User talk:Cougarsurf

Welcome!

Hello, Cougarsurf, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RFD (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Athletic has been accepted

The Athletic, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-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. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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 help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

—Bagumba (talk) 08:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Evan Goldstein (December 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Winged Blades of Godric was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Typical spam but not written in 60's AD-speak.And many sources seem to be the product of some amount of payment.

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:Evan Goldstein and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Winged Blades^Godric 13:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Cougarsurf, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Winged Blades^Godric 13:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Cougarsurf. You have new messages at Winged Blades of Godric's talk page.
Message added 16:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Winged Blades^Godric 16:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Evan Goldstein (January 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bkissin was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:Evan Goldstein 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:Evan Goldstein, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bkissin (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mandatory paid editing disclosure

Hi Cougarsurf. I work on conflict of interest and paid editing issues in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing. Would you please read the notice below, and reply below?

Hello Cougarsurf. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Cougarsurf. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Cougarsurf|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message.

Thanks Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Jytdog, nice to meet you. I have not been paid to make edits on behalf of anyone. If there is something in my edit history that suggests that, I'm happy to clarify. Thanks! Cougarsurf (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you as well. My impression of your editing is the same as the reviewer's here. You are editing about topics that usually draw paid editors, and your editing is very PR-like and commercial. The Nina Teicholz page has also been subject to several bouts of attention from paid editors.

Please reconsider your response. If you have some other connections to topics about which you have edited, please disclose them.

Please be aware that there is a place for editors who want to edit where they have a conflict of interest (paid editing is just one form of COI), but there is a process for managing it. Disclosure is the first step.Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, Jytdog. That's a fair critique. I guess Dr. Goldstein is an obscure topic. However, I have never met or talked to him, or been paid by him or his affiliates for Wikipedia work or "blackhat SEO", as I'm familiar with Wikipedia guidelines on such COI's. I read a Vice article on Dr. Goldstein several months ago and, getting my feet wet with page creation, I thought his surgical innovations and thought leadership made him a worthy inclusion for Wikipedia. After confirming the subject met relevance criteria by speaking with others in various help desk chats and having them vet my page, I've been working on course-correcting based on that feedback. I'll admit, I still sometimes struggle with the balance between trying to vouch for a subject's relevance without sounding overly-promotional. I do believe I have made progress based on editor feedback, putting Google Alerts on "Dr. Evan Goldstein" to collect new sources and working on language from time to time. I've been trying to work through the proper Article Submission Wizard process (rather than just creating a page from scratch after not finding Dr. Goldstein through Wikipedia search) to ensure proper submitting protocol across the board. If you're open to it, I'd love for your feedback on the language in the draft. I'm not tied to the current copy, but do think the subject is worthy of inclusion.

Thanks for your reply. That is all very civil, and all pretty much of a distraction. Your edit here belies your "newbie" claims; it is also a tendentious (criticisms are opinions; removing a source about criticism because it is an opinion is just... terrible) use of the "rules". As I said above, there have been a number of conflicted and paid editors at the Teicholz page.

That, in combination with your advertisement for Goldstein, speaks of something different than what you are saying here. Not sure how to go forward here. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not being paid do you have any other real world connection with subjects about whom or which you have edited? Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog If the Nina Teicholz edit breaks the "rules", then revert it. Or I'll revert it. I don't care. To me, an opinion piece from a director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, would be naturally biased against an author who refutes traditional nationally-recognized nutrition pillars. If I find an obscure blog that says "Nina Teicholz is the greatest author of all time", can I add to the top of her page, "Nina Teicholz is a journalist who was once called 'the greatest author of all time'"? I'm genuinely interested in that hypothetical because I have never gotten a straight answer. Or how am I supposed to vouch for the relevance of a page without coming across as promotional? Dr. Goldstein invented an entirely new surgical field, something I and the editors I spoke with, thought was worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. I've edited my draft after every piece of feedback I've gotten and held off on submitting it until it meets certain criteria. I've met Earl Grant (basketball) at an alumni function. Is that a COI?

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of BurritoSlayer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]