User talk:Shasanpr

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Shasanpr. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

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).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016
There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I am very confused and had no idea that Wikipedia made putting up information so difficult. This was simply an informational page on a documentary from a third world country regarding social issues. Its ok to put up informational pages on Hollywood blockbusters but so many blocks and issues arise when we are trying to provide information on an independent documentary that really needs and deserves it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shasanpr (talk • contribs) 11:04, 18 May 2016‎


 * The main issue here wasn't that you wrote it as much as how you wrote the article. Here's a list of the issues with the article:
 * The article contained content that was taken directly from other places such as the film's official website. Copyright is automatically assumed with any content published elsewhere unless the website (or other applicable place) is clearly marked as falling under CC BY-SA. In other words, the website has to say that the content is not under any restrictive copyrights that would keep it from being freely republished elsewhere. This is unlikely to happen with a film or any venture that someone hopes to profit off of.
 * The article contained large block quotes of such length that it would fall under WP:COPYVIO. Quotes should ideally only be 1-2 sentences long, if not shorter. Using an exceedingly lengthy quote could be seen as putting undue weight on the quote.
 * The article was written in a very promotional tone, to where it came across like the sole purpose of the entry was to get people to see the film. This is not the purpose of a Wikipedia article and the article is meant to inform, not to sell them on the idea of purchasing a DVD or ticket to watch Lyari Note. No matter how noble the documentary's mission or how deserving the film might be, the article cannot read as promotional. This brings up another issue with the block quotes: the larger the quote you use, the easier it is for the article to read as promotional.
 * The article lacked a lot of coverage in independent and reliable sources. You linked to the Hindu's coverage, but one source is not enough to establish notability and in order to pass WP:NFILM you need a lot of coverage. Now when it came to the review quotes, the problem with those is that not only were they unsourced, but they did not appear to be in places that Wikipedia would consider reliable. Review/reception opinions are generally considered to be unusable unless they're published somewhere that Wikipedia considers to be reliable like a trusted newspaper or film website like Twitch Film. Getting praise from the heads or representatives of various organizations is nice and I'm not trying to knock these people, but they're almost never considered to be reliable sources on Wikipedia. This is usually because it's very rare that they're published in places Wikipedia would consider to be reliable but also because in many cases the organizations have some sort of conflict of interest with the topic, like they hosted or sponsored a showing of the movie. (On a side note, films are not automatically notable because they exist or cover important and timely topics. It'd be nice if they did since there are a lot of films out there I think should have articles, but NFILM became very strict out of necessity.)
 * Now I did create a new version of the article - I didn't really find any reviews at this point in time that Wikipedia would consider reliable but I did manage to find enough overall news coverage to where it should pass NFILM as a whole. When I deleted the page it was with the expectation that I would create a new article that fell within Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality, sourcing, and notability.
 * On a side note, I do appreciate that you posted that you were part of a PR company that I assume was paid to create the article. However the issue here was that conflict of interest disclosures must be placed on the article talk page or (ideally, if you're planning on making multiple pages) on your user page. You shouldn't be posting this on the article itself and it's generally a bad idea to link to your Linkedin profile since that can come across as you promoting yourself to future clients. This might not have been your intent, but you do need to be careful of this.
 * Now while I do think that you were here to promote awareness of the film, I don't necessarily think that you were here to write an over the top promotional article. (There is a difference between the two.) This is actually a fairly common issue with PR persons that come on to Wikipedia since you're used to writing in a promotional tone, so much so that it's very difficult to pick up on whether or not the content is over the top promotional or not.
 * Now you can be unblocked, but you need to do a few things:
 * First you will need to change your username to something that doesn't come across like it's a PR agency name. I'd actually recommend just dropping the "PR" from your username. You will still need to disclose your COI, which you can do on your userpage. I'd recommend not linking to the Linkedin page and just putting down that you're a PR person hired to edit on behalf of clients.
 * For the time being, only create articles via the Articles for Creation process. You're new and inexperienced with articles, so editing at AfC would be best since you'd have more opportunity to fix any issues as they arise. The only thing to be careful of is copyrighted material. If you're reposting content from elsewhere then the article can be deleted without giving you the chance to remove the problematic prose.
 * I would heavily recommend you going through one of the training modules on Wikipedia, at either WP:TRAINING or WP:ADVENTURE. The latter is more interactive and leaves a record of you going through training, which is why I'd recommend Adventure since showing proof of training can help foster goodwill on here.
 * That's pretty much about it. I think that you mean well, but you do need to be careful about how you write things on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  16:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)