User talk:Pistachiolaura

Your submission at Articles for creation: LaTosha Brown (January 6)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:

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:LaTosha Brown 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:LaTosha Brown, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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:LaTosha_Brown Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AngusWOOF&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:LaTosha_Brown reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Help with COI/BLP question?
Yesterday I spent 3 hours researching the appropriate way to handle COI on many different wikipedia guides. The clear consensus of written wikipedia COI protocols was to post requested edits on the talk page for my wikipedia page. Even that felt too promotional for me, so I kept it on my personal talk page to ensure i would not upset anyone. The first section of my proposed edits are legitimate and straightforward things like typos.

The second section I was less clear how to handle, but given the profile has typos, is missing several of my publications, identifiers and other reliable sources, and is marked that it needs more of those, I did my earnest best and left it here on this page for the volunteer community to decide.

within TWO MINUTES, someone came here to my personal talk page to delete a good faith question that i asked here. Why that instead of posting a comment to disagree with what I did or tell me what I should do. That feels a lot like "don't bite the newbies."

How does one submit additional reliable sources that have been requested by the community while honoring COI?
 * I would suggest asking the person who deleted your question. If you need more help with this, plaese let me know on this talk page with.

64.121.103.144 (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

My original COI question because i truly don't understand why it was deleted when all written COI guides recommend this for BLP/Auto
e-w

COI material for A. PROPOSED EDITS + B. NEW SOURCES for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Fitton

Sorry I am not a more experienced wikipedia editor who would better know which of these sources belongs on a subject page and thanks in advance for any support or advice. Please don't bite the newbie again.

A. PROPOSED EDITS (photo, identifiers, typos)

✅ 1. Photo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Avatar_sept_26.jpg Headshot of Laura @Pistachio Fitton (she/her)

✅ 2. Identifiers for wikidata Employer/Company website http://enough.co (Since July 2019, I am not a HubSpot employee) Google Scholar https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=XxzfQ9YAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3325-4755 Twitter https://twitter.com/Pistachio Facebook https://www.facebook.com/PistachioLJ VIAFs: http://viaf.org/viaf/9941159477908227990001, http://viaf.org/viaf/51274796 & http://viaf.org/viaf/144490962 ISNI: https://isni.org/isni/0000000097613719 Worldcat: https://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no95040541/

✅ 3. Typo: Larua instead of Laura NOW: Article on Larua Fitton at Mashable NEW: Article on Laura Fitton at Mashable

✅ 4. Typo: words missing NOW: and a Women NEW: and she received a Women

✅ 5. Typo O vs o (legally oneforty was always spelled with a lowercase "o") NOW: Laura Fitton is the founder of Twitter app store, Oneforty and the co-Author of Twitter for Dummies. NEW: Laura Fitton is the founder of Twitter app store, oneforty and the co-Author of Twitter for Dummies. NOW: app store Oneforty which NEW: app store oneforty which

RE: NOTABILITY BANNER ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL RELIABLE SOURCES, HERE ARE SOME TO CONSIDER

B. NEW SOURCES for consideration: 1. Publications Environmental and Economic Costs of Soil Erosion https://science.sciencemag.org/content/267/5201/1117 Toxic Wastes and Race Revisited: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Toxics_Wastes_and_Race_Revisited/SAljAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1

3. News (profiles): https://xconomy.com/boston/2009/10/06/how-twitter-got-an-app-store-the-oneforty-story-part-1/ https://xconomy.com/boston/2009/10/13/how-twitter-got-an-app-store-the-oneforty-story-part-2/ https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/09/twitter-apps.html https://www.inc.com/laura-fitton/master-social-media-business.html https://venturebeat.com/2011/08/18/oneforty-acquisition/ https://mashable.com/2012/11/22/laura-fitton-ted/

