User talk:John Mclaven

Welcome!

Hello, John Mclaven, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Best practices for editors with close associations
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style
The Teahouse, our help forum for new editors

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, visit the Teahouse, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 03:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds great, thanks for letting me know. Do you mind quickly reading over the draft I actually have right now and giving me a few tips on how to prevent any of the issues you mentioned above? I was writing this in order to provide a public informational source anyway, so it would be great if I could know what to expect and the guidelines to follow. John Mclaven (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, it has no problem in readability, but I suggest you add more source, preferably reliable, secondary sources.

Also, if you are creating the company page on their behalf, I suggest you disclose your employer, client, and affiliation. 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 04:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great, so try to find other websites containing this information and etc. Will do! However, if I do submit this draft for review right now, will it be rejected for only having 1 source?

Also, does the length of the draft matter? John Mclaven (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, creating drafts took a lot of effort and time, and one source can not covered it all. And also, as I know of, the length of the draft doesn't matter.

But first you need to disclose that you create that draft on the company's behalf (if it wasn't, then you don't need to)

Read WP:DISCLOSE on how to disclose. 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 04:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not paid to do this or anything or working on the company's behalf, I was simply a former longtime member (not management or employee) of the organization, I enrolled in their services and everything, and I'm writing based on that as well as their info. Will I need to disclose this as well? John Mclaven (talk) 04:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: ACES (Organization) (February 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 TheBritinator was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:ACES (Organization) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

TheBritinator (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, John Mclaven! 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! TheBritinator (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: ACES (Organization) (February 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing were:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Close primary sources do not establish notability per WP:ORG.

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:ACES (Organization) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, John Mclaven. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Draft:ACES (Organization), 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:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

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. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DoubleGrazing,

Thanks for reaching out! I was wondering if you could give me specific examples of how I can change my article as you said it reads like an advertisement? I simply took informational sources about their historical activities, organizational structure, events/competitions they organize, and their organizational size. The only thing I would say might be remotely promotional would be their mission statement, which I took from their website and I can delete that if that was the issue.

However, other published articles I have been looking at like "DECA (Organization)" also included things like mission statements, describing the size of their "conferences" and etc. Their sources are also all basically from their own website.

All in all, what am I missing or should do differently in order to comply with the wikipedia regulations? John Mclaven (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Okay, quite a few points there...

The draft is referenced with the organisation's own website only (plus one Medium article which may be somehow connected with the subject also). This means that the draft essentially tells us what the organisation wants to say about themselves, which is the definition of promotion (see WP:YESPROMO). And no, we emphatically do not want to read mission/vision/values and other such corporate blurb.
Instead, we want to see what third parties entirely unconnected with the organisation have said about it. For this, we need multiple (= 3+) secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV or radio programmes, etc.) that are reliable and independent, and which have of their own volition covered the subject at significant extent and detail. Your job is to summarise (in your own words) what such sources have said, citing each source against the information it has provided. Without such sources, it isn't possible to have an article accepted.
You can certainly use the organisation's own website as a source, but only for purely factual, non-contentious details such as location, year of foundation, names of senior people, etc. This must be kept to a minimum, though; the bulk of the information must come from third party sources, per my previous point.
It is often misleading at best, dangerous at worst, to model your draft on articles which already exist, as they may have problems which just haven't been picked up yet and which you won't want to replicate. Inevitably there are, among the 6.5m+ articles in the English-language Wikipedia, all sorts of problematic articles, but that is no reason to create more such problems; this is why we assess new drafts and articles against the currently prevailing guidelines and policies, not by comparing them to existing articles (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS).
Lastly, I note that you didn't actually answer the question posed in this thread: do you have an external relationship of some sort with this organisation? If so, you need to formally disclose it, as required by our terms & conditions.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that sounds great, I'll do more research and make the changes. The reason I did use their website was also cause I'm pretty sure they're a nonprofit student organization not a corporation, so it would make sense to include a mission there. But I'll definitely remove those aspects.

Just to clarify though, is there anything else other than the mission statement that would seem like promotional content rather than factual statements about their structure, history, and size?

In response to your last question, no I do not have any type of personal or work relationship with the organization. I used to join their competitions when I was back in high school alongside other ones like DECA and FBLA, but I didn't work with them or have any external relationship. I don't know if that would classify as a notable relationship? It'd be like if I joined some Red Cross humanitarian event and wrote about them.

Thanks a lot for the help. John Mclaven (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming you have no external relationship with the subject.

I don't think there is anything too obviously promotional in terms of content or tone... except for the point I made already, that this whole draft is mostly based on what the organisation wants to tell us. As such, it may be that pretty much all of it will need to be rewritten, when you get around to summarising what third parties have said about them.

Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:ACES (Organization)

Hello, John Mclaven. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:ACES (Organization), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]