User:DGG/keyphrasestest

TOU
`tou&&  (and )

`touw&& our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure

`tou2&& I remind you of our rules on Conflict of Interest. If you are associated with the organization as a paid editor, you must declare this. See our Terms of Use, Section 4, "Paid contributions without disclosure. In addition, Wikipedia may not be used for the purposes of promotion-- we are not a directory. Our articles describe the subject, not advocate for it or praise it, and are directed not to prospective clients or contributors, but to the general public, who may want the sort of information found in encyclopdias. See also our rules on  what  makes an organi&&ation notable.

`tou2w&&

I remind you of our rules on Conflict of Interest. If you are associated with the organi&&ation, either directly or as a paid editor, you must declare this. See our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure In addition, Wikipedia may not be used for the purposes of promotion-- we are not a directory. Our articles describe the subject, not advocate for it or praise it, and are directed not to prospective clients or contributors, but to the general public who may want the sort of information found in encyclopdias. See also our rules on what  makes an organi&&ation notable.

COI
`coi&&

The proper way of adding material when one has a conflict of interest is as follows: Add the material to the article's talk page, not the article page itself, and place a  tag on the talk page, after your suggestion. Since I have also protected the article against edits by unregistered editors for the next few months, you will in this case need to use a tag instead.

(include the double curly braces on each side)

`promstyle&&

This manner of writing an "article" based on a multiplicity of very low grade sources is a standard technique of promotional editors, paid and unpaid. The real give-away, though is in the Early life and education paragraph: the emphasis on her early motivations, expressed in terms designed to make an emotional appeal, is the real staple of paid & unpaid promotional editors. You'll find it in the same place in thousands of articles. It's not a ring or conspiracy--it's a common trope learned from current techniques of advertising. We need to eliminate it from WP, and any article on an actual notable person contaminated with such stuff needs to have it removed; if it's too pervasive to be removed, it needs to be rewritten. She's not important enough to be worth the rewrite.

`defpromo&&

We're an encyclopedia, not a guide to charities. The basic characteristics of promotionalism is that it provides the readers with what the organi&&ation would like to tell them, and is typically addressed to prospective customers/investors/donors/students/applicants/ etc. In contrast, an encyclopedia article is addressed to the general reader who may have heard of the organi&&ation, and wants to know what it is and something about what it does. The reader knows that if it wants  individual stories about individual recipients, it will find them in the web pages and booklets meant to actuate prospective donors. That's what the organi&&ation;s web pages and promotional material are for. A useful rule of thumb is if tit reads like an organi&&ation's web site, it isn't suitable for an encyclopedia.

`delnom&& Please read WP:Deletion policy and WP:CSD   before doing further deletion nominations

`dnapeople&& ''Do not add individuals whose notability is not shown by having WP articles, or obviously qualified for them, such as President of a major company. (A company not notable enough for an article here is insufficiently major) ''

`dnacorp&& ''Do not add companies whose notability is not shown by substantial independent third party sources  that are not based on press releases. Mere notices about funding of staffing or new locations do not indicate notability  ''

mdadvice$$

==Advice== I call your attention to our policies on Verifiability, WP:V, and Biographies of living people, WP:BLP. All information in a BLP must be sourced to a reliable source. Basic noncontroversial information such as a person's education may be taken from an official CV, but anything involving judgment must have a reference from a third-party independent reliable source, not press releases or mere announcements. In addition, material on clinical medicine, especially about the importance of any method of treatment, must meet the special sourcing requirements of WP:MEDRS. Any claim to be the first in anything is especially in need of a high quality source,

The articles you have been writing about physicians do not have reliable third party references, although they do have extensive praise of the subjects. This is not acceptable. There are three options: First, you can fix the articles by adding sources and removing puffery as well as material for which you can not find acceptable sources; as you are currently active, you should be able to do this within the next few days. Second, I can fix them myself, which I shall do much more simply by removing all inadequately sourced material, as is permitted --indeed, as is required, for BLPs. You could later restore material for which there are sources. Third, if I think the remaining material is not sufficient to prove notability by wither of the guidelines WP:BIO or WP:PROF, or if I think the article is so inherently promotional that it is not worth fixing, I can list it for deletion.

