User talk:Monica Aldana1986

Your submission at Articles for creation: Scott M. Weber (July 25)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gbawden was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Scott M. Weber and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Scott M. Weber, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help 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_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Scott_M._Weber Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gbawden&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Scott_M._Weber reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Gbawden (talk) 06:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Scott M. Weber


A tag has been placed on Draft:Scott M. Weber requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.interpeace.org/member/scott-m-weber/. 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. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Dsiclosure of employment
Hello Monica Aldana1986. 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 Interpeace, and that 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:Monica Aldana1986. 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, please do not edit further until you answer this message. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Copyright and conflict of interest
Thank you for your interest in creating an article for Interpeace on Wikipedia. There are multiple problems with your submission. You cannot post copyrighted material on Wikipedia even if you are the copyright holder, unless special licensing permissions are in place. In short, a copyright owner cannot offer Wikipedia a one-time license for use. Rather, the copyright to the material has to be released – permanently and irrevocably – into the public domain or under a free copyright license that is compatible with Wikipedia's licenses. This is because Wikipedia aims to be freely distributable and copyable by anyone, so all content must be licensed for that purpose. You can learn more about this policy at Copyrights. The second problem is conflict of interest. Writing an article about your own organization or that of a client is strongly discouraged, as it is difficult to maintain the required neutral point of view.

If you'd like to use the copyrighted content in an article, you can follow the instructions at Requesting copyright permission on how to obtain the proper licensing. If you are the copyright holder, refer to Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for how to grant us permission to use your content. Alternatively, you could write a new article that does not closely paraphrase the material available online. See Copying text from other sources for more information. However you would then still have to abide by the conflict of interest guideline. In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

I'm sorry this message could not be more favourable. If you have any questions, you can leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 05:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)