User talk:MPNASA

January 2024

Hello MPNASA. 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:MPNASA. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=MPNASA|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. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not being compensated. I'm a Public Affairs Officer for the SBA and this submission is part of my duties as a PAO. Thanks for reaching out. MPNASA (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you aren't paid for your role as a public relations officer in the US government, you do it for free? 331dot (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this task it is part of my responsibilities. Additionally, I make an annual donation to Wikipedia. Is this considered a conflict of interest, and should I cease making donations? MPNASA (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify how this differs from individuals who are compensated for uploading articles on Wikipedia? Should I consider paying one of them instead of fulfilling my responsibilities as a PAO officer? MPNASA (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are misunderstanding me. I'm not concerned with if you donate to Wikipedia or not(though as an editor I thank you for funding this resource), and it is not a conflict of interest to donate to the Wikimedia Foundation and edit Wikipedia. Whether you donate to the Foundation or not is a personal decision for you based on your personal criteria. Donating or withholding donations has no impact on day to day Wikipedia activities like this discussion. We editors don't get the money.

You say you are editing- editing about your boss- as part of your job duties- this makes you a paid editor according to our policy. This means that the Wikipedia Terms of Use requires you to make a formal disclosure(see the policy for instructions). That's a legal requirement that you agree to abide by when you create your account and edit. In addition it is a conflict of interest for you to edit about your boss. This does not mean that you are forbidden from doing so, but you must act carefully and in accordance with policy. Paying someone else would just transfer these requirements to that person.

Wikipedia is not a place for you to tell the world about your boss or summarize his official US government biography. The article about President Biden does not summarize his official White House biography. Wikipedia articles summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a person, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable person. Heading a government agency could meet that definition, if your boss receives enough coverage about him personally.

Please read WP:BOSS, and have your superiors read it too, before proceeding. 331dot (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Once I submit the disclosure and make the necessary adjustments, what are the chances of it getting approved? If it seems unlikely, I will inform him and avoid investing further time in it. I appreciate the thorough explanation, as it improved my understanding! MPNASA (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With zero independent sources as at present, the chances are nil. Theroadislong (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The text that you have in your sandbox now will not be accepted as it is now. It has promotional language(" dynamic leadership", "the agency is embarking on bold new initiatives that firmly link recovery to resilience", "Francisco Sánchez Jr. brings with him a wealth of experience", etc.) when it should have a neutral point of view without embellishment. If independent reliable sources say that Mr. Sanchez has a particular leadership style, or is personally responsible for certain public policy initiatives, we need to know what sources are saying that about him- not what his own agency or the US government says about him. For you to have any chance at success, you will need to first set aside what you know about Mr. Sanchez and any materials from the US government about him, and gather independent reliable sources that on their own discuss him in depth. This is easy for some government officials, like the Secretary of Defense or the SBA Administrator- I'm less certain that such sources exist for the associate administrator of an office within the SBA- but it's possible. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks again! MPNASA (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (January 29)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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 User:MPNASA/sandbox 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MPNASA! 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! Theroadislong (talk) 19:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editng

As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:MPNASA, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=MPNASA|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding User:MPNASA/sandbox

Hello, MPNASA. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:MPNASA/sandbox, 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) 20:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:MPNASA/sandbox

Hello, MPNASA. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]