In rewriting, please be aware that the proof of notability by WP:PROF is highly cited peer-reviewed articles (not numbers of articles), or major pri&&es at a national level (not student or in-house or within-university awards). Being editor in chief of a journal shows notability also, but being a member of an editorial board is not even significant. Being listed in a "best-doctors" list is advertising, not notability, and should be removed.

It is possible that I also need to remind you about our rules on WP:Conflict of Interest. If there should be any financial COI, then I must ask you to declare it according to our our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure.

`acbio&&

our rule is WP:PROF. Don't say vague things like "tenured professor"--give the rank. In general, most full (but not associate) professors at NYU will be notable, but if any hold a named chair, this should be specified, because that proves them notable beyond question. But the articles you wrote are like press releases, not encycopedia articles. For WP, you need to start off first with a biographical section, giving their birthplace and a date, schools and dates from high school on, positions and dates, all in chronological order, not inverse chronological order. This has to be in the text, not just the infobox. Then a section describing their research, linking --as you did very properly-- not just to their own work but to articles about their work from other people as well.

Then a section on major awards, by which we mean national-level awards, and elected Fellowships of national associations, presidencies of national organi&&ations, and editor-in-chief positions for journals. In-college awards should not be included, nor student awards. The awards have to be given in the article--you cannot refer elsewhere to a list. They go in the text, only the one or two most important go in the infobox as well. The refs have to be given according to WP:REFBEGIN.

Then, if their notability depends mainly on published books, list every such book, linking to their description in WorldCat, not the publisher or Ama&&on. Include links to reviews--published reviews in reliable sources (I usually try to give every such review I can find in an academic journal of major reliable publication like the NYT.) If notability depends on articles, still give whatever books there are, and give the 4 or 5 most heavily cited peer-reviewed articles along with the citation count, taking the data preferable from Web of Science, or if necessary google Scholar. We normally do not include articles if there are also numerous books, unless there is one or two of special importance. We never include book chapters, lectures, speeches, posters, or the like. Major book and article awards should of course be referred to, as you did.

As matters of style: We link to all institution and society names and places the first time they appear--we link to all major concept names also--one time only. We do not link to dates. We link to the names of other people if they have a WP article. References need   to show in standard bibliographic format the full references, both to print and online versions if both exist. If there is an open access version, it should be indicated as well. An external link is necessary to the person's official web site at the university. Make absolutely certain that nothing at all is copied from there or any other previous publication or web site. (It is possible to give permission if you own the copyright, but the way it's written is usually so s unsuitable that it isn't worth the trouble)

`minorinc&&

Promotional articles on minor companies often have clear signs. One of them is a great many weak citations for an apparently insignificant company. With respect to notability, articles that include very minor awards give the impression that there are no major awards. Articles that emphasise the foundation and initial funding of a company give the impression that there is little in the way of actual accomplishments. Articles that use mainly press releases for references imply that they is nothing better. Articles that use local journals for references imply that there's nothing widely known. Articles that include trivial articles on trivial charities imply there is nothing major. As for promotionalism, articles that list every officer of a company imply that the intent is to promote the company; articles that emphasi&&e the founder's motivations imply that also; articles that use buzzwords like "solution" imply that the editor doesn't know how to write anything other than a press release. Articles that include vague terms of praise or excellence imply that the editor does not understand the difference between that and an encyclopedia. If the company is notable, there will be better material than this. If it isn't present, it indicates either a promotional intent, or that it isn't there--or, sometimes, that it's an over-hasty job by a coi editor

`nowcoi&& There are 3 problems: first, just as you said on the talk p, the article was devoted in large part to explaining how important the organi&&ation is. That is exactly what we mean by promotionalism-- it applies to non-profit organi&&ation just as much as to corporations. An encyclopedia does not do that: it describes what. an organi&&ation is, and what it does. Second, it does this based on references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. None of the references in the article were of this nature. If an article doe not do more than repeat what would go on an organi&&ations's web p., it is not an encycopedia  article.

