of interest (COI). You seem to be affiliated with the church, and so it applies to you. We discourage COI editors from writing about topics they are connected to, because of the inherent difficulty of:

• being an objective judge of the topic's notability
• writing from the required neutral point of view
• relying on reliable third-party sources, and not primary sources or unpublished original research

Also if you are in a paid position with this organization and intend to write about it, you are required to disclose this information per Wikipedia's mandatory and non-negotiable policy on paid editing disclosure. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Response - (Undisclosed paid editing)

Hi Drm310

I am not directly or Indirectly paid compensated user. The page which I created which help to the user. So please help me to rectify the issue which facing regularly and help to create the page.

Aadaikalam 09:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Vinoth aadaikalam

Vinoth aadaikalam

Hello, Vinoth aadaikalam. If you are editing "to help" anybody or anything other than Wikipedia itself, you are doing it wrong. No article in Wikipedia belongs to its subject, or is for its subject: Wikipedia articles are about notable subjects for the benefit of Wikipedia alone. --ColinFine (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

A Random Walk Down Wall Street

Hi Drm310,

I see you have reverted my changes again.

Could you please tell me how you would tackle the creation of "key takeaways" section for an article on Wikipedia? Then I can get an understanding of how things work.

I referenced the appropriate source as well.

Please point out the mistakes I made.

Cheers! --Lakindu Jayathilaka (talk) 09:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@RJLakindu: I reverted your changes the first time because I thought they were unsourced... that was actually a mistake on my part. However, the second time I reverted your edits, it was because I discovered that the text was a near word-for-word copy of the page https://calvinrosser.com/notes/random-walk-down-wall-street-burton-malkiel/. The text on that website is copyrighted, which meant your edit was a copyright violation. The messages on your talk page should explain why this is not acceptable on Wikipedia.

However, there is a larger problem. The source itself is unreliable, as it appears to be a blog. A blog is a self-published source, meaning that the site owner can publish the material himself. Wikipedia considers a source to be reliable if it has an established reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight, and this source has neither of those. This means Wikipedia heavily favours academic and peer-reviewed publications, as well as university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals and mainstream newspapers/media organizations.

You can begin a discussion about this content on the article talk page if you like. However, if you cannot find better source material, it is unlikely your additions will be accepted. Sorry. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for explaining the problem to me Drm310! I will be more careful about the sources I choose next time. --Lakindu Jayathilaka (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Major Domus Family Office

Sorry, no. It reads like an advert and that's not allowed, even in draft space. I suggest you start from scratch. Deb (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Deb: That draft was not my creation. You should talk to RJLakindu. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, My mistake!!!! Deb (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

RE: Disclosure on userpage

Hello, I have amended my user page as advised to reflect that I was previously employed by AshleyMark Publishing and added the template. I hope this resolves the issue flagged with Maurice J. Summerfield. Ron Ron Whitenstall at Ashley Mark Publishing (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ron Whitenstall at Ashley Mark Publishing: That's perfect. Thanks for your cooperation. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Drm310: Glad to help make the article correct and follow guidelines. Can the warning template now be removed or toned down from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_J._Summerfield as it implies that the article was created in an underhand way when in reality I was upfront and followed community advice at the time in disclosing the connection? In addition, I have provided numerous citations to corroborate the information contained in the article. Ron Ron Whitenstall at Ashley Mark Publishing (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Oregon Mutual Edit Deleted

Hello,

I just received a message that my changes to Oregon Mutual Insurance had been reverted because of a conflict of interest. While I do indeed work for this company as their digital marketer, I tried very hard to keep content honest and neutral. My facts came from our archives here on site, and our public-facing website. Can you please let me know what I need to do to get my original content approved and posted? This is an assignment from my boss to update our wiki page as current content is subpar and does not represent the entirety of the company. Thank you so much. This was my first wiki edit, and I was not aware of this rule. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aywood (talk • contribs) 23:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Aywood: Hi and thanks for your message. As a new editor, and one who has a conflict of interest regarding the topic you are writing about, you need to know a few things.

