User talk:StephanieHay

AfC notification: User:StephanieHay/sandbox has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:StephanieHay/sandbox. Thanks! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (August 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 was: 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 User:StephanieHay/sandbox 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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello! StephanieHay, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Modo - Circus with Purpose (August 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 Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Modo - Circus with Purpose 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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. SwisterTwister talk 15:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

COI

You have an obvious conflict of interest when editing Modo, and you must declare it. If you work directly or indirectly for the organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. 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:StephanieHay. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=StephanieHay|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Response?

Hello, you recently deleted my page Modo - Circus with Purpose due to me having a 'conflict of interest' I have told previous reviewers that the only connection i have with the company is that I occasionally volunteer with the company on an unpaid basis.

Given that this is a well known charity across areas of Scotland and the UK it seems rather unfair that it is not allowed to be published - all the information given is proven, unbiased facts with sources that provide evidence. I am struggling to understand how other charities get away with posting their aims ect yet i have been having some struggle with getting this article published.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated

StephanieHay (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Reply

Hi, thanks for message. First note that I will not see replies on this page like the above on unless you start them with my user name, User:Jimfbleak and sign it with four tildes ~~~~ when you post it. That will send me an alert. I deleted your article because

• it did not provide adequate independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation, press releases, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the organisation claims or interviewing its management. You gave some references, but many were very localised, basically local newspapers reporting local events. "Big in Banff" isn't enough, you need sources to show national significance, such as Scottish or UK national newspapers or TV websites. Many of your sources were just not good enough. Some were also not independent, a report by Danziger is not a third-party source. You should not use bare urls for your references.
• It's a list of every event that they have done, but to show notability you need hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, funding or expenditure. It's not even clear if it had offices
• it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic.

• According to its website, the company is called Modo, with "Circus with Purpose" as a slogan. The article title should be the official name, not a slogan
• Question headings such as "Why circus" look promotional and unencyclopaedic
• Examples of inadequately sourced or self-sourced claims presented as fact include: provided 50 young people with their first real job... it has a cultural neutrality and has clear achievements within it... Through learning new skills, circus can give young people a sense of accomplishment... to create a social change in youth—and so on

• the article shows signs of being copy-pasted such as strange internal breaks and lack of wikilinks, and it's clear that previous versions have included copyright text, which had to be removed by other editors. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. The copied site was marked . We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial but there is no indication that the copied site allows free use. Text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.
• I've asked you if you have a conflict of interest when editing this article, and I accept that you are not a paid editor, but you still need to distance yourself when you are writing about an organisation that you support, this is too much like a fan page.

it seems rather unfair that it is not allowed to be published— articles have to be in accordance with our rules, this isn't social media. You have made a rod for your own back by ignoring our guidance on writing article, eg bare urls for refs, only one wikilink in the whole article, headings for every para, including the lead, not bolding the company name at first mention. The fact that other charity articles have not been deleted doesn't help you, either they meet the criteria or they should be deleted as well. See other stuff exists.

Before attempting to write an article again, please check that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and make that you can find independent third party sources. Also read this important guidance on how to write articles in accordance with our rules Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Response

@Jimfbleak:

Hi,

Okay so firstly the companies official name is "Modo - Circus with Purpose Limited" so for short it is referred to as "Modo - Circus with Purpose"

and what exactly do you mean by bare URLS?

and in regards to the local newspapers can you please justify why these are not reliable enough? they are news sources which are reporting the events and work that Modo has done throughout the community.

May you please point out which information given throughout the article is seen to be promotional and i will try my best to get this changed.

Thanks

StephanieHay (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, replies

• Thanks for clarifying the organisation's name
• a bare url looks like
  <ref>http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/77056#page/82/mode/1up</ref>
  which is unhelpful and liable to link rot. A properly formatted ref to the same source might be
  <ref name="gray">{{cite book|last=Gray|first=John Edward|author-link=John Edward Gray|title=Catalogue of the specimens and drawings of mammalia and birds of Nepal and Thibet. Presented by B.H. Hodgson to the British Museum.|publisher=[[British Museum]]|year=1846|location=London|page=66|url=http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/77056#page/82/mode/1up}}</ref>
  which shows as
  Gray, John Edward (1846). Catalogue of the specimens and drawings of mammalia and birds of Nepal and Thibet. Presented by B.H. Hodgson to the British Museum. London: British Museum. p. 66.
  see Help:Referencing for beginners, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and my comments in the first bullet point in my initial reply
• Apologies for the bad link to notability in my first bullet point. If you look at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), there is a wealth of information which you should read carefully. Note under "Audience" that local notability isn't enough, so local newspapers, even if independent sources, aren't adequate to show notability, you need at least a couple of Scotland or UK level independent third party refs.
• I've given examples of inadequately sourced promotional claims in my original reply. The claim of 50 new jobs isn't verified by your source for it, and the rest appear to be opinions rather than verifiable facts.
• Also see Wikipedia:Your first article

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Modo – Circus with Purpose (September 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Narutolovehinata5 was: 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:Modo – Circus with Purpose 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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Promotional content, including when not intended, still cannot be accepted as, in this case, it was nearly mirror-image to the last page therefore the removal can and is supported by WP:Deletion policy. As mentioned there, Wikipedia isn't a casual business webhost. SwisterTwister talk 14:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)