Third, and most important, you are obviously a contributor with a conflict of interest. Our rules about that are at WP:Conflict of interest. In particular, see our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. What this means is that you need to do 4 things:

1. make a new account, using a name that represents an individual, but that shows the connection, e.g.. Lou at NCCC. It need not be your real name, but it must be used by only one person.

2. Declare explicitly on that page, and on the talk page of any article with which you have a conflict of interest, that you have such a conflict of interest.

3. If you wish to start an article on the subject, use the WP:Article Wizard. Do not write it in mainspace. The purpose of this is to help you make sure the article will not be considered promotional  and consequently be rejected.

4. Any time you wish to add information to any WP article about your organi&&ation, or any other group with which you have a COI you must suggest the material on the article talk page, and add a  notice so it can be evaluated. You may not edit the main article except for uncontroversial updates on matters of fact for which you have reliable sources.
 * These rules are not optional. To assist you in following them, I must block your present account, as explained in the formal notice below.

`nomore&&

There are several hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. Do you want your organi&&ation to be a good example, or another bad example?

`notadd&&

In earlier years WP accepted many such promotional of non-notable articles, but as we have become a more attractive place  for attempted advertising, our standards have risen. It will be many years until we remove the 50,000 or so articles we need to get rid of, but the least we can do is not add to them.

&lt;/nowiki&gt; notonly&&

Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia   `notonly2&&  It's going to be argued that the firm is notable. But it does not matter. Borderline notability combined with promotionalism is an equally good reason. Accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia. And it's unreasonable to expect volunteers to rewrite properly the hundreds of thousands of paid promotional articles that other people were paid for writing improperly. `nowbanned&&

This is undoubtedly paid editing in violation of the terms of use. (the current tou requiring identification went into effect June 16, 2014. This article was started by the now-banned editor/sockmaster on  . He was banned a few days later. It doesnt qualify for speedy deletion as G5 because there were substantial good faith edits by others. But that just means it requires discussion, not that it should be kept.     We are benefitted when such articles are deleted, because it removes the work from Wikipedia, where the continued presence of such articles is a disgrace. Deleting it also helps to explain to naive outsiders why they should not make use of unethical paid editors. It will be easy enough to start again from scratch by someone responsible.

`onlywaynew&& The only acceptable way to do this is to make a new account under some name, but not the name of your company, declare on the user page that you have a conflict of interest with the company, and then use  Articles for Creation . There you can have your text evaluated and worked on by other editors to ensure it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion. Please note that Wikipedia is not a business or web directory. For more information, see  and our notability requirements at . You should also be aware that the Wikipedia community strongly discourages articles written by individuals close to a subject because of the difficulty in writing objectively about your organi&&ation, yourself, your family, or your work, in line with Wikipedia's conflict of interest    If you do try to write the page, please note that you must show the notability of the company by substantial published articles about it in reliable source that are not press releases or based on press releases, and you must describe the company, not say how good it is, nor give information primarily of use to   prospective customers. If you do not have adequate sources for the sort of article that one might expect to find in an encyclopedia, please do not try, as it will surely not be accepted.

`onlywayw&&

It is possible that you have a Conflict of Interest with respect to the subject. If you do, you should be aware that the Wikipedia community strongly discourages articles written by individuals close to a subject because of the difficulty in writing objectively about your organi&&ation, yourself, your family, or your work, in line with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline. The acceptable way to proceed is to declare on your user page that you have a conflict of interest with the subject, and then use WP:Articles for Creation. There you can have your text evaluated and worked on by other editors to ensure it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion. I also call your attention to our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure   If you try to write the page, please note that you must show the notability of the company by substantial published articles about it in reliable sources that are not press releases or based on press releases, and you must describe the subject, not say how good or important it is, nor give information primarily of use to prospective clients or donors. If you do not have adequate sources for the sort of article that one might expect to find in an encyclopedia, please do not try, as it will surely not be accepted. I also call your attention to our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure   If you do try to write the page, please note that you must show the notability of the company by substantial published articles about it in reliable source that are not press releases or based on press releases, and you must describe the company, not say how good it is, nor give information primarily of use to   prospective customers. If you do not have adequate sources for the sort of article that one might expect to find in an encyclopedia, please do not try, as it will surely not be accepted. It is possible that you have a Conflict of interest with respect to the article. If you do, you should be aware that the Wikipedia community strongly discourages articles written by individuals close to a subject because of the difficulty in writing objectively about your organi&&ation, yourself, your family, or your work, in line with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline. The acceptable way to proceed is to declare on your user page that you have a conflict of interest with the subject, and then use  WP:Articles for Creation. There you can have your text evaluated and worked on by other editors to ensure it meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion.