1. Wikipedia has an article about your company, but it isn't your article. The subject of an article - be it a person or a company/organization - has no right of ownership or control over its contents. Any Wikipedia user editing in good faith can make changes at any time, so an article's content can change quite substantially over time.
2. Wikipedia has little interest in what a company wishes to say about itself, and no interest whatsoever about it wants to be portrayed. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's mission is to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge, written neutrally and sourced reliably. Readers expect to find neutral articles written independently of their subject, and not corporate webpages or platforms for advertising and promotion.
3. Article content must be taken from sources that are considered reliable and independent of the subject. A source is considered reliable if it has an established reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication). That is why Wikipedia heavily favours mainstream academic and journalistic sources. Respected trade publications may also be considered if they meet the aforementioned requirements.
4. Primary sources like a company website can be used only to verify basic and uncontroversial facts about the subject. Company-authored materials like press releases, social media posts and other self-published materials are unacceptable.
5. Wikipedia has a mandatory and non-negotiable policy on disclosure of paid editing. While you have done so technically in your message above, it's better if you make use of the {{paid}} template on your user page (User:Aywood), and the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template on the article talk page. This will make your disclosure and compliance with this policy more visible.
6. It's highly recommended that you avoid editing the article directly. Instead, you should make use of the {{request edit}} template on the article talk page to suggest revisions which can be reviewed by uninvolved editors.

I realize that this is a lot of information for a new editor. However, it's better that you know all of this up front before you end up breaking a bunch of rules that you never knew existed. Contact me again if you need additional help... I may not respond immediately, but I will as soon as possible. Here are some links to relevant pages, for reference.

• Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations
• Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest / Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide / Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations
• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Ownership of content

--Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Editing on Industrial Technology Research Institute Page

Hello Drm310,

I've received your message. I agree with you and I certainly don't own this page. However, I find it disrespectful when I am not even allowed to "contribute constructively" by correcting some terms used on the page. Also, I really don't appreciate being "personally attacked" by user Horse Eye Jack. Please look into this situation again. Thank you. 140.96.152.23 (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@140.96.152.23: I will agree that Horse Eye Jack was a bit stern in his communication with you. I think that's because Wikipedia is constantly bombarded by users who try to change content to suit their organization's preferred version, while disregarding the rules about paid editing disclosure, conflict of interest, reliable sources and netural point of view. It's easy for us volunteer editors to become conditioned to think the worst of these users, which might explain the harsh tone.

You are allowed to make changes. However, given your position as an employee of the organization you're writing about, the way in which you do it matters greatly. I would advise you to do a few things:

1. Register an account instead of editing anonymously. This is optional, and you don't have to if you don't want to. However, it would help distinguish you as an individual contributor.
2. Make use of the {{paid}} template on your user page. This will make your compliance to the paid editing policy more visible, and other editors will see this as a sign of good faith.
3. Refrain from editing the article directly, and use {{request edit}} on the article talk page to suggest additions or changes. This will attract the attention of uninvolved editors who can review your changes. They will then either publish them or suggest further revisions.

--Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Robert Payne/My Accounts

Dear DRM 310,

I got the Robert Payne biography done with the help of a Wikipedia robot. This was two or three years ago. Yes, I did open an account then, but I could not find either the user name or the password I used at that time.

What should I do? Cancel the old one? If yes, how do I do that?

If I should keep the old account how do I retrieve my user name and password?

What would be the best thing for me to do at this point, so that I will now have only one account?

Would you let me know? Thank you.

Sincerely, 7payne9 (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@7payne9: Not a problem. If you're not using the old account, you might as well use this one from now on. The old one will be considered abandoned. You might want to add the following code on your user page (User:7payne9):

{{User alternative account banner|Payneslp}}

That will indicate that you're aware of the policy on multiple accounts. At the same time, I will mark the Payneslp account as abandoned. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear DRM310,

Thank you so much. Now I can forget about the old account completely.

7payne9 (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)