User talk:MelanieSaxton

Welcome!

Hello, MelanieSaxton, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! -----Snowded ^TALK 12:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuation

Hi, although it appears odd to some editors (especially US ones), in the English Wikipedia ". is usually correct punctuation – see MOS:LQ. Just one of the many things for new editors to learn, but don't let it put you off! Peter coxhead (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to let you know the same thing, I'll be reverting your changes. Thanks!— TAnthony^Talk 14:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a new contributor to Wiki. I wish there was a way to know (right away) if an article was written in British English rather than American English. I'm a former English teacher in the middle of masters in digital media, as well as a book editor and journalist for thirty years. The punctuation always falls inside the quote marks as a rule in American English. In the case in most Wikipedia articles I've read, this is the case. I've noticed that in some articles written by British contributors (or perhaps those from Canada, Australia, etc.), there is a mix of punctuation inside and outside of quote marks, which drives me crazy. So thank you for letting me know about British English on Wiki. This is my first time on talk, so I "think" I'm supposed to sign this with four tildes. We'll see. MelanieSaxton (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)MelanieSaxton[reply]

January 2022

Hi MelanieSaxton! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Joan Sullivan Garrett that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Kj cheetham (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kj cheetham. Thank you for your message and the Help:Minor edit link. I've reviewed it and in the future will be sure to differentiate between minor and major edits on the Joan Sullivan Garrett page. I've made hundreds of edits on that page for accuracy and clarity, and am not sure which one you are referencing. I'm not sure how to revise "minor" to "major" at this point. However, going forward I understand the significance and appreciate your help and input. Thanks again. MelanieSaxton (talk) 12:43, 08 January 2021 (UTC)MelanieSaxton[reply]

It was quite a few I was referring to really. It's not possible to revise them from "minor", it's just something to bare in mind for the future. :) Keep up the good work. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Joan Sullivan Garrett

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 Joan Sullivan Garrett, 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. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Sullivan Garrett moved to draftspace

Please refer to log comments. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COI check for biographies

Hello, do you have an association with the people whose articles you are editing? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MrsSnoozyTurtle — As a Wikipedia volunteer, which is supposed to be fun and useful and meaningful volunteer work, I have edited dozens of articles (I am not sure of the exact count). I personally know two people whose pre-existing articles needed updating (I edited their books, they requested the updates, and I did not charge for this service). One person, Joan Sullivan Garrett, had no Wikipedia page so I developed one for her (I'm her book editor and did not charge for this service). It took many weeks to gather citations and obtain photo permission in an attempt to create the page correctly. I have requested assistance from you to improve her article so that it can remain on Wikipedia. Can you please provide specifics about which of the sections/wording need updating because Joan's literary attorney, who guided the book project, might be able to help improve the Wikipedia article. As you are aware, Joan has made a great impact in the field of remote emergency medicine and is a pioneer in her field. It would be a shame not to include her based on an error from my end, especially when Wikipedia is filled with people of similar caliber. Many of these notable people have received the same awards and are mentioned in the independent third-party sources I cited. I am willing to update the article to your standards if I can grasp the specifics of your standards and understand what the problems actually are. Everything in the article is truthful and provable, so I'm stumped and floundering.

I noticed that one of the "dings" Joan's article received from you is that I may have charged for the Wikipedia page, which I did not. We are curious why a LOT of companies DO charge for Wikipedia page creation and actually send out email solicitations offering to create pages, such as https://repboss.com/wikipedia. Perhaps they have some sort of agreement or partnership with Wikipedia. I can forward an actual email solicitation from this company and wonder if Joan should employ such a service rather than relying on a volunteer (me).

Thank you in advance for your guidance.

Oh, it sounds like there are some COI issues involved. If you have had commercial dealings with these people, I think WP:PAID would apply here. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Joan Sullivan Garrett

Hello, MelanieSaxton. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Joan Sullivan Garrett, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joan Sullivan Garrett (January 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CodeLyoko was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:Joan Sullivan Garrett 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.

CodeLyoko^talk 18:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MelanieSaxton! Having an article draft 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! CodeLyoko^talk 18:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PAID

Hello MelanieSaxton. 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 employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. 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:MelanieSaxton. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=MelanieSaxton|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. Polygnotus (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Hello, MelanieSaxton. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]