User talk:KateSwim74

Welcome

Hello KateSwim74 and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.

Getting Started First steps • FAQ • Article creation wizard Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting help Community Portal • Help desk • Village Pump Where to ask questions or make comments • Request administrator attention Wikipedia: The Missing Manual Place {{helpme}} on your talk page and a small message explaining the problem The Commmunity Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists		Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Click here to reply to this message.

ukexpat (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article University of Santa Monica, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Jeremy (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to University of Santa Monica. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you.

Talkback

Hello, KateSwim74. You have new messages at Ukexpat's talk page.
Message added 19:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

And another. – ukexpat (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autobiography and conflict of interest

Please refrain from writing autobiographical articles, as you did at User:Mhulnick/Dr. H. Ronald Hulnick. Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged; if you create such an article, it may be deleted. All edits to articles must conform to our policies on no original research, neutral point of view, and avoid conflicts of interest. Please remember that Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a personal webspace provider. If your achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article User:Mhulnick/Dr. H. Ronald Hulnick, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because your username constitutes an impersonation of Dr. M. Hulnick, and you are persistently editing articles about this person and her husband and the "college" they head (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, and trolling or other disruptive behavior is not tolerated.

If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

I have unblocked you at this time as you have agreed to change your username to avoid confusion. Please file the username change request at WP:CHU without delay. Stifle (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It must be clearly understood that a change of name does not permit you to engage in advertising or any other conflict of interest editing on behalf of the Hulnicks or any other client. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orangemike, Understood. I certainly didn't mean to enter anything that was considered 'advertising'. Would love to abide by Wiki terms - could you elaborate on which sections are considered 'fluffy' or promotional? Would be happy to delete. Want to make sure I know what's okay and what's not before I try to edit the page again. Thanks much. (not sure if I'm entering this correctly here?)

Your draft articles

I notice you are working on draft articles about Ronald and Mary Hulnick and about Loyalty to Your Soul. Before you spend any more effort on these drafts, I want to be sure you understand that Wikipedia has strict notability guidelines for the inclusion of articles; dozens of articles are deleted every day for failure to demonstrate the notability of their subjects. See WP:BIO for the notability standards for articles about people; since the Hulnicks are academics, the standards at WP:ACADEMIC may also be applicable. See WP:BK for the notability standards for articles about books.

If the subjects of your draft articles fulfill Wikipedia’s standards, collect reliable secondary sources that are independent of the Hulnicks, USM, Hay House, and others with self interest in distributing the book. Then add to the articles assertions of how the subjects are notable by Wikipedia’s standards, verified by citations to the independent reliable sources. (See Help:Footnotes for how to do footnotes on Wikipedia.)

The draft article on the book is also blatantly promotional and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. Wikipedia does not tolerate advertisements posing as articles. And peacock terms in the draft biographies like “pioneers and innovators” would have to be removed. —teb728 t c 18:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for your guidance. So, I should rewrite/submit 'Loyalty to Your Soul'? Regarding Ronald and Mary's entry: I reviewed the links you provided on notability and they do fall under several of those criteria.

Also, if there's "no original content", how are books entered? This book is based on many years of research and teachings at USM. What sort of sources must I cite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KateSwim74 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place, please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). Also it would make threads easier to follow if you varied the indentation by beginning paragraphs with colon(s).

Don’t bother rewriting the draft on Loyalty to Your Soul unless you can demonstrate the book’s notability (which may not be possible given that the book was just recently published). For sources: If for example the Los Angeles Times had an article about the book saying that said it was the best book ever written, you would include in the your article what the Times said, citing the Times article in a footnote. —teb728 t c 20:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I’m drafting a reply to your questions below. The following are utility links not a reply: Mary, Ronald, book (ISBN 1-4019-2728-9) —teb728 t c 19:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. Another question: The quotes that I currently have in all the entries (by Mary, Ron, etc.) - am I okay leaving those in, or do they need to taken out? 97.93.74.40 (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About indentation: The reason for indentation on talk pages is to make it clear where one person’s post ends and another’s begins; so don’t use the same indentation as the person ahead.

Internal links: There is a special syntax for links to Wikipedia articles. Example: for University of Santa Monica use [[University of Santa Monica]] not [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Santa_Monica University of Santa Monica]

In answer to your question: I would say leave the quotes out. They seem un-encyclopedic to me. Would an article in the Encyclopædia Britannica have such quotes? I realize that the Hulnicks want pages that tell the world how they view themselves, but that is not what encyclopedias do; encyclopedia articles tell how independent secondary sources see their subjects. Never forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and you are writing encyclopedia articles. Your biographies read like curricula vitae rather than biographies. They should stress more the things the Hulnicks are notable for.

