User talk:Tjla12

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Lisa Specht


A tag has been placed on Draft:Lisa Specht 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.manatt.com/Lisa-Specht. 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. S Philbrick (Talk)  18:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lisa Specht


A tag has been placed on Lisa Specht, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Praxidicae (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Undeclared paid editing?
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that paid editors disclose their employer and client. You can find more details on the disclosure requirements at WP:PAID. Can you please comment on whether those requirements apply to you, and make sure that you comply with them if necessary? Huon (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Lisa Specht for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lisa Specht is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Lisa Specht until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SportingFlyer  T · C  11:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Tjla12, and welcome to Wikipedia!&#32;Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article.&#32;Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Yngvadottir (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tjla12, I've reverted almost all of your changes at Lisa Specht and I noticed when I checked back here that no one has actually explained our basic guidelines and, apart from suggesting you may be a conflict-of-interest editor of some kind, how what we do differs from publicity work. I had a hand in saving the article from deletion, and I note you didn't participate in the discussion, so I don't know how familiar you now are with our criteria and practices, but see the five pillars link in the above template, and let me see whether I can articulate things clearly so your edits don't get constantly reverted and any other articles you start are less likely to be deleted. I'll link to pages with more information.

Because we're an encyclopedia, our aim is a neutral presentation based on what reliable third-party published sources say about the topic; this is both because independent coverage is the major part of our criteria for whether to have an article—we are not Who's Who or a business directory, we can't cover everyone and everything—and so the reader can rely on what we write and see where to find out more about it if they want to. That means we avoid using press releases, whether published by the organization or company itself or on a press releases website, and make minimal use of first-person sources like interviews and personal or institutional websites. In any case, since we focus so heavily on what independent sources have said in order to establish "notability" as we call it, many things mentioned in press releases, and the positive language they normally use, are irrelevant or extremely hard to convert to a useful encyclopedic addition. Our neutral, summarizing style tends to be stark and brief, just the facts with explanatory wikilinks, and when writing a new article, the two important things are that the introductory paragraph makes clear why the topic is notable (for example, Specht is notable for her civic leadership and her journalism, but not for her philanthropy) and that there are at least two strong independent references present from the start. (WP:42 is a summary of the expectations for new articles.) If these are missing or obscured by a cloud of non-neutral language and press releases, the article is probably going to be quickly proposed for deletion; if such material is later added, the article's survival will be endangered for the same reason, because it will be less obvious that it belongs in an encyclopedia.

This is related to, but not the same thing, as our rules against conflict-of-interest editing. In particular, paid editing is frowned on, and undeclared paid editing absolutely forbidden. For more on that see the template above, and Best practices for editors with close associations, which is linked from the "Plain and simple conflict of interest guide".

I hope this information will help you adapt to editing here. Thank you for giving us the article about Specht, and you are probably well placed to find press and other published sources on many notable people and institutions now that you know what kinds of sources we need. Happy editing! Yngvadottir (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)