4. News (coverage/quotes): http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/08/business/twitter-women/index.html https://qz.com/330353/dear-twitter-here-are-some-suggestions-tech-luminaries-have-for-you/ https://www.businessinsider.com/most-successful-techstars-startups-2012-11 https://www.forbes.com/2010/08/05/twitter-followers-social-media-marketing-online-community-forbes-woman-entrepreneurs-best-branded-women.html?sh=600e8e3c393c https://www.latimes.com/la-ca-webscout23mar23-story.html https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-VCDB-12826 https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DGB-8305 https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07awareness-t.html https://www.newsweek.com/twitters-business-model-profit-suppliers-70733 https://feld.com/archives/tag/mixergy https://www.forbes.com/sites/haydnshaughnessy/2013/04/04/the-top-20-women-social-media-power-influencers/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/twitter-hashtag-chats-emerge-as-future-of-author-driven-book-marketing/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2009/04/03/demi-moore-tweets-help-save-san-jose-woman-who-sent-suicidal-messages/ https://mashable.com/2009/04/14/boston/ https://www.cio.com/article/2430964/twitter--how-to-get-started-guide-for-business-people.html https://mashable.com/2011/03/11/twitter-api-clients/ |

4. Sources to substantiate additional occupation as a professional speaker: https://www.maconferenceforwomen.org/speakers/laura-fitton/ | https://speakerpedia.com/speakers/laura-fitton | https://vimeo.com/channels/136576/15270754 | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-b-1ZSOJLI | https://www.maconferenceforwomen.org/speakers/laura-fitton/ | https://www.ncwit.org/profile/laura-fitton | https://www.theagentsofchange.com/laura-fitton-aoc2015/ | https://therealtimereport.com/ny11/speakers/laura-fitton/ | https://vimeo.com/25888878 | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdyIEPVovvc | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZgvbTTRNVA | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghfFubHIesA

5. Podcast Episodes: Social Media Examiner https://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/twitter-for-business-with-laura-fitton/ | Mixergy: https://mixergy.com/interviews/oneforty-laura-fitton/ | Mixergy: https://mixergy.com/interviews/oneforty-what-happens-when-you-build-your-business-on-someone-elses-platform-with-laura-fitton/ | TWiT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F8RGzamzzo | Anatomy of a Strategy: https://trulyinc.com/truly-news/anatomy-of-a-strategy-podcast-37-laura-fitton | How to be useful: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3cWsLj8r7SZzqLEEjI3vlz


