User talk:Eddyl

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Eddyl, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! heather walls (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Population Balance (February 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Usedtobecool were:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Population Balance and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

Hello Eddyl. 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 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 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:Eddyl. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Eddyl|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 ☎️ 05:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello usedtobecool. Thank you for your review and messages. This is my first Wikipedia article and I no doubt have some novice mistakes. I regret my submission reads like an advertisement, as that was not my intention.

I am not paid, do not receive compensation, and do not have any financial stake in promoting this topic. I'm a 34-year old registered nurse in Montana. Regarding the organization in the article, I am aware it is one of the larger organizations of its kind in North America and is much larger than similar organizations which have their own wikipedia pages (see groups listed on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_population_concern_organizations)

I would like to continue editing the article to better meet Wikipedia's policies. I'd make language more neutral, and use independent sources. Kindly, would it be OK for me to continue? Thanks Eddyl (talk) 08:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, Eddyl. Yes, you can continue to work on the article. The first article I ever created was speedy deleted for being too promotional. So, I know only too well that it can accidentally happen. Please make sure the topic is notable though. Otherwise your efforts may be wasted. WP:NORG has guidance on what kind of sources are necessary to support an article on an organisation. Good luck! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance, good to know I'm not alone in this steep learning curve of writing an initial article.

I just made major edits and resubmitted. All sources are now secondary, independent, verifiable, etc.

It's modeled off the Wikipedia page of a similar organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_Connection

Cheers! Eddyl (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Population Balance (March 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by HitroMilanese 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Population Balance and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

Hitro talk 10:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Population Balance

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:Population Balance, 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. Hitro talk 10:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

reply

Thank you for declaring that you have no conflict of interest. That doesn't mean you can write what you like, you must follow the guidance below:

• you must 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 or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, logs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company or organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls

• You said ALL sources were secondary, independent and verifiable, but that's not true. I didn't check them all, but the Guidestar bare url was to a page written by the organisation, and the Observer and Newsweek links, at least, were to pages written by their employees. You also linked to their YouTube (not allowed) and podcasts. We need independent coverage, we don't care what they say about themselves.

• The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. 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.

• it's all about what the organisation claims to do, little about the organisation itself other than locations. To show notability you need hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, management structure, funding and expenditure.

• You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.

• Your text consists of the organisation's aims and missions, and links to its published articles, YouTube videos and podcasts. There are no real facts about the organisation, and no attempt to find independent coverage of its work. It's understandable that you were asked about a COI because, whatever your intentions, it was a fact-free promo without independent sources

• 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.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)