User talk:Lilianarice
Speedy deletion nomination of Avaza Software
[edit]Hello Lilianarice,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Avaza Software for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. LS1979 (talk) 10:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Welcome Lilianarice!
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Do's and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put
{{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.Sincerely, LS1979 (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC) (Leave me a message)
Avaza Software
[edit]Hi, thanks for message. You can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~~~~. I'm afraid the whole tone of the article is promotional
- it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of pov include: that enables project management & collaboration, expense management & invoicing as well as time sheet management presented as a fact, not claim, and referenced to a press release that quotes Avaza. Avaza makes business integration easier... It is also available worldwide and can be used from any location. unsourced claims presented as fact. —that's just from para 1, but the rest of the article is similar, with sales leaflet language like offers lean efficiency to businesses... Avaza offers services where we would say "claims" or "sells"
- There are spamlinks to other associated companies. There shouldn't be any url links in the text at all
- it did not provide proper independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. There's nothing to indicate why this software is notable, such as downloads, and it seems to rely on the fact that Kremer has done other stuff. Even if he is notable, that doesn't transfer to everything he does.
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for feedback. It's a steep learning curve, and articles about companies and products come in for close scrutiny for obvious reasons Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Khalilah_Rose
[edit]I'm going out shortly, and I won't be able to look properly until tomorrow. One thing I would say though is that having multiple headings referring to awards and achievements looks promotional. Better to write it as prose under a more neutral section heading Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Given that she was paid to write this article, I would suggest she starts with the guidance here WP:PLAINANDSIMPLECOI. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Hie I do manage multiple web projects for this artist however i tried to be factual and impartial in my writing of it. I have looked it over repeatedly to see what language may seem like advertising but admit that i am stumped as to why you are tagging it in this way. In the article, i make note of her history, and her music without adding any opinions, using flowery notations or any promotion. In fact i just list what she has done so can you please direct me to exact parts that are "advertising" so they can be fixed. As a notable figure, she fulfills the requirements of Wikipedia inclusion so to see that this is enabled, can you address how the article as it stands now is not a factual accounting of reality. And yes, i am affiliated through the web projects with this artist Lilianarice (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
This is to disclose in transparency that i created this article as part of multiple web projects that the artist has hired me for so i have COI. Please look the article over for neutrality and help me improve it because the artist is notable and the reference sources do comply with Wikipedia requirements. Thank you in advance Lilianarice (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Managing a conflict of interest
[edit]
Hello, Lilianarice. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Khalilah Rose, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Note that it is against the Terms of Use [1] to take money to create a page, without disclosing that. Will you acknowledge that you were paid to write this article? Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
More
[edit]I've made these changes. You need to reformat the references to show your source, I've done the first two for you. The format is <ref>[url title] source date</ref>
November 2014
[edit]
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Khalilah Rose, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. As you know, you should not be adding material to this article due to your COI, let alone unsourced material. Logical Cowboy (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- I Asked advice about making the formatting changes from the editor User:Jytdog in this conversation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jytdog and he advised me to go ahead and make the edits. I only changed the link sources. I do not understand why you had to go and remove the infobox and picture which were not in any way tied to the links which i edited. Please quit your bullying and instead focus on making meaningful contributions to Wikipedia.Lilianarice (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- In truth, with this edit [2] you added "She is also an educator" but did not provide a source for this. Logical Cowboy (talk)
- Which she is, since this is addressed in the article section of her history where it shows that she has a Masters degree in Education and taught for 2 years. I would truly appreciate it if you were more forthcoming in why you are bent on killing this page instead of improving it.Lilianarice (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- In truth, with this edit [2] you added "She is also an educator" but did not provide a source for this. Logical Cowboy (talk)
- I Asked advice about making the formatting changes from the editor User:Jytdog in this conversation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jytdog and he advised me to go ahead and make the edits. I only changed the link sources. I do not understand why you had to go and remove the infobox and picture which were not in any way tied to the links which i edited. Please quit your bullying and instead focus on making meaningful contributions to Wikipedia.Lilianarice (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Carmine Miranda
[edit]I have been engaged to do projects for the Cellist Carmine Miranda who has an existing page Carmine Miranda. The edits i would like to make are for adding new album information, adding pictures to infobox and article, awards received and edits as needed to de-orphan the page. Since i have COI, i am posting the suggested edits on the article's talk page and hope that you could help me improve and de-orphan it or approve me to make the edits myself. Thank you in advance Lilianarice (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
How you should do this
