User talk:Keen7777

March 2018

Hello, I'm ToBeFree. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to International Samaritan seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm hmm hmm. Well, you might be right. I can't verify this easily. I'll assume good faith here, but it seems derogatory to me to call them "garbage dump communities". Is that a term? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Keen7777. 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 COI 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, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. You said on my talk page that: "Hello, I just had a large portion of my page deleted and need it changed back. I got a message saying something about the term "garbage dump communities" being derogatory- we're a nonprofit that works in communities located in garbage dumps. I need this fixed immediately" (emphasis mine). This seems to imply that you are working for the subject of the article. It might even imply a shared account. Please be careful here; I didn't even think of this possibility, but your reaction suddenly unveiled these problems. Sorry for the inconvenience, but please read the links in this warning carefully. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Keen7777, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page International Samaritan have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. John from Idegon (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are built by paraphrasing what reliable sources have said about a subject. It is unfortunate that no-one has noticed this before now, but the fact remains, the article in question here is totally unacceptable as an encyclopedia article as it stands. Please do not replace the unsourced content again. And also, you need to deal with the issues raised int the previous section. Are you in the employ of or otherwise associated with this organization? John from Idegon (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an unpaid volunteer for the organization. Why would the page not be considered legitimate? I've looked at dozens of others of similarly sized nonprofits that have wikipedia pages. Our page has been up for years. What exactly is the problem that you felt the need to suddenly delete half of it?

It isn't "a page". It doesn't belong to the organization. It is, or should be, an encyclopedia article. You have a conflict of interest here. I would strongly suggest you follow the best practices outlined for COI editors above. The main problem is that it completely fails WP:V. The secondary problem is that you are acting like somehow this page belongs to or is for the organization. It isn't. There is no indication the article meets our standard for inclusion found at WP:ORG, and as it stands, without reliable secondary sources, it is nothing more than an advertisement for the organization. Therefore it also fails another pillar policy, WP:NOT. We are not social media, nor are we a webhost. If you want to disseminate information about your organization, get a website. An encyclopedia is to record and summarize what others have written about your organization. John from Idegon (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're a recognized organization with plenty of verifiable documentation on our work- if what you're trying to say is that you need that documented then that's fine- we can do that, but I could do without *your* incredibly rude tone and attempts to talk down when it's your and others' poor oversight that allows entire pages to be written and maintained for years without monitoring for such requirements or making them well known, including the fact that I've looked at dozens of similar organizations with pages of the same content and type. You would do well to reconsider your professionalism and practice some common courtesy when discussing these matters in the future.