User talk:Ava Collins at ChinaAid

September 2015

Hello Ava Collins at ChinaAid. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic. 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. Paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a black hat practice.

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, and if it does not, 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, 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:Ava Collins at ChinaAid. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose. 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 are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Message

OK, I've now blocked your previous account. As you can see above, it's still not plain sailing! Tag your user page as Diannaa suggests, and when you create a page tag the talk page with {{Connected contributor|User1= Ava Collins at ChinaAid|U1-EH=yes |U1-declared=yes |U1-otherlinks=COI declared on user page}} and {COI editnotice}}

It's a good idea anyway to write a draft first, either through articles for creation as suggested above or here.

One point I didn't cover here was the need to provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation, 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 organisation claims or interviewing its management. References should be in-line so we can see what fact each is supporting.

Let me know if you need any further help or advice. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ava, I made these edits, mostly minor. You are allowed one EL to your main site, so I've added that. It's much better. A couple of comments:

It's still heavily dependent on your own pages and those of related or similar organisations. Even the Wall Street Journal article is an interview with your leader.
It would give more balance if you reported any criticism of the organisation, either from the Chinese government or elsewhere (your references don't have to be in English, if that helps).

When you are ready, use the "move" button to take it back to the original title (don't cut-and-paste). I think it will be OK, but we will just have to see what happens. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]