Zifnab25

Article notability notification

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently, Friedman Unit, has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: "Friedman Unit" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 01:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk page notice

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Please discuss your edits on the talk page of Washington Monument Syndrome if you disagree and feel they are relevant. Thanks, Ultra Venia (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Friedman Unit for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Friedman Unit is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friedman Unit until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Sima Ladjevardian has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sima Ladjevardian. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Does the author of this draft have any sort of financial or other connection with the subject of this draft? Please read the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy and make any required disclosures.

You may ask for advice about conflict of interest at the Teahouse.

If this draft is resubmitted without addressing the question about conflict of interest, it may be Rejected or nominated for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the subject, but I am not a member of her campaign or staff nor am I receiving any kind of compensation for this edit. I do not believe this qualifies as a conflict of interest per the terms listed. --Zifnab25 (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sima Ladjevardian (December 26)

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

🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Zifnab25! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 13:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits to Center for Public Policy Priorities

Hey Zifnab25, unfortunately your edits to Center for Public Policy Priorities are WP:IBA based on a WP:APPARENTCOI. Please focus on incorporating cited, relevant and neutral material unrelated to marketing in your edits. If you are continuing to post material related to this advocacy group or its partners without relevant outsider sources or publicly available, neutral information, please refrain from editing. Past edits to these pages, including your draft page, have been reverted by other editors. This is a new account, so I'll give you a bit of time to sort things out - but I will have to revert your edits shortly. I highly suspect that WP:PAY is also here. If you continue to make edits like these, your account might be locked away from this political subject matter in a while by an admin. I've seen past subject locks for other suspected WP:PAY or WP:APPARENTCOI editors. Appreciate your effort, though!

Thank you <4 Kobentori (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. This entry is old - bordering on archaic - and the changes are simply updates matching the current state of the organization as stated by their website. In what way does updating the page run afoul of Conflict of Interest? The changes are cited and relevant, in so far as they link back to the organization's own most recent ledger. And there's nothing particularly partisan about listing active board members.

There are no outside sources that are going to cover this change of leadership, as its an entirely internal matter. Does this mean the page can't be changed, regardless of how out-dated the information on it happens to be?

I'm also not clear how to avoid the WP:PAY allegations, at this point. It seems every change I make gets this allegation hurled my way. And there's no means of rebutting it.

I appreciate the fair warning, but at this point I'm not sure how to participate in the community.

Zifnab25 (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so I think I get what's going on! I'll be glad to help. Everything on Wikipedia has to be cited by a relevant and neutral source. The organization's own website would, of course, have an interest to inflate the standards of their members. You can't, save for initial linking or statements at the beginning of the lede, use the article subject's website to cite. The change of leadership, if it's an internal matter, doesn't really matter to the whole of Wikipedia - a listing of the names of the current members along with the names of the past members would be fine. That's what's on organization pages like Goldman Sachs, with Tesla demonstrating more of what you're going for. I'd ask that you take a look at Center for Responsive Politics for what an article like this should like. A great hint is to cite blue links for existing pages - not red links for pages which don't exist. The chances of a topic being relevant without substantive links to actual pages (blue links) is extremely small.

So for your questions:

1 - The age of the page doesn't matter. The source and context thereof does.

2 - It's just unusual for a user to create a draft for approval for two board members of the organization and then pursue further edits to an organization's page solely based on copy-and-pasting promotional material.

With the community thing, Wikipedia is totally relaxed in terms of its community dealings - save for when it's for possible paid material. Wikipedia, by the way, isn't a depository of information, so you have to cite what you mean each step of the way.

Thank you <4 Kobentori (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

So, just to clarify, if I strip this down to the list of current members rather than the blurbs associated with the website, I'm within bounds? After that, any addendum to the individual listed in the article need an external neutral source (so, for Jim Keffer for instance, confirming his status as Texas State Rep on the Texas Legislature's website and citing it therein). I'll happily clean this up and, depending on how ambitious I'm feeling, populate some of these individuals with outside verified material.

Re: 2 - When I was researching my original article, I found the subject on the board of the organization. I wanted to make sure the information was current, so I checked the Wikipedia entry for the site. The discrepancy lead me to confirm which one was more current. At that point, I decided I needed to update the organization's entry as well. In hindsight, I understand why this would look like a conflict.

Zifnab25 (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

Your edit to Center for Public Policy Priorities has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)