User talk:Kidswishpr1

(Moving the following comment which was posted at the top of Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard, and adding a help-me tag. --McGeddon (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC))

Hello. We are attempting to update our page with additional 3rd party links and content. When we do the update, the content is then removed by an unknown editor and replaced with other content within 24 hours which does not reflect an accurate or all-encompassing view of our organization. We need help in understanding why our edits to our own page are being removed and how we might be able to get them to be posted. If someone could guide us so that we may add content to our page that would be much appreciated. We hope we have followed proper Wikipedia guidelines as a first step to resolving this matter. Thank you. Kidswishpr1 (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * What page is it that you are talking of?
 * TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I assume this refers to the Kids Wish Network article, in particular to this edit? There are a couple of problems. First of all, your username may be in violation of Wikipedia's username policy because it implies shared use and may be seen as promotional. Wikipedia accounts are for individuals, not for corporations. You may want to change the username or, since the account hasn't made any relevant edits yet, abandon this account and create a new one with an acceptable username.
 * Secondly, that June 20 edit got things badly wrong. It broke the article's formatting (that's a pretend reference list, not a true Wikipedia-style reference list where the footnotes link to the notes in the article text and vice versa, for example) as if the content had been copied and pasted from some other wiki page - from that page's displayed content, not from the underlying wikicode, that is. Many of the sources were primary or unreliable sources. Significant parts of the content cited no sources whatsoever. Furthermore, parts of those edits introduced an unduly promotional tone. For these reasons the June 20 edit and a subsequent similar edit by Applesandairplanes were reverted. On July 3 we had another series of edits that whitewash the article by omitting any mention of the massive negative publicity this charity has received, while once again breaking the code in the process (though not quite as badly as before).
 * Please have a look at our guideline on conflicts of interest and our policy on a neutral point of view, especially the part on undue weight. The latter implies that we should cover all viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. We cannot just ignore the parts of the coverage we don't like. Huon (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)