User talk:Batuel

Welcome!

Hello, Batuel, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a conflict of interest, you must declare it. In particular, if you work directly or indirectly for an organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. If you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, 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:Batuel. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Batuel|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. Also read the following regarding writing an article:

you must provide 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 or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, logs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company or organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls
The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:

significant coverage in
independent,
multiple,
reliable,
secondary sources.

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability.

You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.
There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
You must not copy text from elsewhere. 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. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; 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.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. You must also reply to the COI request above. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I want to create an article for The Sadie Collective non-profit organization. I am not affiliated with the organization. Could you please rereview my submission.

That seems highly unlikely given they've already hired someone to create it. Praxidicae (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sadiecollective, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Sadie Collective

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 The Sadie Collective, 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. Praxidicae (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Sadie Collective moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, The Sadie Collective, appears to have been copied without attribution from the (deleted) sandbox of a blocked user. I've moved it to draft space (with a prefix of Draft: before the article title). Once the attribution has been sorted out and the source of the material explained, you may submit it for review using the Articles for Creation template on the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Where did you get this content from? Unless you are User:Sadiecollective, you did not write it, as it was published here (and very quickly deleted as spam) in November last year. Please explain, as fully as you can. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for your response. Let me explain the situation from the beginning to make it clear. For academic purposes, I needed to learn more about provision of equal educational opportunities. I was advised by my professor to create a Wikipedia article about a concept, person, or organization. I chose Sadie Collective without having much knowledge about the organization. After I decided to create a Wikipedia page for Sadie Collective, I began searching for resources that I can use. At that stage, while I was searching for additional resources, I was came across this text. I consider it to be an additional resource. I tried to address the concerns of the users and admins as I make changes to the page. You can see now that the page has changed significantly. I believe the comments about the voice of the article are better addressed right now. If there still is room for progress, I will be willing to work on the page to make it as desired by the Wikipedia community. Batuel (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Welcome, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. While you have added the page to the English version of Wikipedia, the article is not in English. We invite you to translate it into English. It has been listed at Pages Needing Translation, but if it is not translated within two weeks, the article will be listed for deletion. Thank you. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention. I want to move the page to Turkish Wikipedia, but I had trouble doing so. Could you please help.Batuel (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your article Draft:Orion Eğitim Vakfı

Welcome, and thank you for contributing the page Draft:Orion Eğitim Vakfı to Wikipedia. While you have added the page to the English version of Wikipedia, the article is not in English. We invite you to translate it into English. Pages in foreign languages will not be kept here, and may be deleted if they are not translated into English. Thank you. Sounder Bruce 04:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

OK, some problems.

You claim that you have no connection with the the organisation, but you text is virtually identical with text posted previously by a confirmed and blocked sock of obvious paid editor User:Sadie Collective, also blocked. Checkuser has shown you are not using the same computer as those accounts, but it's worrying that you are denying a COI but pasting the same text.
The text you posted was copied without attribution which is a breach of our policies, and also seems to have come from a deleted page which you can't access without admin rights, so again it raises the question of how you got the text if you are not connected with the organisation or the blocked paid editors
Turning to your text, too many of your sources are not genuine third-party sources, but are to your own website, affiliates press releases or interviews with affiliated sources
Your text is full of claims about what you do, but the organisation appears to have no membership, income or expenditure, you are too busy promoting to bother with that. And your list of supposed supporters is totally unreferenced, you need links to their websites (not yours) to confirm that.
It's clearly promotional, with extensive cherry-picked quotes from your members, and nothing remotely critical in your text. While I understand that the collective is attempting to address a real problem, you can't just write what you like. For an encyclopaedia article, you need real, independently sourced facts about the organisation, not a fact-deficient platform for you to tell us your members' views.

I note that admin Justlettersandnumbers moved the text to draft, so I won't delete it for the time being to see what transpires. However, you haven't answered his question about the origin of your text. Praxidicae also posted her concerns in a previous post, which you seemed to have ignored. I think as well as the problems with the article with respect to sourcing, real facts and neutrality, there are still some transparency issues to be addressed. If the checkuser hadn't shown that you were not using the same computer as the previous sock puppets, you would definitely have been blocked on the circumstantial evidence, so let's have some clarity please Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. Let me reiterate that I do not have a connection with the organization and I received the text from a person that I met while I was conducting research about the organization. I was not aware that it was attempted to be published before. I found it to be a useful resource which made my job a lot easier. I realize that it is promotional in some aspects, and it was a mistake to use it. But as long as you give feedback, I would not hesitate to take out parts that should be removed. Having said that, the list of sponsors is here; https://www.sadiecollective.org/2020-conference.html. I imagine that this may not be considered a credible source since it is the organization's page. If that is the case, please let me know and I will remove that part. I already changed the tone of the article and took out information that seems to too much into details. If there are other things that need to be changed, I can work on them as well.

Moreover, if you think there are sources that provides information about the negative aspects of the organization, I would not hesitate to include those as well. I am not trying to hide a "dark side" of the organization from the public. The only problem was that those interviews are the only sources that I have access to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batuel (talk • contribs) 16:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Batuel,

Welcome to Wikipedia, and sorry for the negative first experience.

Reading this discussion and the checkuser result of the investigation, I think there might simply be different possible interpretations of the term "connection".

To my personal interpretation of the term "affiliation", and even more to my personal interpretation of the word "connection", the following statements appear to be contradictory:

"I am not affiliated with the organization."
"I was came across this text"
"I do not have a connection with the organization"
"I received the text from a person that I met while I was conducting research about the organization."'

