User talk:Sharm007

Welcome!

Hello, Sharm007, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as David Simmons (music publisher), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Winged Blades^Godric 12:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of David Simmons (music publisher)

The article David Simmons (music publisher) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Winged Blades^Godric 12:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of David Simmons (music publisher)

The article David Simmons (music publisher) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Winged Blades^Godric 15:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Helen Webberley) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Helen Webberley, Sharm007!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to create this - it's appreciated. It's now been reviewed and has had some improvement tags added. If you have the time, could you look it over and see if you can help address any of the issues raised in the tags? Thanks again for your hard work.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adverts?

Hello. I'm not sure if you saw the message on my talk page, but your articles are well-written but read like adverts. Are you a paid editor or connected to the subjects? If so, you just need to declare your WP:COI on your user page. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback - I have declared the COI on my user page - didn't see this previously. Thanks for assisting me.

No problem. Partially I guessed by how well-written they were! Other things you may want to watch out for are just making them sound more encyclopaedic (reading a few articles on similar people may help) rather than a press release, and not removing tags applied to the articles, but perhaps just alerting the tagger that you have made improvements and ask them to look it over again - that way you can't be seen as someone trying to steamroller that version on. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Helen Webberley for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Helen Webberley 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/Helen Webberley 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. Boleyn (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of David Simmons (music publisher) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Simmons (music publisher) 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/David Simmons (music publisher) 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. Boleyn (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Working as a paid editor in Wikipedia

Hi Sharm007. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing.

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review.

Thanks for disclosing that you are working as a paid editor. I very much appreciate you being open about this. You are about half of the way there with regard to what we look for paid editors to do.

Two additional things - one simple, and one that you will probably not like.

First, would you please always make sure to disclose on the relevant article Talk page? This is what the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template is for. The {{paid}} template is for your Userpage. (I fixed that on your userpage - hope that is OK) Please also continue recording the paid work on your Userpage. With those two things, the disclosure piece is fully done.

Second, and additionally very important, is the peer review part of the COI management process.

This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:

a) if you want to create an article for a client, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and

b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just create a new section on the Talk page, declare that you are being paid to improve the article, and propose the change. You can also add a {{request edit}} tag to flag it for other editors to review.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (which I will say more about, if you want).

I hope that makes sense to you.

Will you please agree to follow the peer review processes going forward, when you want to create an article for a client? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

Hi Sharm, I hope you're well. I know you must be disappointed that your hard work has been deleted, although I hope you understand why. You're very welcome to continue editing WIkipedia though, in a professional or personal capacity. You had done as good a job as could be done with the material you had. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]