User talk:Nell Lebreton

February 2019[edit]

Hello, Nell Lebreton. 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:

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 conflict of interest 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 which forms all or part of work 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. The page User:Nell Lebreton/sandbox/Kilgour was unambiguous marketing copy, so it has been deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kilgour (February 13)[edit]

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Full of unsourced trumpery

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:Kilgour 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:Kilgour, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
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.

Theroadislong (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nell Lebreton! Having an article 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! Theroadislong (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many people who edit Wikipedia initially come here with mistaken impressions as to the nature of Wikipedia, and therefore some of their early edits do things which are not compatible with Wikipedia policy. I did so myself when I started editing, and I do not blame anyone else for doing likewise. However, when an editor has been informed of aspects of their editing which are unacceptable, and they then continue in the same way, that is a different situation. You have continued to edit not only in violation of Wikipedia's policy on promotional editing, but also in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use, by failing to declare editing as part of paid work, as you have been told is necessary. You have also created a promotional page which included a significant amount of text identical to text which you knew had previously been deleted because it did not conform to Wikipedia's requirements.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing, because it is clear that you are here not to contribute to building the encyclopedia, but to use Wikipedia for promotion, which, as you know, is contrary to Wikipedia policy. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of this page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]