User talk:TriJenn

Welcome!

Hello, TriJenn, 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:

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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Heather Lutze may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

bizjournals.com/denver/print-edition/2012/01/27/manning-co-authors-answer-small-biz.html?page=all (</ref>, and the Denver Post<ref>http://www.denverpost.com/pennyparker/ci_18967601 http://yourhub.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Randy Gage Author (January 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Randy Gage Author and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! TriJenn, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! Onel5969 (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Randy Gage Author (March 5)

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

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Randy Gage Author and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Arthur goes shopping (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Randy Gage Author has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Randy Gage Author. Thanks! Onel5969 (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Randy Gage Author (March 25)

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

custom: non notable--many promotional books for his own ideas, but i seenothingelse of possible encyclopedic significance. The references appear to be almost entirely mere notices.

You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Randy Gage Author and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Randy Gage Author has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Randy Gage Author. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Randy Gage Author has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Randy Gage Author. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 15:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Randy Gage Author has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Randy Gage Author. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 14:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Randy Gage Author has been accepted

Randy Gage Author, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Your userpage says that "I sometimes make editing changes and create new pages on behalf of my current and past clients.", per WP:COI and WP:PAY, you must disclose the articles with which you have a COI. Per WP:COI, you are also strongly discouraged from directly editing pages, but are encouraged to suggest changes at the talkpage instead.

Now to your edits at Morgan James Publishing. First, are they one of your clients- if so, you must disclose it. Secondly, all your edits where completely unsourced, and therefore not acceptable per Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that they are, since you're spamming other articles with the publisher name, again not providing any reliable sources. See your spam edits to Jay Conrad Levinson, Brendon Burchard, Joel Comm, and Eva Haller, just adding the publisher name to get them some free advertising. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, Morgan James Publishing is a past client. I am not currently receiving compensation from them, nor do I expect to do so for this editing work. Frankly, I can not figure out how to add this information to my USER PAGE. I would appreciate instructions to help me do that. I assume this is the place to do that. If not, please let me know. (Yes, I see that I made edits to this page before. However, I truly can not figure out how to do it.)

I noticed that their page was marked as AfD and I wanted to help by linking to notable authors. I believe it is good policy to add sources to author pages such as books they have written, who the publisher was, and ISBN numbers. This is what I was doing. I hardly think this is spam.

Further, isn’t adding notable, credible information what is supposed to be done when an article is marked as AfD? If I know that information, shouldn’t I share it?

As to your point that my information was unsourced, the very definition of sourcing - based on the article you referenced https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources - is to cite the publisher.

Definition of a source[edit]

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

The piece of work itself (the article, book)

The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)

The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

As for “not responding” to you, with all due respect, I responded quickly as soon as I saw your notice. It takes a few minutes to generate a thoughtful, researched response to concerns such as yours. TriJenn (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the issue is that you aren't adding sourced content, you're adding completely unsourced content, as it's not being accompanied by reliable sources- saying "I know it to be true" is not a reliable source. Also, you weren't responding to me and were continuing to edit hence my complaint. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the middle of making changes and did not think it wise to jump to see the message and risk losing my changes.

Morgan James Publishing is cited hundreds (maybe thousands) of times in Wikipedia. I do not think my adding their link to a few pages of notable authors is spam: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=morgan+james+publishing&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&fulltext=1 I think it is adding helpful information. However, perhaps I should have cited it more accurately. I would be happy to do that. However, it appears I am not allowed to do that at this time.TriJenn (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Morgan James Publishing, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Also, please respond to the above message about your conflict of interest before making any further edits. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of responding to your concerns.TriJenn (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should be focusing on processing them, rather than editing in an unhelpful way. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to User talk:DGG

Hi. I presume you had an edit conflict or some other glitch, but please could you restore the large amount of material you removed from DGG's talk page in this edit. Thank you. --Dweller (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm terribly sorry, Dweller (talk. If I deleted something, I did so accidentally. I tried to UNDO my editing just now, but it said that I couldn't do that. Is the info you are seeking restored? I have no idea how that happened. Please accept my sincere apology.

No worries, as you can see above, I figured it was some kind of foul-up, rather than vandalism! I'll check it out. --Dweller (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no problem--I do this sort of thing myself sometime, and when there are subsequent edits it can be a nuisance to fix. The only way is to go to the previous version and re-add from that. I'll double check everything got restored. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Randy Gage for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Randy Gage 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/Randy Gage 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. John from Idegon (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest and paid editing in Wikipedia

Hi TriJenn. I work on conflict of interest issues in Wikipedia, and try to help people understand how to do the right thing here.

You have disclosed that you edit Wikipedia on behalf of clients. Thanks for making that clear. Please be aware that per the WP:PAID policy, you need to disclose both your employer and the client, each time you come here to do that. This is not optional. It is also a pretty bad idea to do both paid editing and volunteer editing; it doesn't really look good when you circle back and edit an article for "as a volunteer" that you once edited for pay; it generates distrust. (more on that below)

But for starters, would you please update your Userpage, User:TriJenn, with the complete disclosures, including any clients you have not yet disclosed? That would be great.

There are two steps to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is a form of peer review. 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 (who are for example, like you, here on behalf of a client) and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:

a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page, 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.

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.

The latter is very important! There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Learning and following these is very important, and takes time.

Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian - you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines. That sometimes means saying "no" to what clients want.

Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians.

There is a "black market" out there of paid editors -- some of whom have been indefinitely banned but sneak back in; they do a lot of harm here and there is a lot of bad feeling in the community about paid editing and paid editors. For examples of bad things that have happened, please do read Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia (an actual article). You also should read the essay, WP:Wikipedia is in the real world.

There are also PR people who have said they want to do the right thing here - who try to understand the mission of WP and the the way we operate -- see Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms.

I hope that all makes sense to you.

Will you please agree to learn and follow the content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and to follow the peer review processes going forward when you want to work on any article where you are working on behalf of a client? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your detailed explanation, Jytdog. This is very helpful. I will dig into the resources you provided and do my homework. I believe that all pages I have been involved with are listed on my talk page. I haven't done any Wikipedia work in a long time, but lately several people have asked for my advice and help through my normal PR and marketing services. I really appreciate you laying things out clearly. I want to abide by the rules and do what is appropriate for Wikipedia. TriJenn (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are also required to release the PR firm you work for by the way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what "release the PR firm" means, Doc James. It is my own business. I am a solopreneur. TriJenn (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay if it is your own business, we simple need the name. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]