User talk:Truenaturefoundation

Welcome!
Hello, Truenaturefoundation, 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 any other 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 firm 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.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful: 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! Katieh5584 (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
 * The five pillars of 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

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Uruz Project


A tag has been placed on Draft:Uruz Project, 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, product, group, service or person 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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Katieh5584 (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC) --- Truenaturefoundation (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Dear Katie, i see you did put a deletion request within a minute after the page was posted. This is extremely fast and harsh, also because it is a draft page that hasn't been published yet. If I want to confront you with this, I see I cannot even talk to you, because your page has been protected. When I submit a text to a peer reviewing audience, like for instance Plosone, I expect feedback, but i don't expect the text or article to be deleted and certainly not without proper feedback. This is not done. It hinders any form of constructive conversation about content and style. Simply deleting things, certainly an unpublished draft version, is a bit too harsh for my taste, no matter what your feedback is. Best wishes, Henri Kerkdijk-Otten

Your submission at Articles for creation: Uruz Project (May 11)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved. ''' Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! '''
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Draft:Uruz Project.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * 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 Articles for creation help desk], or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Josve05a&action=edit&section=new reviewer's talk page].
 * Please remember to link to the submission!

(t) Josve05a  (c) 00:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Your submission at AfC Uruz Project was accepted
 Uruz Project, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Redirect-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!  DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Truenaturefoundation, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

Status and Advice
This has gotten rather confused, and there are several separate problems here; Idid not spot all of them when I made the redirect yesterday. . Perhaps I can explain to you in a comprehensive manner what they are (I'm an administrator here who works regularly with new articles--and, as it happens, one who happens to have considerable interest in the subject . Your goal is apparently to make a page on the foundation, and add information on its projects. This is a very reasonable thing to do, but  it must be done properly. There are unfortunately several critical problems,  which will make it necessary to start over. If you need any assistance, please ask   directly  on   my user talk page,  and I'll respond either there or on your talk page in a day or two.   DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC) - 37.251.106.241 (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Dear DGG, actually another person wrote the bulk of the article, not me. Could you show me which parts are a copy? Yesterday's article was, but the whole article has been re-edited. Did you read the latest version?
 * 1) To start with, your user name indicates that you represent the foundation. Therefore, you must choose another user name; we have a rule that only individuals can edit, and that the user name cannot indicate the name of an organization, in order to avoid the appearance that they control the page. On the new page, declare your affiliation.  I shall have to block this user name--but this is not intended as a penalty, just that it's our policy, but you can simply take another--either your real name, which it seems you used above, or any name of your choice.
 * 2) Second, it is necessary to be careful about WP:Conflict of Interest; see our rules   here. When you   write, the best way to do it is to use the drafts namespace, as you were doing, following the steps at WP:Articles for creation.
 * 3) The page you wrote about the Foundation is highly promotional, has insufficient references to show notability, and is mostly or entirely copied from your website.
 * 4) The most critical problem is the copyright-so serious that I will have to delete the article & also the material on the project, most or all of which was copied also. : Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously; and does not accept material copied from other sources unless it is in the public domain, or released to us under a free license   (It is, by the way, not necessary for pages to have a notice to be copyright:  everything published on the internet or elsewhere is copyright to the owner of that content unless specified otherwise.)  Since it is on your own site, you could in principle give permission according to the full formalities at WP:DCM--this is permission not just for us to use it, but an irrevocable license for everyone in the world, commercial and non-commercial to use, re-publish, and modify it.
 * 5) However there is no point in doing so--a web site of this sort almost always is unsuitable for WP, because it is usually written as a press release, praising rather than describing the subject and containing material we would not include. It is therefore always better to rewrite. This is true of this material also. A Wikipedia article  needs to be written like an encyclopedia article, not a press release--don't praise the organization or person, say what they do. Don't talk about the overall importance of the subject--talk about what they have accomplished.  Include only material that would be of value to  a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective participants, supporters or donors--that sort of content is considered promotional. As a general rule, a suitable page will be best written by someone without Conflict of Interest; it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest, but it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what the subject wishes to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know. And keep in mind that the goal of an encyclopedia  is to say things in a concise manner, which is not the style of  press releases or  web sites, which are usually more expansive. Nor is it necessary to explain the background of species extinction. A WP article covers such material by linking to the appropriate articles in the encyclopedia.
 * 6) Additionally, a Wikipedia article needs to show notability with references providing substantial coverage from  3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. None of the references you used meet this requirement: the ones from reliable sources talk only about the scientific background a large mammal extinction. The others are either press releases or from your own site, directly or as copies. .  If you have good 3rd party sources, it should be possible to rewrite the article; otherwise,  it will not be possible to write an acceptable article.
 * 7) Write the page about the foundation first, including sections on all the current projects.(and at most a brief mention of future ones). Make sure everything you write has proper sources.
 * 8) You can then write a page for the separate projects, but only if there are sufficient sources to justify it. I suspect that this may not be possible until you actually have achieved the goals. Trying to write multiple pages when there is only enough material to justify one has often been used as a  promotional technique, so be careful to avoid it. Get the main article established first. Make redirects for the others.

May 2014
Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. Please read the following carefully.

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, website or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.
 * Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Probably not, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again.
 * Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?


 * What can I do now?

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you may consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead. If you do intend to make useful contributions here about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:


 * Add the text on your user talk page.
 * Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers 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 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 below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

85.223.101.14 (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Bbb23: This is strange. I reacted on DGG's post. Still haven't got an answer and you already blocked me. I have been a moderator for a website and a discussion forum myself and i have never experienced such a thing as this. I will explain.

Fact 1: I didn't create the True Nature Foundation article and i didn't write the text. DGG already deleted the text of the unpublished draft version of the other article.

Question 1: Could you please tell me why you deleted me without looking at the edit history of the articles under question?

Question 2: Why do you singlehandedly perform a delete-action while i am still in the middle of a discussion about this with another moderator?

Fact 2: I am not allowed to create an article under my own foundation name (i actually didn't, like i explained), but you do write (and thus acknowledge) that others do that for other companies or organizations. This means that you stimulate the use of anonymous usernames and anonymous contributions.

Question 3: Do you really want to make a quality online encyclopedia such as Wikipedia solely dependent on anonymous contributions or people who act under an anonymous ID, but with a hidden agenda you are not able to verify, because you do not know which person/identity you are dealing with?

To me this is a classic example of procedure over matter.

The fact that you do not take the time to have a look at the edit-history or the actual content of the article(s), BUT do take the time to take such a drastic and harsh measure, does not represent a proper way of conduct for a moderator of such a high quality online encyclopedia. The same goes for Katie who asked for a 'delete' within one minute after the article was unpublished as a draft version. That means; without even bother to read it.

What really annoyed me is that you close with a remark like "if you get on your knees before a moderator you might, after some time, be allowed to come back again".

Is this really how Wikipedia receives newcomers and perceives the role of its moderators?

I will have a look if i can take this up somewhere in the higher echelons of Wikipedia.

Best wishes,

Henri Kerkdijk-Otten
 * Don't use an IP address to contest your block. Worse, don't use the same IP address to edit anything else at Wikipedia while you are still blocked. That's called block evasion, and if you do it again, I'll block the IP address. If you want to contest the block, log in as yourself, and request an unblock with an explanation per the instructions in the block notice above. As long as I'm here, what relationship do you have with User:Primigenius1, who is a new account and is editing the same articles as you are? (I'm ignoring all of your hyperbole as it doesn't merit a response. Wikipedia welcomes newcomers, but they have to abide by Wikipedia's policies.)--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)