User talk:Leslieaun

Hello, Leslieaun! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing!

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Carter Roberts

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Carter Roberts, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.yale.edu/ycelp/roberts.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 14:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Carter Roberts

A tag has been placed on Carter Roberts requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Endless Dan 14:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Nina Teicholz has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Nina Teicholz. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nina Teicholz (2) (January 4)

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 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:Nina Teicholz (2) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Nina Teicholz (2), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
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) 04:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Leslieaun, 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nina Teicholz (2) (January 8)

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

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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:Nina Teicholz (2) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Nina Teicholz (2), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
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.

Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nina Teicholz (2) (January 9)

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

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:Nina Teicholz (2) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Nina Teicholz (2), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
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.

SeraphWiki (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

In the future if you have a question please start a new section and link me to the draft. It looks like you've created multiple copies of the draft, so I am not able to find it. The one I am looking at doesn't have any references at all. I will temporarily watchlist this page. SeraphWiki (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I found it, I thought I had left a comment - the citations do not have enough information to be useful for verification. You have cited as The Wall Street Journal, October 28, 2014 - please add at least an article title, and if possible a url so editors can find the articles you have cited to. SeraphWiki (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nina Teicholz (2) (January 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by St170e was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

You need to show further coverage of the subject by using more secondary sources. She has a New York Times best-selling book which is great – but where is the secondary sources for that? Where is the coverage about her? You need to include this in your article to show she has been widely covered. Your sources (number 2 through to 9) don't prove her notability because it shows that she has contributed to those publications; notability isn't inherited nor inherent. Use more secondary sources that show coverage of Teicholz – what doctors/nutrition experts have criticised her? Elaborate on that, add more sources and you may have an article here. Feel free to resubmit when you've addressed these issues or contact me on my talk page if you need guidance.

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:Nina Teicholz (2) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Nina Teicholz (2), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
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.

st 170e 16:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Nina Teicholz (2) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Nina Teicholz (2). Thanks! SeraphWiki (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nina Teicholz (2) (February 7)

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

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Nina Teicholz instead.

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:Nina Teicholz (2) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Nina Teicholz (2), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
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.

CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing and PR work in Wikipedia

Hi Leslieaun.

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Thanks for disclosing that you are working with Clyde Group.

The second step 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 or who are paid, 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 with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, 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

(i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page; and

(ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section, put the proposed content there, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) please the {{request edit}} tag to flag it for other editors to review. In general it should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once. Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example. This is OK to do but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.

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. (There are good faith paid editors here, who have signed and follow the Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms, and there are "black hat" paid editors here who lie about what they do and really harm Wikipedia).

But understanding the mission, and the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission, 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. 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.

You may also want to read: Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms

I hope that all makes sense to you.

I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about where the company has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content. If you are not sure if something is uncontroversial, please ask at the Talk page.

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 your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

pasted here from my talk page, where this was posted in this diff Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jytdog: I feel like I'm in one of those Twilight Zone episodes or maybe a giant maze, where I keep getting conflicting direction. I have been trying for many weeks now to post an article about Nina Teicholz, a best-selling author who has been written about extensively n many publications and peer-reviewed journals. I have disclosed my conflict, I have followed all guidance provided by various editors (on footnotes, writing style, having enough citations, organizing the entry). I have been insulted by an editor who told I should model my story on an article about Lindsay Lohan (REALLY?!?!?). Having satisfied all of those requests and comments and edits, I went to post it for review (in Sandbox) where it was rejected because someone else had already posted an article about her. I was told not to publish a new article, but to edit the one that was up on Wikipedia. Which I did. Now those edits are being rejected for unclear reasons.

I am starting to feel that Wikipedia's editors are just blocking this article for the sheer fun of it. Wikipedia features many articles about writers who are similar or even less prominent than Nina Teicholz. She's written a controversial best-selling book. She's been published in peer-reviewed medical journals. She's been written about in NY Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. Help me understand why this article about a prominent female author keeps getting rejected. Leslieaun (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Yes, it can be hard to figure out how WP works and yes it can be like herding cats. Most of what happened will make sense to you after you have been around a while. There is a lot of background you are pretty clearly not aware of, as well, and which is the source of much of the scrutiny your work on this topic in particular is getting...

I had emailed you about talking via skype or google hangouts. I think this would be a good idea based on how convoluted/impacted this is getting, but that is of course your decision to do or not do. Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Lindsay Lohan advice was ... less than ideal. If you look at Talk:Lindsay Lohan you will see a number of dispute notices and that it has had its Featured Article status revoked. Nobody's rejecting your contributions "for the fun of it"; please assume good faith. It is complex and there is much oversight for PR agents, for good reasons. I have proposed a simpler procedure for PR agents in this proposal. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]