User talk:AlanaRomo

Gabriela Teissier Zavala moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Gabriela Teissier Zavala, does not have enough sources and citations for some of the key information as written to remain published. She is almost certainly notable, but the problem is that our rules on biography of livign people require allstatementsto be referenced to a reliable source.

In particular, the Emmy awards must referenced, and so must the charitable work. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've returned your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When  ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.

Please do not move the draft yourself--it defeats the purpose of reviewing DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello AlanaRomo, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Gabriela Teissier Zavala have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Translation. See also Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

September 2019
Hello AlanaRomo. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Gabriela Teissier, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:AlanaRomo. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Before replying please consider very carefully what you will say because I have very very strong reason to believe that you created this article to promote the subject and you have neglected to make the necessary declaration of conflict of interest as per WP:PAID. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Domeparis, I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits, nor am I promoting any subject. I am solely using this article to get editing credits and gain experience with Wiki. I chose to do this subject because she did not have one. After doing my research thoroughly on the subject, I drafted the article and published it. In regards to all the edits on my behalf it is due to the fact I am always suggested changes by the Wiki team or other users. So I am constantly editing the article to make the changes accordingly. All in all, I just want to ensure that the article is as accurate as possible as when it was published because that is only fair to the subject. Also I would like to send a cleanup invitation so I can get help with the process.


 * Are you absolutely sure that you have no connexion whatsoever with the subject of the article that you created? That you do not work for any organisation that she has connexions with or works for? Please read WP:PAID before replying. I am trying to assume good faith but as I said I have very very strong reason to believe that this is the case. As I am forbidden by Privacy policy to say why I believe this I will not go into any further detail but i am giving you a chance to make the necessary declaration before I take this matter to the administrators. Undeclared paid editing can and usually does lead to a block if the editor has been asked to make the declaration of conflict of interest and they deny the COI despite compelling evidence that they do have one. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

While I understand where you are coming from, I have no reason to lie about this matter. I do not work for any organization that is affiliated with the subject. I created this Wiki article as it was a required project for an undergrad college course which was not limited to maintaining the article and making it as accurate as possible so it would not violate any Wiki policies. Again if you are referring to the nature of the edits, those were suggestions from other users that I used.

Disambiguation link notification for December 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gabriela Teissier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RIAS. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)