`your&& Wikipedia is not a directory. See our rules on  what  makes an organi&&ation notable. In particular, you will need references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements. In addition, Our articles describe the subject, not advocate for it or praise it, and are directed not to prospective clients of contributors, but to the general public  who may want the sort of information found in encyclopdias. .     From what you said, you apparently have  a conflict of interest. I remind you of our rules on Conflict of Interest. If you are associated with the organi&&ation, either directly or as a paid editor, you must declare this. See our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure

In addition, I advise you very strongly not to use any of the services who will offer to write the article for you. Almost none of them follow our Terms of us, and articles they add are immediately removed as soon as we detect them.

Other
`copyvio&&

We can not use it here without a full free license under the formalities of WP:DCM, which irrevocably permits anyone in the world for using, modify, and distributing it for any purpose, even commercial. But that is not advised, for material on a website is usually written in a promotional manner, and is generally not suitable for an encyclopedia. It is better to rewrite

`csd&&

The criteria for speedy deletion are intended to be interpreted literally, and narrowly. Before you make further deletion nominations, please read carefully WP:CSD and WP:Deletion policy.

`dcm&&

For anything previously published, there are two choices: rewrite it completely in your own words, or obtain copyright permission according to WP:DCM, which requires the copyright owner to give a license according to WP:CC BY-SA , which gives an irrevocable license for everyone in the world to use or modify the material and republish it for any purpose, even commercial. Most companies do not want to give such permission, but even if you can obtain it, the material is not suitable, because it was written promotionally, to say what the company would like to say, as is the normal purpose of a company web site. But an encyclopedia gives the information that people who have heard of the subject might want to know, which is quite different.

`mdpsych&&

(This is an article dealing with psychiatry, a branch of medicine.) The references therefore need to be of WP:MEDRS standard, which means the use of recent authoritative reviews rather than isolated primary articles from the medical literature. It also means that terms such has 'significantly" need numerical values.

`newschool&&

I suppose they are relying on the recent RfC. The recent RfC said first that there was no consensus to use SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and there was no consensus to change the rule that high schools areto be considered notable. That not very helpful close leaves us in the same state as before, except that we need to use a longer argument. That we consider them notable is part of a rational compromise by which we do not consider elementary schools notable. Before we had the compromise we had 10 or 20 afds a day on both,and the results were no better than random, depending on how much energy the proponents of each position had. If we want to clog up afd again with decisions that really don't matter, we can go back to then, and once more have a random selection. I think we need to concentrate our effort onto things that matter.

`otrs&&

I'm one of the volunteers at Wikipedia that deal with questions of this sort particularly for articles like this. I think I can help you, or at least explain the situation to you.

`otrs2&&

I'm one of the volunteers at Wikipedia that deal with questions of this sort. I think I can help you, or at least explain the situation to you. The email you sent us is indeed the way to learn how to deal with it.

Wikipedia is composed of volunteers, and there is no central editing organi&&ation. It usually doesn't work out well when you do the Wikipedia writing yourself for your own organi&&ation So you're dependent on the volunteers--and they are dependent on having access to sourced information--our rule is, we go with the sources. What you can do best is to provide the sources. Make an account in an individual name and indicate on the account's user page your affiliation. (You can use a pseudonym if you like, but you still must indicate the affiliation).

