User:Blythwood/Template messages for NPP

One of the things I’ve realised in doing New Page Patrol (NPP) on Wikipedia to read through and finish off new articles is that communication is key. Often I needed to say something to explain problems to article creators that wasn’t on Twinkle’s list of messages. Twinkle is great to warn vandals and tag pages for deletion. But sometimes what’s often needed is a clear explanation. For example, say I've seen a new article, liked it, cleaned it up, but wanted to explain to the new editor how I did it so they know what to do next time. Or I want to quickly explain that there’s something very wrong with an article and that if they don’t, won’t or can’t fix it the article will likely be deleted.

I'm rubbish at small-talk and conversation, so I realised that simply typing custom messages for each new user wasn't going to scale. So starting earlier this year I started to create some template messages for problems and situations that I often saw that you can use and sign. (In some cases I've used "__________________" as a placeholder article or user name.)

I view these as public domain, free to adapt and improve as you like without credit required. They can't be perfect, so suggested improvements in phrasing or new messages always welcomed. For many of these I normally put a COI template below, and this is intended to be a less formal summary of what that explains. I plan to add some others I have once I've them cleaned up and made them more general.

One thing to be clear is that I'm a verbose kind of person, so these messages are probably not going to be great with people who aren't native English speakers or who are really young. Anyway, let me know what you think. Blythwood (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Rationale
NPP involves running into some common scenarios where politeness is a good thing. Every week, hundreds of articles are added to Wikipedia by new contributors. Some are pretty good, some are spam, some are pure vandalism. These are simple to cope with.

But many fall in between - they’re made by contributors in good faith but who don’t understand the requirements of a great Wikipedia article. Or they seem to be on a non-notable topic, but you aren’t entirely sure because you don’t know much about the topic area. Or they’re definitely on a non-notable topic (a school choir, someone’s favourite takeout joint) but it’s polite to break it to people gently that this isn’t quite what we’re looking for so they're not discouraged from contributing something better in future. Or they’re an abusive COI editor, but you want to non-confrontationally tell them that they’re not going to get what they want and that coming back tomorrow with a different account name isn’t going to help. Or they've decided to donate to us their university essay on [random play] without realising that we don't accept duplicate articles. Or they're a valid contributor going back a long way, but they don't understand how to draft articles and are writing the article one sentence at a time in the mainspace, and you know someone's about to zap it with a CSD tag for meaninglessness. Or they're at a badly run editathon and their approach to article creation was just copying and pasting a bio from some other website. Or it's a good topic for an article, but basically you had to scrap their entire text (maybe it was a copyvio) and start again, and you want to explain why.

One thing I decided to do above all was start by thanking people for their interest in Wikipedia - since, let’s be honest, creating a Wikipedia page is hard to figure out and we owe them at least a polite message for their effort.

A cleaned-up article
''Note that this is obviously a form text. You can remove bits that don't apply.''

Hello, thanks for writing this article! I’ve just "patrolled" it, meaning marked as OK. I've added a few things to it: Hope this is OK. Let me know if you have any thoughts or questions about this.
 * I've added some citations demonstrating that the facts in the article are true. This is important for allowing the article to be kept on Wikipedia.
 * I've added some citations demonstrating that the facts in the article are true. This is important for allowing the article to be kept on Wikipedia. I've used the Google Books citation generator, which I recommend as a good way to add book citations quickly.
 * I've added some links to and from other articles so people can find this article. If you click on "What Links Here" when viewing your article you can see the links I've created.
 * I've added some categories so people can find this article. I recommend HotCat for this as a tool that can suggest categories.
 * On the article's "talk page", I've added tags of "WikiProjects" (working groups) who might be interested in taking a look at the article to see how they can improve it further.
 * I've added a picture from Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia's sister project that stores images that are donated by their creators or free to use.
 * As this person is no longer alive, I've added a small "fair use" picture. You can do this here, which also explains when it's OK to do this under Wikipedia policies (in this case as they're no longer alive).
 * I've added a small "fair use" picture of this company's logo. You can do this here, which also explains when it's OK to do this under Wikipedia policies.
 * I've added a small "fair use" picture of the book's cover. You can do this here, which also explains when it's OK to do this under Wikipedia policies.
 * I've added a reference list, so the references are placed in their own section after the end of the article.

Very good new article
''Not likely to be used so often, but could be a good way to get new contributors to engage with Wikipedia. Obviously can only be done with facts that have been sourced to reliable media.''