 * In order:
 * A1) You need to be asking this on Talk:Laura Fitton to seek a consensus for it.
 * A2) Wikidata is an entirely separate project from Wikipedia.
 * A3) I'd consider the external link to be kinda worthless. It should be removed.
 * A4) This is reasonable.
 * A5) Also seems reasonable.
 * As to your sources, I need more time than I have right now to assess all of them. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 20:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * And as to your sources....
 * https://science.sciencemag.org/content/267/5201/1117 would be helpful if we were making a strong WP:NACADEMIC claim; unfortunately we're not, so this is of limited value as a reference.
 * https://www.google.com/books/edition/Toxics_Wastes_and_Race_Revisited/SAljAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1 is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Anything Fitton has said, written, filmed, commissioned, or otherwise had any direct hand in creating is unhelpful for notability and can only be used to cite non-controversial statements.
 * https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/09/twitter-apps.html is useless for notability (too sparse). The article is primarily about oneforty itself; we do not accept notability-by-osmosis as a valid argument for inclusion.
 * https://www.inc.com/laura-fitton/master-social-media-business.html is walled and thus I cannot assess it. The same applies to the Wall Street Journal sources.
 * https://venturebeat.com/2011/08/18/oneforty-acquisition/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Article's about oneforty's acquisition, with very little about Fitton.
 * https://mashable.com/2012/11/22/laura-fitton-ted/ is useless for notability (If it isn't for want of an identifiable author it's a connexion to subject). Most editors will look at a "role" byline (i.e. "news desk", basically a byline that identifies a role or organisation as opposed to an actual person) and consider it suspect since the usual practise for native advertising and similar is to give it a role byline.
 * http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/08/business/twitter-women/index.html is useless for notability (too sparse) - listicles generally are.
 * https://qz.com/330353/dear-twitter-here-are-some-suggestions-tech-luminaries-have-for-you/ is useless for notability (too sparse). The "coverage" of here here consists solely of a quote.
 * https://www.businessinsider.com/most-successful-techstars-startups-2012-11 is useless for notability (too sparse). It'd be useless for notability even if the subject were oneforty, as it's as shallow as a saucer.
 * https://www.forbes.com/2010/08/05/twitter-followers-social-media-marketing-online-community-forbes-woman-entrepreneurs-best-branded-women.html?sh=26e9d2f9393c is useless for notability unless and until we can prove it was written by Forbes' staff and not a "contributor".
 * https://www.newsweek.com/twitters-business-model-profit-suppliers-70733 is useless for notability (too sparse).
 * This is part 1. If I didn't mention a source, that means I could find nothing glaringly wrong with it. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 21:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Part 2:
 * https://feld.com/archives/tag/mixergy is useless for notability (Even were it not a tag search the one hit it brings up is self-published opinion).
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/haydnshaughnessy/2013/04/04/the-top-20-women-social-media-power-influencers/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Listicle.
 * https://www.mercurynews.com/2009/04/03/demi-moore-tweets-help-save-san-jose-woman-who-sent-suicidal-messages/ is useless for notability (too sparse). The only "discussion" of her in the article is what she herself says.
 * https://mashable.com/2009/04/14/boston/ is useless for notability (too sparse. Listicle.
 * https://www.cio.com/article/2430964/twitter--how-to-get-started-guide-for-business-people.html is useless for notability (too sparse). Most of where she's in the article are arguments she's making, and what isn't a quote from her is a name-drop that doesn't discuss her in any appreciable depth.
 * https://mashable.com/2011/03/11/twitter-api-clients/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Again, the only "discussion" of her is what she says.
 * https://www.maconferenceforwomen.org/speakers/laura-fitton/ is useless for notability, as is every other "She's scheduled to speak/is speaking at" source, all for the exact same reason (connexion to subject). When it comes to events and organisations a subject is affiliated with, we consider them to be tantamount to the subject themselves when it comes to reliability for them. You could cite such pages to prove that she was scheduled to speak at the conference, but as a citation for notability this would not work.
 * Speakerpedia is useless for notability (no editorial oversight). From their About Us: Any community member can suggest new speakers, edit profiles, and save and share favorites.
 * https://vimeo.com/channels/136576/15270754 is useless for notability (If not a link to a content-free page, then connexion to subject). Linking to channels is meaningless. You need to be linking to specific videos, and again, anything Fitton had any direct influence or contribution in creating is unusable for notability and is only usable to cite uncontroversial claims.
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-b-1ZSOJLI is useless for notability, and I will say the same for every other YouTube link and for https://vimeo.com/25888878, all for the exact same reason (Connexion to subject).
 * https://www.ncwit.org/profile/laura-fitton is useless for notability (unknown provenance). Who wrote it?
 * https://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/twitter-for-business-with-laura-fitton/ is useless for notability (Connexion to subject). Interviews are by their nature primary sources, since it's the subject talking.
 * https://mixergy.com/interviews/oneforty-laura-fitton/ " " " " (" " "). " " " " " " ", " " " " ".
 * https://mixergy.com/interviews/oneforty-what-happens-when-you-build-your-business-on-someone-elses-platform-with-laura-fitton/ " " " " (" " "). " " " " " " ", " " " " ".
 * https://trulyinc.com/truly-news/anatomy-of-a-strategy-podcast-37-laura-fitton is useless for notability (connexion to subject). She was part of that episode of the podcast.
 * https://open.spotify.com/episode/3cWsLj8r7SZzqLEEjI3vlz " " " " (" " "). " " " " " " " " ".
 * And that should be all of the sources looked at. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 21:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I suggest to ask User: Robert McClenon. 64.121.103.144 (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I have implemented the small corrections, added the headshot, and included the 3 references that I think might merit some notability (the XConomy and the ZDnet ones). The rest, as Bori mentioned before, don’t help establish notability. Ferkjl (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Promotion on your userspace.
Hi, I believe you asked me a question on my talk page. I am here to respond.

I removed your talk contribution because an edit filter detected that you used possibly self-promoting language in your talk page. I apologize if I responded to a false positive. Please try to be cautious when writing pages and other texts, and try not to be too self-promoting when contributing to Wikipedia.

Thanks, Phantasm99 (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Phantasm99. Pistachiolaura (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)