Then find some sources for us. Your own web site is usable for routine information, but for anything involving interpretation, we need a published 3rd party reliable source--usually a book, maga&&ine or newspaper, print or online. Give these sources, with full information, on the article's talk p. For print sources, include a paragraph excerpt.

Above your suggested material on the talk page,   place a  tag (include the double curly braces on each side)

`overliteral&&

I consider as a general principle sources showing publicity are not RS for N or anything else either. Sources showing accomplishments in the field by sources reliable in that field are what is needed. The GNG applied over-literally, is so paradoxical that  I would at least  modify it  in that fashion

`req&&

Then add a line reading (include both pairs of curly brackets) and someone will come in a few days  to look at the suggestion.

`rfa&&

the reason I became an admin was specifically to look at deleted articles to see what I could rescue, as I said at my almost unanimous AfD back in 2007.) Requests for adminship/DGG

`speedy&& Your patrolling of new pages is generally quite helpful, but please be a little more careful about speedy nominations. I and others have needed to decline a number of your nominations. The criterion for speedy deletion by A7 is just some plausible indication of importance, which is deliberately much less than actual notability. Please re-read WP:CSD and WP:Deletion Policy before making further nominations. (And also WP:N, including all the special rules. )

`welcome&&

I urge you to continue to contribute here, and I suggest you start by reading WP:Welcome to Wikipedia, followed by WP:A primer for newcomers,  and then Contributing to Wikipedia and WP:Your first article. There's a great deal of very useful things to do here, and you'll learn by practice.

`women&&

It is indeed essential that we expand the coverage on notable women; we do this by adding articles on notable women. Adding articles on women who are not notable detracts from the purpose of the project, and is just as improper as adding articles on non-notable men. Using a lower standard for women implies that women cannot do as well as men. In other contexts such a statement would be seen as patronizing and misogynistic; it this context I understand that's not the intended implication, but it is misguided.

<!--

short
`sa ===Status and Advice===

`3p&& references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements

`ac&&

`ara&& :As reviewing administrator, I deleted the article. On the now deleted talk p. you said :

`araok&& :As reviewing administrator, I did not delete the article.

`arbe&& davidgoodman.wiki@gmail.com

`askme&& If you have any questions or need any help, just ask me on my talk page

`awc&& {According to WorldCat, the book is held in  libraries

`awca&& According to WorldCat, the book is held in libraries

`buro&& bureaucracy

`bury&& bureaucratic

`c&& Comment:

`ca&&

`coiw&& https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

`dd&& *Delete.

`dd2&&
 * Delete on two grounds: first, non-notble based on the analysis of the sources. Second, clear promotionalism.

`dnre&& Do not resubmit unless you have much better references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements.

`dn&& does not

`e&& encyclopedia

`ec&& encyclopedic

`es&& encyclopedias

`external&& When we refer to an organi&&ation  that does not have a Wikipedia page, we do not make an external link that gives the impression that it does. See WP:ELPOINTS number 2.

`first&& First check for sources; then, only if not found, nominate for deletion at AfD.

`gl&& genealogical `gy&& genealogy

`if&& If you can do this, add the information and resubmit; otherwise an article will not be possible.

`ifiran&& I may have my own views about what might be desirable if I ran WP. I may similarly have my own views about what might be desirable if I ran the Real World.

`kk&& *Keep.

`myadvice&& You will understand that all of this is my own personal thoughts on the matter, and the most realistic advice I can give  on what is likely to succeed.

`n&& notable

`ny&& notability

`nn&&` non-notable

`paid&& < Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure >

`pl&& promotional

`pm&& promotionalism

`pldef&& Promotional articles (and web sites) tell the reader what the ocmpany would like them to know; in contrast, encyclopedia articles say what the general public might reasonable want to know, having heard of the company.

`port&& Portuguese

`nr&&

`prodcorp&& Mentioned in a few local media articles about fast growing companies, but not significant coverage (many of the refs are press releases and similar types of links that don't meet WP:RS.

`question&& Question where have you checked for sources?

`re&&

==References==