While "came across" sounds like "on the Internet" to me, the last statement sounds like having met someone in person. Please note that Wikipedia does not publish original research, so directly approaching members of the article subject for Wikipedia research should usually be avoided. What has happened seems to be an inadvertent violation of multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines:

WP:PROXYING, part of Wikipedia's banning policy. On Wikipedia, there is a difference between the terms "banned" and "blocked", but the distinction is irrelevant: You appear to have edited on behalf of a blocked user, and the policy does apply to blocked users as well.
WP:COPYVIO: Text must be written in your own words or properly attributed. Even after the long explanations above, we still lack a proper explanation of where exactly the text was copied/taken from. All we have so far is contradiction and "a person". A relevant guideline would be "Copying within Wikipedia", if it did not involve the seemingly magical ability of viewing a deleted page's wikitext. No public page on Wikipedia matches the deleted page as identically as yours; it was clearly not taken from Lilanna4ever's public draft.
WP:COIRESPONSE: You seem to have relied way too strongly on statements provided by someone with a strong conflict of interest. Even if you have no conflict of interest yourself, you have practically edited on behalf of someone who has.
WP:PAID: "It makes no difference if the paid editor writes the content off-site or in userspace and then another editor moves the material into mainspace on their behalf. Both editors are required to make a disclosure."

I can offer one simple solution to end the whole situation: Please stop editing about The Sadie Collective, and please do not make these mistakes again. That's pretty much it. You are not required to follow this advice, but it would be an easy way to get rid of all the trouble.

If you are interested in contributing to Wikipedia in a positive way, you may like to have a look at the following three pages:

I hope that despite all the initial trouble, this was at least a very educational experience and thus, albeit unexpectedly, actually a successful assignment. You might now know more about Wikipedia than your professor does.

Best regards
~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response. I learned a lot about Wikipedia during this process, and I would like to continue contributing. I am sorry for giving you a hard time, but I was not aware of the previous attempts or the blocked/banned users. At this point, what I can do is to start from scratch to write a completely new version of the page. Do I have permission to submit a new draft for your consideration?Batuel (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Orion Eğitim Vakfı

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:Orion Eğitim Vakfı requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://pirireis.k12.tr/orion-egitim-vakfi. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request for Draft:The Sadie Collective

Hi Batuel,

after you have read my above wall of text, please allow me to delete Draft:The Sadie Collective. If you have to, create a local copy of the page, but please never use it on Wikipedia again. It has copyright/attribution issues, was practically created on behalf of a blocked user and is promotional. Even after all your edits, this seems to be the most reasonable solution to me.

To avoid any possible complaints:

Batuel, please confirm that you too would like Draft:The Sadie Collective to be deleted.
Praxidicae, please confirm that, if you have made "substantial edits" in a way that would prevent such a deletion, you're perfectly fine with a deletion as well.

Thank you both very much in advance.
~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I ensured that the page has no promotional content. In fact, now it has very little content. The information can be found directly at the referenced pages. It is different from the old version and reorganized considering the feedbacks. Thank you for your consideration.Batuel (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And its only sources are the organisation itself and and an interview with one of its leaders, so it can't satisfy [[WP:Notability {companies and organisations}]] and there is no way that it will ever become a proper article. You have been given buckets of advice, including that from ~ ToBeFree. If you genuinely have no COI, you should agree to his request and walk away, because if it becomes clear that you have no other interest here, you could end up falling foul of WP:Not here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak, ToBeFree, Praxidicae, and MurielMary: Right, so now the page is in mainspace (see below), but we still don't have any clear answers on how this user got hold of the text, or why he/she was so determined to publish it; and I for one have no idea whether or how it should be attributed to the blocked editor who first submitted it. There's something awry here, and I think we need to get to the bottom of it.

Batuel, if this was an academic assignment, who was your tutor or supervisor? Can you point us to the course page for the assignment? Could you please explain exactly how you obtained the text which was deleted in November, which administrators can still access, but which you cannot. It'd be helpful if you'd also explain why you find it necessary to be so mysterious about it. If there's some good reason for that, you could perhaps agree to email a complete explanation to a trusted user with advanced permissions here.

At the moment, the only explanation I can think of that fits the facts is undisclosed paid editing. What is the best way forward here? I'm not sure we shouldn't move the page back to draft space until it's all clarified. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No criticism of MurielMary who wouldn't have been aware of all the above, but I agree that there is something not right here that requires exact answers, not vague assertions. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed! MurielMary, I didn't mean to imply that there had been any fault or error on your part, I hope you didn't think I was trying to. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Sadie Collective has been accepted

The Sadie Collective, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-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 leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MurielMary (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Sadie Collective for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Sadie Collective is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sadie Collective until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Praxidicae (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paid-contribution disclosure request

Hello Batuel. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to The Sadie Collective, 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 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:Batuel. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Batuel|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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As explained before: It makes no difference if the paid editor writes the content off-site or in userspace and then another editor moves the material into mainspace on their behalf. Both editors are required to make a disclosure. Please do so before continuing to edit about The Sadie Collective. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not receiving any financial compensation for my edits, and I do not have any affiliation with the Sadie Collective. My main goal while creating the article was to learn more about the diversification of the academic discipline of economics. I am looking forward to making more publications in the future about different topics. If needed, I can post more details about my educational background to my user page. Thank you for your support.Batuel (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Batuel You've failed still to address the concerns in the above section(s) about how you were able to get the identical text from another users deleted sandbox. Praxidicae (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: since you asked the question. Praxidicae (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]