User talk:Tcampo123
Hello, Tcampo123. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Hearst Television, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:
- avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
- instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
- when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
- avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
- exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).
Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Tcampo123, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
|
Hi Tcampo123! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC) |
Creating new articles[edit]
Creating new articles from a blank start is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia. In future I urge you to use the Article Wizard to create a draft under the Articles for Creation project. There, an experienced editor will review your draft once you think it is ready. Only when a reviewer approves will the draft be moved to the main article space. This avoids the situation where a deletion is requested soon after the initial version of an article is posted. Also, please read Wikipedia's Golden Rule and Your First Article, if you have not already done so. The advice there can be very helpful, in my view. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Here are some steps which, when followed, often give good results:
- First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, our guideline on the notability of films, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
- Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
- Third, disclose your connection with the subject in accordance with the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
- Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
- Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
- Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
- Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at the Teahouse or the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.
Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
You need to disclose your employer[edit]
Hello Tcampo123. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, 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:Tcampo123. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Tcampo123|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, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Ian, thanks for your input. Responding to you, Orange Mike and DESiegel (and thank you all.)
I've made an attempt to draft an initial posting starting with my disclosure. I've stuck to facts and externally published articles. It seems I've managed to mangle the footnoting process though:
- The disclosure needs to be on your user page, not hidden in a sandbox's subpage draft. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Done. Please lmk if any additional detail needed for User Page. Thanks.
- One additional thing on disclosure. If you or your employer advertise Wikipedia editing services you must provide a link to websites/accounts where you advertise. See the updated ToU. Thank you. Jbh Talk 22:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Matter of Fact with Soledad O'Brien has been accepted[edit]
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. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting 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 .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
SportingFlyer talk 02:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)October 2018[edit]
Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Matter of Fact with Soledad O'Brien. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:
|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]
Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:
|image=SomeImage.jpg.
There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Matter of Fact with Soledad O'Brien, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your note, Zackmann, re the page for Matter of Fact with Soledad O'Brien. I removed the template on the Matter of Fact with Soledad O'Brien page because I believe I had resolved the issues raised. One of the issues has been removed from the new template but at least two of the remaining three issues have been addressed: at least two other articles now link back to this one, and I have fully disclosed and detailed my COI at every step of the way including inception of the article, and engaged with multiple editors on that point. As for the concern raised that portions of the article read like "an advertisement," I have tried to adhere to strictly factual statements based on the public record in order to convey basic information about this show, deliberately avoiding any hype or promotional language.
In any case, at least one of the three remaining bullet-points/issues is objectively no longer valid (The "orphan" citation -- see the pages re Soledad O'Brien and A+E Networks), another was addressed before I even posted the article's initial draft, and I am happy to engage with any interested parties on the remaining issue. Thank you.
Please stop removing maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Matter of Fact with Soledad O'Brien, without resolving the problem that the template refers to. This may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- As I have told you previously, as a paid contributor and the person with the WP:COI you cannot keep removing these templates. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Zackmann08:Zackmann: I've pinged you and tried contacting the editor who initially placed the Template and have been waiting for weeks for responses to the corrections I made to address the remaining concerns raised in the template. I feel I have resolved them. I've removed the language that the editor specifically cited as reading like an advertisement. I would argue the remaining language is quite straightforward and factual -- not promotional. As for the COI, I have disclosed that at every step including at the outset of the posting. I can understand it if an editor feels the COI warning needs to remain in place, and I defer to you and others on that. But I think it is inaccurate at this stage to label the article as reading like an ad. Objectively, I feel, it does not. However if there is specific language you would like to see changed, I'm happy to follow your guidance. Thank you. Tcampo123 (talk)
- @Tcampo123: I have a number of projects that I'm working on so I apologize but responding to you is not #1 on my list. Unfortunately my advice would be that if you don't like the rules and policies here, then don't edit. You have a very clear conflict of interest as you are being paid to build a page on Wikipedia, so you cannot be surprised that the article you are creating is being tagged with WP:COI. Just because YOU think that the issue has been fixed, doesn't mean it has and continuing to remove maintenance templates from the page that YOU created is a clear violation of established policy. You are welcome to request help from other users if you don't like my opinion on the matter. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, and thanks for the prompt reply, Zackmann. I had taken the instructions on Templates to mean that an article author could make changes to a Template if the author addressed the concerns raised. I will no longer touch the Template, and I fully understand the COI label especially inasmuch as I invited it by disclosing my COI prior to posting any content. I do not want to give even the appearance of lack of transparency. I hope as other, unrelated, parties contribute to this article the COI Template can eventually be reconsidered. However, I do hope someone will reasonably remove the "advertisement" label. I do not think it's accurate.