User talk:Niki Moore

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Auger architectomics.
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 Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Jamesx12345 (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Auger architectomics.
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 Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Niki Moore, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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!

Your submission at Articles for creation

Auger architectomics, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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!

– GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SA Municipalities

Suggestions

Add a bit of information about you on your user page so that we get to know you better. Explain what you want to do for example.
You may add your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject_South_Africa/Municipalities_task_force
as for the term "racial make-up", you might propose to change it for "Ethnic groups" (as in Nigeria. The template is here [1]. But you have to discuss it before hand here
The full list of municipalities may be found at List of municipalities in South Africa. Each of those should start with a template starting with {{Infobox South African municipality . It might be your first task to go through the entire list of municipalities to check if all of them do have this template (likely, they do). Without the need to create a complex table, you might wish to list what you want to be available for each metro and for each district and each local municipality
The info box:South African municipalities is actually a customised version of Template:Infobox settlement. Might be worth having a look.

Anthere (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Hello, I'm Shellwood. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to The Foundation for Professional Development— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Foundation for Professional Development

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on The Foundation for Professional Development, 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 Wikipedia: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 deleting administrator. Cabayi (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Niki Moore. 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. 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, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must 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 WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. The distinction you make on your talk page, that you make unpaid edits on behalf of your clients, doesn't hold water. If you're making edits on behalf of clients who pay you in another context, it's going to be seen as undisclosed paid editing which is a violation of the terms of use. Cabayi (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to your "clients" as "entities" does not absolve you of your obligations. Cabayi (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2018 (UCT)

So, are you saying that because this university made the mistake of asking a professional writer to help them with their Wikipedia page, they are doomed to remain Wikipedially anonymous for the rest of their existence? They cannot do it themselves, unfortunately (they do not have English as their first language), and because their alumni are all doctors and health care professionals (who are mostly also not English-speaking), I doubt that anyone would take it upon themselves to create a page as a labour of love to their alma mater. How have other universities or colleges done it? I do not believe for a second that all the colleges and universities in the world have had their pages created by disinterested bystanders, the content shows that contributions were made by staff. Also, I seem to be having two different conversations with you. Which one should I continue with? Niki Moore (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I want to tell you (for free) how to do the job you've been paid for? I don't want payment, and I don't want to coach you to game the system. Cabayi (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing Helga Swart's efforts to advertise the Foundation at Foundation for Professional Development certainly won't incline anybody to help out...

Hello, Niki Moore, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Helga Swart (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you.. Cabayi (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, I got it. No, Helga Swart is not my account. I think she might have tried previously to put up a page for this Foundation. When she had no luck, they asked for my help. They merely wanted me to help them write the entry, and I offered to put it up as I had some experience of Wiki from the past. I then wrote the disclosure, as I thought that it would be unethical not to report that I was getting remuneration for this, but that once the disclosure had been made it would simply be a case of making sure (mistakenly, obviously) that the article was factual and accurate.

With reference to the lack of references.. you did not allow me to put in further references or information, such as links, faculties, alumni, photos, research breakthroughs, campuses, addresses, etc. I was about to do it, when the entry was deleted. That is a pity.

There seems to be a very fine line between putting up an entry, and advertising a foundation... I just had a look at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Wikipage, for instance, and that is a very nice advertisement for their Foundation! Not to mention Nike, Samsung, et al, and a couple of other huge companies that I looked up that are 'not advertising'. If you think these pages were created by unpaid, unconnected and disinterested volunteers, you are extremely naive. It seems that Wikipedia is inconsistent in that respect.

This really is a university, quite legitimate, and funded by the South African Medical Association to train doctors and nurses, mainly through bursaries. I thought that was quite praiseworthy, myself, and quite legitimately in the public interest. Anyway, I will let them know that Wikipedia is off limits. I had always been interested in contributing since I heard a talk by Jimmy Wales at a tech conference long time ago, but had lapsed a bit. I thought this would be a nice way to hone my skills again. Obviously I got it wrong.

It was interesting talking to you anyway, you seem to be having a bad day. This was really not a contest in which I was trying to put one over on you. I'm sorry you thought I was some kind of scam artist. Niki Moore (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd find it easier to accept your good intentions if you weren't being paid for editing, and if you weren't so insistent that everybody else is hiding a conflict of interest too. Cabayi (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My word. OK. I was just pointing out the fact that 'being paid for editing', which one is asked to disclose - and which I did disclose - appears to be a cardinal sin in your eyes. And pointing out the anomaly that other pages - that are up, published and featured - were clearly compiled by professionals.... who were obviously being paid for editing. Whether they disclosed their interest or not, is not the issue - I am not saying they are hiding. I am simply trying to make the point that other contributors clearly get paid, and that appears to be fine. I just don't understand why, having disclosed my interest, it seems to be such a problem. If there were issues with the content, they could have been fixed. Or discussed. Or something.

