User talk:Jamyt13

International Turaco Society
Please stop spamming and edit warring. I reverted your edit because
 * it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the organisation claims. Your only reference was the organisation itself, not an independent third-party source. There is no indication that your organisation is notable enough for a section in this article; it doesn't have its own Wikipedia article, and you give no hard verifiable facts such as the number of employees, funding or expenditure to show why it should be included.
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic.
 * there shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections. That's particularly the case when they are spamlinks to affiliated sites such as the ones you added.
 * Examples of unsourced or self-sourced claims presented as fact include:  have an impact on wild populations... unite turaco enthusiasts around the world.&mdash; the article is about the bird family, not your organisation. We don't normally have separate sections even for far more important groups such as the RSPB or the World Wide Fund for Nature


 * You said We feel that the turaco society should have more than just a tiny link at the bottom of the page for a society dedicated to the 23 species. Who is We? If you have a conflict of interest when editing this article, you must declare it. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that your organisation is notable enough for a section in a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request on the article talk page for your text, in a less spammy form, to be added. See also guidance for editors with conflicts of interest. What your organisation wants is irrelevant, there are all sorts of companies and organisations that try to spam on Wikipedia, it's not allowed.
 * If you work directly or indirectly for the organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you 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 paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, 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:. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:    . If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.

Note that undeclared paid editing, persistent spamming and edit warring can all lead to blocks on editing. Please discuss on the talk page, don't just keep re-adding your promotional spam-linked text. I probably won't block you myself if you ignore this message, since I'm involved, but other admins will pick up your disruptive editing and take appropriate action.

Jimfbleak - talk to me?  05:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)