User talk:Francisca Goldsmith

Your submission at Articles for creation: Simon Vance has been accepted
 Simon Vance, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! TYelliot &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Contribs  15:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Simon_Vance help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Speedy deletion nomination of Simon Vance


A tag has been placed on Simon Vance, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.
 * It appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement of discogs.com/artist/7005654-Simon-Vance-2. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Atlantic306 (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Disclosure of employment
Hello Francisca Goldsmith. 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 AudioFile (magazine), 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:Francisca Goldsmith. 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. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not have any financial stake in AudioFile and received no compensation. I am a librarian who saw that the entry for this magazine seemed poorly and inadequately described. Francisca Goldsmith (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, although it appears that you still have some affiliation with the topic. Please review Wikipedia's plain and simple conflict of interest guide, as I believe it applies here. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not an appropriate WP:COI disclosure. I have removed your ability to edit until you disclose your affiliation. Additionally going forwards you are not to directly edit articles about AudioFile broadly construed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Why? I am not paid for my work on Wikipedia articles and was trying to improve the poor quality of the article which whoever wrote or last edited had been so sloppy in doing that even the magazine’s website was incorrect. I am not trying to promote the article’s subject, provided independent links for each fact, did not advertise anything. I am simply trying to improve the quality of the entry which was poor and scrambled when I read it. Francisca Goldsmith (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I am an independent consultant for libraries and library staff training. My clients include the American Library Association and the Infopeople Project (California State Library’s staff development group). Francisca Goldsmith (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And AudioFile Magazine? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

May 2019
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)