Hello, thanks for writing this article! I found it very interesting. Wikipedia has on the main page a section called "Did you know?" [need to complete this] If you're interested in doing this, you can any time up to seven days after the article was created.

An article that doesn't look notable
Hello, thanks for writing this article! I’ve just read it and I’m a bit concerned that it has no citations. That worries me since without proof that this topic is notable, meaning covered enough in media for it to be possible to write a fair article on the topic, the article may get deleted.

Are there any reliable sources on the topic that you can add? If so just edit the article and add citations using the cite tool, or if you have any thoughts or questions just let me know.

Variants
If there are no third-party citations:

I'm a bit concerned that the only sources are self-authored.

Just not enough citations:

Hello, thanks for writing this article! I’ve just read it and I’m a bit concerned that this topic might not be notable, meaning covered enough in media for it to be possible to write a fair article on the topic for Wikipedia's standards.

Are there any reliable sources on the topic that you can add showing that the facts in the article are true? If so just edit the article and add citations using the cite tool, or if you have any thoughts or questions just let me know.

An article on a person that doesn't look notable
Hello, thanks for writing this article! I’ve just read it and I’m a bit concerned that it has no citations. That worries me since without proof that this person is notable, meaning covered enough in media to write a fair article on them, the article may get deleted.

Are there any reliable sources (ones not written by or for this person) you can add? If so just edit the article and add citations using the cite tool, or if you have any thoughts or questions just let me know.

You could add

 * (here's a specific guide for authors)
 * (here's a specific guide for artists)
 * (here's a specific guide for actors)
 * (here's a specific guide for politicians)
 * (here's a specific guide for musicians)

Some citations but all or most self-authored
Hello, thanks for writing this article! I’ve just read it and I’m a bit concerned that that this person may not be notable by Wikipedia standards, meaning covered enough in media to write a fair article on them.

Are there any more reliable sources (ones not written by or for this person) you can add demonstrating that the facts in this article are true? If so just edit the article and add citations using the cite tool, or if you have any thoughts or questions just let me know.

Probably notable but article is totally under sourced and may use inside knowledge
You may want to remove any text you can't find a published citation for.

An article on a company that doesn't look notable
Hello, thanks for writing this article! I’ve just read it and I’m a bit concerned that this company might not be notable enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article. That link goes to a guide, but basically any coverage of a company on here is supposed to be based on being covered in reliable sources, like newspapers, in the form of full articles and not just things like business listings.

Are there any extra citations you can add about this organisation showing it's notable? I'm concerned since the article may get deleted otherwise. If so just edit the article and add citations using the cite tool. If you've got any questions just let me know.

There are a lot of other texts like this that I have, but to get onto other things I've put them at the bottom.

Person just isn't creating an article right
Hello, it looks like your article isn't finished. Do you need any help adding things like citations and text? I'm concerned since blank and unfinished Wikipedia articles are often marked for deletion if it looks like you aren't going to come back to them soon.

Fairly obvious COI
''Dealing with undisclosed COI editors is an awkward problem under WP:OUTING. I hope that this - saying "look, it's obvious what you're doing" - doesn't break the rules on this. Still, one to use sparingly. I find it, though, a good indicator of good faith, as the response is often very revealing, and not responding but carrying on with promotional editing is good evidence to take to AIV that a block is warranted. Should be signed and followed by a COI template message, as the text refers to this.''

Hello, thanks for joining Wikipedia! I notice that all your edits are on the topics of _______________________________, and I wonder if you have some connection, or "conflict of interest" with them, such as that you are an employee or contractor or being paid for editing Wikipedia to market them.

This isn't necessarily a problem, but if this is so, you must immediately file a disclosure statement explaining any conflict of interest to ensure transparency. Here's an example of what a disclosure looks like - but let me know if you have any kind of questions about this, privately by email is fine if you’re having problems. You should also ensure that all your edits are factual and cannot be considered in any way promotional, and are backed up by citations to reliable sources demonstrating them to be true. An automated message explaining this is added below. Hope this is OK, let me know if you have any thoughts or questions. [COI template goes here]

Writing an article about a company - blatantly non-notable
I put a COI template below these.

Hello, I'm sorry but this isn't really right for Wikipedia - you're not supposed to write articles about your company. Below this I've put a message that explains this. Any questions just let me know.

Dealing with COI editors: some incidental thoughts
Obviously we've all encountered ghastly COI editors. But the fact that some junior PR flunkey's a COI editor when their awful boss tells them to be doesn’t preclude them being or considering becoming a constructive contributor in their spare time, so our messaging should ideally where possible be a welcome to Wikipedia only then followed by an explanation that they're doing something we can't accept.

