User talk:Umw9543

Your submission at Articles for creation: Al Ameer Restaurant (June 28)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 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 after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Al Ameer Restaurant 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:Al Ameer Restaurant, 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 the next 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:Al_Ameer_Restaurant Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:S0091&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Al_Ameer_Restaurant reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 00:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Al Ameer Restaurant has been accepted
 Al Ameer Restaurant, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask 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_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Al_Ameer_Restaurant help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Bkissin (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Umw9543. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Mark Schlissel, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Your edits are clearly promotional, and their function is to make the subject look as good as possible--but based on primary sources, and with non-neutral language. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey Drmies,
 * I think you're going a little overboard reversing my contributions to the Mark Schlissel page. I became interested in Mark Schlissel's time at michigan when his firing was widely reported in michigan news outlets and reddit communities that i follow. i made an effort to source everything as thoroughly as possible. the sourcing relies heavily on UM-sponsored publications, but not on promotional material. i strongly disagree that my edits are "clearly promotional." the article overall tries to describe the complexity of schlisssel's time at michigan, and includes abundant negative information, or other material implicitly or explicitly critical of the subject. many of your edits have simplified the flow and improved the article's clarity, which i appreciate. whenever you are done editing I will take another look at the content and reverse any of your edits that i felt removed factual and relevant information, but i will take your warning to heart and be vigilant to remove any personal commentary or bias from the article. to be clear: i am not a paid editor. Umw9543 (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, Umw9543. In future, please do not use citations for claims not supported by the sources, as you did here, as well as partially here and here. No original research is one of our core content policies, and this editorialising and original interpretation of events goes against that policy. Also, I advise against this intention: 'whenever you are done editing I will take another look at the content and reverse any of your edits that i felt removed factual and relevant information'. I suggest that you look at Consensus to understand how we arrive at content decisions in controversial situations such as this. Rather than restoring the cut content you want, you might be better served to follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and engage in a discussion about your controversial edits at the article talk page. Cheers, CoatGuy2 (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)