I have done so much editing for Wikipedia, at no pay. Almost all the South African municipal pages were edited by me as I do a lot of investigative journalism into municipalities and therefore have an interest in local government. But when I do get some payment, and then tell you so, I seem to have overstepped some line. Doesn't make any sense.

Anyway, I am not interested in fighting with you. You have won. I have no further interest in contributing to Wikipedia, paid or otherwise. Niki Moore (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Almost all the South African municipal pages were edited by me"... You've only edited 3 pages with this account, none of them a municipal page. Have you been using multiple accounts? Cabayi (talk) 07:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to think you are enjoying this argument. You seem to have all the answers, and you have outed me as some crazed Wikipedia stalker with nefarious intent, whose only purpose in life is to outwit the canny editors and get my multi-million dollar clients onto Wikipedia.

I would not know how to set up multiple accounts, but I am sure you have the means to check.

I also have no idea why my municipal work is not on my profile, and I am not really sure that I care. I do know that I took part in some project to update these municipal pages, which I did. It was a long time ago, and I have forgotten the details. There was also some heritage project, where one took pictures of some historic or significant site, and posted that with a description. I have also been donating money to Wikipedia for the last two years.... maybe you would like to investigate that, find out it is not true, and then tell me I am a liar? I have not renewed this year... maybe it was prescient.

Really, it's no big deal. You can think what you like. My only concern is that, in your rush to contradict me and expose all my lies and deceptions, the real purpose of Wikipedia has got lost... which was, as Jimmy Wales said, to contain the sum of human knowledge.

You obviously think that a non-profit medical university has no business being in your encyclopedia. Fair enough. I will tell them.

Contested deletion

Hi there, I had a page deleted before I even had time to put it up properly. I had a long argument with the deleting editor. In short (very short!), it appeared that by declaring a conflict of interest, I had doomed myself to immediate deletion - no quarter given, no questions asked. I feel this is unfair, there was no interest in the content or suitability of the article, the only stumbling block was my own conflict of interest. I have subsequently learned that - despite Wikipedia asking you to do so - declaring a conflict of interest leads to immediate deletion with no discussion. This is really bad. What made it worse was that the deleting editor was rude, insulting and contemptuous, there was no attempt to discuss the merits of otherwise of the article, it was all about attacks on me personally and my own ethics and honesty. I felt as if I had been caught selling crack to pre-schoolers. It was a horrible experience. I still feel, however, that the article has merit as an encyclopedia entry. How do I fix this? Obviously you are going to want more information, but I really just wanted to get the conversation started. PS - Thanks for the cup of tea. It is just roundabout that time of day! Niki Moore (talk) 13:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Niki Moore. Looking at your edit history, I assume you are talking about The Foundation for Professional Development which has been restored as Draft:The Foundation for Professional Development. Personally I don't have the same level of concerns with someone being paid for writing an article on Wikipedia as I do with someone writing with an emotional investment in the topic - fans and followers, etc. In my experience, emotional conflict of interest is much more damaging and destabilising than financial conflict of interest. However, the community is very sensitive on the subject, so it is an area rife with difficulty. If you wish to edit Wikipedia as a professional, then you need to learn the rules, and ensure both that you are complying well within all guidelines and policies, and that you are treating the unpaid volunteers with professional respect and politeness. Entering into arguments with Wikipedia volunteers is not going to assist you. With Auger architectomics you went through the WP:AFC route, and you put in reliable sources that supported the article's notability. With The Foundation for Professional Development you skipped WP:AFC, WP:RS and WP:N, and then you got into a petty argument with a fellow editor. While with Auger architectomics you did things the right way, with The Foundation for Professional Development you kind of did everything the wrong way. If you wish to continue as a professional writer on Wikipedia, then learn from your mistakes, and move forward. SilkTork (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Niki Moore! You created a thread called Contested deletion at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Foundation for Professional Development (October 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 Cabayi was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The draft cites no reliable, verifiable, independent sources.

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:The Foundation for Professional Development 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:The Foundation for Professional Development, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
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.

Cabayi (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Foundation for Professional Development (October 10)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Still no reliable sources and all the in line external links need to be removed as we don't use them

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:The Foundation for Professional Development 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:The Foundation for Professional Development, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
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.

Theroadislong (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]