To give examples of the pressures COI editors may be under themselves, I could - but won’t - link to a COI editor at one of the world’s top universities whose boss told her to put an exact text on her Wikipedia article and to erase anything else, even copyedits, citations and expansions. An employee at a company trying to bargain to remove from the article some citations about disappointing sales. A notable fashion company thinking that stripping out the entire article text and replacing it with their copyrighted "about us" text wouldn't promote a backlash and their article being briefly considered for deletion. So a good non-confrontational messaging system, I think, starts first with a politely bemused “Sorry, there seems to be something wrong with this article. Can you fix it?” followed by “Sorry, maybe you didn't know this but that edit's against our policies," (giving them an out rather than making an accusation), then moving up to "Sorry, you keep trying to do this but I can’t let you,” only then escalating to “Go away, we don’t want you.”

Suggestion for a Wikipedia article
My advice when drafting articles is to read the my first article guide, draft an article and then ask experienced editors for feedback via the articles for creation project - they can help you spot and fix common problems like this and decide if something will be a good topic for a Wikipedia article.

Consolations - person article
This is good for cases where people seem to have uploaded articles on topics that are own research, such as some local worthy or person researched by the local history society. I'm sorry about this. One of Wikipedia's guidelines is that articles must be on people who are notable by Wikipedia's standards. That links to a guide, but for a person to be notable, they need to have been discussed in in-depth sources, like book chapters, interviews and obituaries, or have occupied a prominent position, for example, being a bishop, a government minister or a trade union leader. It's generally considered up to the article creator to have sufficient sources before deciding to post the article, although you can ask for help. I realise that this may sound frustrating; creating articles is generally considered the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia due to this standard, and generally I recommend to new editors that they rack up a couple of hundred edits improving pre-existing articles, getting used to the writing style, getting feedback and reading the notability guide before creating new articles. If you find this topic interesting, perhaps you might want to host this content on your own blog or website?

Company demonstrating ownership
Hello, thank you for your interest in Wikipedia. Please appreciate that all edits must be strictly factual and not anything that could be considered promotional, and backed up by reliable sources that demonstrate them to be true. You may want to request edits in order to allow other experienced editors to give feedback on your suggestions. Please also remember that almost all edits to Wikipedia are public and on-the-record, and may be examined by journalists wishing to examine the work done by your organisation, so please ensure that if you are editing as a representative of your organisation you have been authorised to do so.

Below this I've put an explanation of the rules of editing Wikipedia for topics like your organisation. All the best, any questions just let me know and I'll try to help.

Really bad company article
Hello, thank you for writing this article! I have a few concerns about it and wanted to discuss them with you:


 * I’m a bit concerned that this company might not be notable enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article. That link goes to a guide, but basically any coverage of a company on here is supposed to be based on being covered in reliable sources, like newspapers, in the form of full articles and not just things like business listings.
 * A lot of it reads like a press release or promotional copy, not a factual encyclopaedia article.
 * This seems to copy from this company's website, which is copyrighted content - we can't use this text. For the article to be kept, you will need to delete this text and replace it with text in your own words.

Are there any extra citations you can add from reliable sources like news articles about this company demonstrating that it's notable? (Those are links to guides explaining this in more detail.) I'm concerned since the article may get deleted otherwise.

Since the article reads like you might be marketing the company, you also should look at this, an automated text on editing if you have a conflict of interest. All the best, any questions just let me know and I'll try to help.

Duplicate article
''I want to be clear that we have become a victim of our own reputation here. Wikipedia has a reputation for immediately reverting any additions by new editors (never mind that these are often not improvements or unsourced or whatever, but still...). So some new contributors on editathons decide that they will create their own special new articles, often called something like "new perspective on [thing]". You can see an example of how this happens here - this was a report written by a university student working to add coverage of women to Wikipedia. We need to break it to these people that they have to have confidence that their changes are improvements but that Wikipedia works on collaboration, and they need to build on the pre-existing article.''

Hello, thanks for writing this article! I'm sorry, but we already have an article on this topic, at ___________________. One of Wikipedia's policies is that there can only be one article on a topic unless there is a clear need for another.

I suggest that you work to improve this article, and copy your material across to it. As your article is a duplicate, it may be deleted.

Or:

What I've done is redirect your article to the other page. Here's a link to your version if you want to take any text out of it.

(You'd be advised to add the page to your watchlist in case they accidentally recreate it.)