User talk:Kmeneghin

Bell Let's Talk
I reverted you here because your edit removed sourced material and added incorrect formatting. Read WP:Verifiability, WP:Citing sources and WP:Manual of Style. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I have reverted you here because you replaced existing material with an edit that appears to be written like a promotion and relies heavily on a primary source. You also removed the infobox. Please see 's comments above and read WP:PROMOTION & WP:PRIMARY. Limmidy (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018
Hello, I'm Limmidy. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Bell Let's Talk have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. You were reverted because you removed existing sourced content and added material that appears to be written like an advertisement for Bell. Limmidy (talk) 02:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi! I thought I'd help explain a little bit about why the edits keep getting reverted. While you may not have intended for the edits to be seen as promotional, it's very easy for something to become unintentionally promotional with any article, but especially one on a business, cause, or non-profit. For example, the section on how to help is problematic because it comes across as promoting what the organization does. Even though it's definitely a admirable and important cause - and I doubt that many would argue that it isn't - the article can't read as favorable towards the organization. Another issue with this is that the article is not really meant to be a page for people to seek help with mental illness (either theirs or others'), as it's meant to be a basic information page for the organization. Something else to be careful about are marketing buzzwords like "best-in-class", as these are often used to promote something and in most cases is seen as an opinion that's subjective to the reader. What may seem like it's the best quality to one may not for another, who believes that something else is superior.
 * Another thing to look out for is that your draft only has primary sources - you need to have some non-primary sources to help show where the organization is notable and to help back up major claims. Always take claims from primary sources with a bit of a grain of salt when it comes to organizations in general (profit, non-profit, etc). We can never really tell if something has been puffed up or slightly exaggerated in order to make the organization look better. This isn't always an absolutely negative thing - organizations need to market themselves, after all - but this is where independent, reliable secondary sourcing is so necessary, as it helps back up the claims and show notability. When you added your content to the article you removed the secondary sourcing that was in the article as well as an infobox about the organization, so make sure that you're careful about that.
 * Here are my recommendations for your draft:
 * Remove the "how to help" section - this is more of a general "how to" that doesn't really belong in the article.
 * Find secondary, independent sources to back up claims.
 * Summarize the four pillars into a single sentence, as the words themselves are fairly self-explanatory. So the sentence would instead be "Bell Let's Talk moves forward by promoting anti-stigma, care and access, research, and workplace health, which they believe promotes and improves mental health." This by itself is fine and opens it up to where you can briefly discuss some of the programs or initiatives they've created.
 * The funding section is OK, but just needs some tweaks. I'd rename it "funding and grants" and make it about where Bell's funding comes from to accompany the information about the funding. As far as the numbers about the people who they've helped or conversations they've had, that can be included but very carefully, like "As of 2018, Bell Let's Talk has reported that they have provided access to mental health care to over a million people and have had approximately 800,000,000 conversations." Keep the information general, as specific numbers prove an issue as far as updating goes. A secondary source would be helpful for this as well.
 * I hope that this helps - I know that this is a lengthy post, but I wanted to give you a good overview of why the info has been reverted and what you can do to fix it. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)