[edit]Liliane as a paid editor, you should not directly edit any article that you are paid to edit. Instead, you should make suggestions on the relevant Talk page and tag them with the COI edit request, like you did on the Khalilah Rose article. I appreciate very much that you are being transparent but you need to go all the way. This is all described at WP:COI. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for the note. I only ended up editing it because another user John Nagle changed the words i suggested and wrote that Carmine came last in a competition and that his award was the lowest. This was not true or well researched so i raised it to his attention but nothing was done. So i figured that i'd make the fix and wait for another editor to review it. The other edit i made was adding the new album record. I thought this at least would not be contentious since it is as factual as it gets. I have requested several edits on the talk page but only a few have been implemented as yet. So i am stumped as to how i can get this done. Is it possible i could get approval to make the edits then have them reviewed this way it is not like i'm putting the Wikipedia editors to work for nothing when i am getting paid for the article.Lilianarice (talk)
Nomination of Khalilah Rose for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Khalilah Rose 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/Khalilah Rose 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. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Please do not canvas other editors asking them to come to an Articles for Deletion discussion and vote in favour of keeping the articles where you have a conflict of interest. It's plainly against Wikipedia policy, it's disingenuous and dishonest. You seem to have hit the ground running across a range of articles where you have a conflict of interest and, really, very little of your conduct has been acceptable so far, in those articles, at AFD, on user talk pages, at WP:COIN and at WP:ANI. Your clients aren't likely to be impressed if you're blocked. St★lwart111 06:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hie I have not been WP:Canvas at all. I reached out as the policy states: On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include: Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article, Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics). There is nothing dishonest about that since it is permissible when the editors being invited have direct connections to the article. Also to broadly say that "very little of my conduct has been acceptable" is a personal opinion that is not based on fact. However you are entitled to it and all i can do is check myself to see if your words have any basis in fact. Thank youLilianarice (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- I can guarantee you that such notices would be considered by most to be a breach of that policy, whether you like it or not. And it's not a "personal opinion"; its a summation of that which you have consistently been told by a broad cross-section of editors including at your ridiculous WP:ANI thread which was rightly shut down. St★lwart111 11:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Stalwart111 your comment made me go look at the notice that liliana put on user Talk pages, like this. When I saw your note I was expecting them to say "Please vote to keep the article" but they are neutrally stated. And it does seem like she sent them to pretty much everybody who had done something to the article, except LogicalCowboy who was editing when the AfD was posted. So I am not sure everybody would for certain consider them to be WP:CANVASSING. But I agree that the notice would have been better had she included the fact that she created the article for pay. And I agree that Liliane has been more aggressive/combative than she should be in general (the ANI was a mistake... but from her perspective as a newbie faced with a demand for payment, I can see why she did it). On the other hand, I think she is still figuring out how Wikipedia works, and she is for sure still figuring out what a hornet's nest she stepped into, with all the bad history we have here with paid editors. In my view she is making a good faith effort to try to understand. Most importantly, she continues to be transparent about editing for pay, which is much more than we can say about many paid editors on WP; even with the mistakes, you have to give her credit for that. hm? Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Jytdog, yes, credit where credit is due but the intent of those notes was clear - writing to those who had contributed to the article (with something to lose) to tell them it had been nominated (when if they cared enough they would see as much on their watchlists) asking them to opine as to whether it should be kept or not. With thanks in advance for what is assumed to be a compliant and supportive response. We'll assume good faith but we're not idiots and neither is Liliana. It was a silly thing to do and I said as much. But my assumption was that she hadn't read WP:CANVAS so I didn't drag her to ANI or add it to the ongoing WP:COIN report or to either of the ongoing AFDs. I raised it here, combined with a general warning about other (related) conduct. There's a right way and a wrong way to edit with a COI. I'm glad Liliana is on her way to finding the right way, but it won't do much good if she's blocked first. I remain of the view that you need to be a good editor before you can be a good conflicted editor. Otherwise you're opening a garage and offering to service cars without having completed your mechanic's apprenticeship. St★lwart111 07:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- with you there! Jytdog (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Jytdog, yes, credit where credit is due but the intent of those notes was clear - writing to those who had contributed to the article (with something to lose) to tell them it had been nominated (when if they cared enough they would see as much on their watchlists) asking them to opine as to whether it should be kept or not. With thanks in advance for what is assumed to be a compliant and supportive response. We'll assume good faith but we're not idiots and neither is Liliana. It was a silly thing to do and I said as much. But my assumption was that she hadn't read WP:CANVAS so I didn't drag her to ANI or add it to the ongoing WP:COIN report or to either of the ongoing AFDs. I raised it here, combined with a general warning about other (related) conduct. There's a right way and a wrong way to edit with a COI. I'm glad Liliana is on her way to finding the right way, but it won't do much good if she's blocked first. I remain of the view that you need to be a good editor before you can be a good conflicted editor. Otherwise you're opening a garage and offering to service cars without having completed your mechanic's apprenticeship. St★lwart111 07:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
|
Hello! Lilianarice,
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! EpochFail (talk • contribs) 15:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
|
Volunteer
[edit]Now that your paid editing on Wikipedia gig hasn't quite worked out, I invite you to start a volunteer editing gig here. For ideas on where to improve things, I suggest, Category:Reggae stubs, or also joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Reggae. We have around 4 million articles, and all could use some good volunteers to improve them. Usually articles by paid editors are a horrific mess, but your work was surprisingly good. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
[edit]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lilianarice, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.