User talk:EmploymentGuy

Speedy deletion nomination of MyJobMatcher
Hello EmploymentGuy,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged MyJobMatcher for deletion, because it seems to be an promotion, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Wakowako (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Employment website. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Creation
hello, regarding creating new articles, I will advise you use Articles for creation so other editors can further review your article to wikipedia. you can also use the sandbox to test page your article so it will not be speedy deleted. Please also check Policies and guidelines. Welcome to wikipedia. --Wakowako (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Advice on editing
Hello, EmploymentGuy. I have read your recent post at Wakowako's talk page. The idea that someone with professional knowledge of a particular subject (in this case you) can make useful contributions to cleaning up and improving articles on that subject is, of course, a good one, and your contributions will, I hope, be very useful. However, there are a few points that may be helpful to you.
 * Firstly, there are the two related issues of conflict of interest and promotion, which have already been mentioned to you, but I think it may help to elaborate a little. I don't know whether you work for MyJobMatcher, but the article you wrote about it had rather a promotional tone to it. It was not really blatant spam, and I don't suppose you meant it as an advertisement, but even if someone does not intend to write promotionally, if they are closely involved in the subject then they may find it very difficult to stand back from their writing and see how it will look from the detached point of view of an outsider. As a result, it is possible for such an "insider" to write in a way that comes over as promotional, even if they don't intend to do so. This is, in fact, one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines discourage one from writing about something one has a very close involvement in, such as a business one works for. This does not, of course, mean that you cannot write about the subject area you have a professional knowledge of, but it does mean that you need to be very careful in doing so, and in the case of writing about your own business the best thing is probably not to do so at all. Even if you are not writing about your own business, make sure you are not writing in a way which may look like promotion. For example, avoid adding links to articles the purpose of which is more to do with telling people about other web sites than to do with enhancing the content of the Wikipedia article.
 * You suggest that you may "take ownership" of articles on the subject that you know about, and work on improving them. That is exactly the sort of thing which I expected to see when I first came to editing Wikipedia somewhat over six years ago: people with knowledge in particular subject areas taking charge of articles in those areas. However, over the course of time I realised that it is fundamental to the way Wikipedia works that nobody takes ownership of any part of the content of the encyclopaedia, and everything we do is released for any other Wikipedia editors to edit. What is more, I came to realise that there are very good reasons why Wikipedia works that way. In an encyclopaedia which anyone in the world can edit, we get large numbers of people who decide to try to take control of particular content who are unsuitable to do so, for one reason or another. This includes people who think they know about a subject but don't; people who do know about a subject, but wish to impose a particular point of view because they believe that point of view is "right" and do not accept that other points of view have a right to be heard; people who actually wish to lie about a subject for some reason, such as to suppress information unfavourable to their own interests; people who sincerely wish to be helpful, but whose close involvement in one area of their subject gives them an unbalanced point of view; and so on and so on... Wikipedia does not have some sort of god-like arbitrators to decide who is and who is not a suitable person to take ownership of articles, nor would it be possible to have them, because they would have to include people with such a degree of specialist knowledge in every subject which ever might be written about that they could sit in judgement on the credentials of every one who might ever come along and claim to have knowledge of any subject. Instead, Wikipedia works on an open, collective model, where anyone can contribute anywhere. This is not a perfect system, but I am doubtful whether any substantially better one could be devised for such an enormous open collaborative project. Anyway, whether rightly or wrongly, it is the way Wikipedia works. By all means please do work to improve content in the area where you have knowledge, but be prepared for your work to be modified or at times even reverted.
 * Following from what I have just said, it is important to realise how to convey the message, when appropriate, that you really do know what you are talking about, and your edits really are valid. Among the methods to use for this purpose are:
 * 1) Providing reliable sources to support your edits;
 * 2) Making sure that your editing does not look as though it is biased or promotional, even when it isn't;
 * 3) Being willing to explain the reasons for your edits. For every edit you make you should provide a brief edit summary explaining what you are doing. (Type in the edit summary box below the main editing area.) For anything which needs a longer explanation, or which anyone else has questioned, be willing to explain your intentions on the talk page of the relevant article.
 * Time and time again over the years I have seen new editors come along, very probably enthusiastic about contributing, only to see all their work deleted and reverted. I can well imagine how frustrating that must be. Unfortunately, you seem to have started out on that road. I hope you are not put off by these early setbacks from contributing, and I would like to offer a few pieces of advice on how to avoid more of the same. In my experience, the editors who have the best experience here are mostly the ones who do not start by writing new articles, nor even making major rewrites of articles, but at first just make small improvements to existing articles. If you do that, you will gradually learn how Wikipedia works, with any mistakes you make being small ones, so you don't lose lots of work. After a while, you will know how things work well enough to be able to write articles without fear that they will disappear. Also, when you eventually do write articles, start them out as pages in your own "userspace", by creating (for example) a page called User:EmploymentGuy/MyJobMatcher rather than MyJobMatcher. Put at the top of the page, too, to make your intention clear. Work on it there, and when it is ready it can be moved out of your userspace as an article. Even a userspace draft can be speedily deleted under some circumstances, such as if it looks like outright spam, but far more allowances are made for imperfect content in such a draft page than for an actual article visible in the public part of Wikipedia.
 * Finally, please do feel welcome to contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. I don't promise to always be able to tell you what you want to know, but after over six years as an editor and nearly two and a half years as an administrator I have enough experience of how Wikipedia works to stand a good chance of being able to help. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Response to Advice
Thank you JamesBWatson for all your advice and it has been gratefully received. I think in conclusion I will take everything on board from your advice and accept the fact that in order to do anything right, it takes time, effort and must be right.

I'll keep cracking on and in the end I am sure I will get there