User talk:MaryGrace0101

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

Hello, MaryGrace0101, 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 Draft:Charles J. Orlando, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

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, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Charles J. Orlando, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Charles J. Orlando (September 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Taking Out The Trash were: 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.
Taking Out The Trash (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, MaryGrace0101! 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! Taking Out The Trash (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Information icon Hello, MaryGrace0101. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Charles J. Orlando (September 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Drmies 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 after they have been resolved.
Drmies (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mandatory paid editing disclosure

Information icon

Hello MaryGrace0101. 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 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. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely 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:MaryGrace0101. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=MaryGrace0101|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. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, @Anachronist. I am not a paid advocate, nor do I have a financial stake. I do, however, follow Charles online and have purchased his books and watched his shows. I don't believe that makes me a biased editor here, merely more informed about him.
Further, I've reviewed the comments that state my edits are somehow peacocked and/or promotional. With complete respect, I have to disagree. Charles was at the forefront of the Ashley Madison hack, a significant news item that has been ongoing and covered in a variety of places and with reputable sources: CNN, ABC News, etc. Charles was a part of all that coverage, including being mentioned on the primary Wikipedia page that discusses the hack itself.
Happy to get a better understanding of how I am somehow promoting him here, rather than rounding out his experience as it connects and coincides with that significant news item. MaryGrace0101 (talk) 16:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. Regarding promotionalism, I am not the only one who got that impression, if you look at the history of your draft. Unsourced and unsubstantiated puffery like "insights and expertise have been sought after" is likely what made me suspect that you an advocate rather than a neutral editor. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Unintentional, but I get it. I'll be looking for more sources and will add as I locate. 76.133.5.56 (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Charles J. Orlando (September 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Qcne 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 after they have been resolved.
Qcne (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Charles J. Orlando (October 5)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by LJF2019 was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
LJF2019 talk 22:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Charles J. Orlando (March 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic 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 after they have been resolved.
KylieTastic (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]