More generally: See the replies to your post at the Help desk. People are skeptical of the ability of paid editors to do decent articles, and they will be looking over your shoulder skeptically. They will not give you slack over notability or anything that seems promotional. I am here because although skeptical I think it can be done. —teb728 t c 22:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we use the people that have commented in the book, if they have commented on places like BarnesandNoble.com? We also have several podcasts that we can cite. 97.93.74.40 (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the customer reviews, no. Apparently anybody can offer a review; so it is not a reliable source. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source for the same reason. —teb728 t c 22:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to keep Spiritual Psychology and the Soul-Centered educational process in the USM entry (take out the fluffy, but keep the facts, such as "Soul-Centered education refers to USM’s delivery system. Classes are taught in a manner consistent with the curriculum." ? 97.93.74.40 (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking about the University of Santa Monica article, because of your conflict of interest you should not edit it directly. If you have content suggestions, feel free to propose them at Talk:University of Santa Monica, citing a reliable source. —teb728 t c 23:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, all content in Wikipedia must be verifiable by reliable sources. (Sources that verify notability must also be independent.) So what do reliable sources (like the LA Times) have to say about “Spiritual Psychology” and the “Soul-Centered educational process”? My impression is that these are peculiar to USM; so it is unlikely that they have received coverage in reliable sources. —teb728 t c 23:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to have the USM graduate contribution examples in the entry (ie. Aminata Brown, what they did after they graduated)? 97.93.74.40 (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do reliable sources have to say about that? Anything? —teb728 t c 23:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

University of Santa Monica

I inserted a section break here because the thread has grown rather long and has changed topic. —teb728 t c 21:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: University of Santa Monica: Please do not continue to insert material taken straight from the university's own website, as that is generally not a neutral source. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do I insert facts about academics, workshops and student body? I noticed there are current sources pointing to the website. I am including other sources as well, but some do include the website. ///

freedomtochoose.net is not a reliable source, being licensed by USM and directed by USM faculty. —teb728 t c 20:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the info. Regarding the book, the people that have commented are not customers, it's other authors, like — Joan Borysenko, Ph.D., the author of It’s Not the End of the World and co-author of Your Soul’s Compass and Arianna Huffngton, the cofounder and editor-in-chief of The Huffngton Post. That is okay, correct? 97.93.74.40 (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cover copy blurbs are not useful content. If they have published reviews that were published in reputable venues, that might be acceptable; but only if you also inserted similar comments by people who harshly criticized the book. This is not a venue where you can publicize a book by quoting what the author's admirers say about it. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to insert other Wiki links (as articles have/do that) and it's coming up with errors (not going to the correct page). I am clicking on the 'link' icon, and it worked before. How should this be done correctly? KateSwim74 (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Put the title of the article in double square brackets. For example [[University of Santa Monica]] gives University of Santa Monica. —teb728 t c 02:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...Mike: What do you expect we should do in terms of getting the facts out about USM, beyond their own site? 97.93.74.40 (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a medium for promotion and not a webspace provider. And it is not a collection of unencyclopedic information. So don’t assume you can put into the article anything your employer wants, even if it is well sourced. —teb728 t c 21:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the comments/warnings on the page regarding neutrality, notability and references - I am doing my best to meet these guidelines and certainly do not want to insert any material that is not factual, notable and can not be referenced. What is Wiki's policy on removing those comments/warnings? What is the timing of how long it's there after we have met all the guidelines? Thanks for all the help. 97.93.74.40 (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed the faculty was deleted. I had references (sources) for them. What is the reason they were deleted? KateSwim74 (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list of faculty was a prime example of a collection of unencyclopedic information. Notice that Santa Monica College and UCLA for example do not list the entire faculty. —teb728 t c 21:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, understood (they are not my employer though). Regarding USM facts, assuming it is encyclopedic and factual, how does is get entered if the facts are found on the USM website and nowhere else? It's not marketing fluff, merely dates, numbers, location of the campus, administration organization etc. Just out of luck there, eh? KateSwim74 (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK your clients not your employers. Theoretically the USM site could be a reliable source for non-controversial, factual information. But since your conflict of interest seems to give you a generous interpretation of what is encyclopedic and what is promotional, you would do well to avoid that site. [BTW, material doesn’t have to be fluff to be promotional: your whole purpose on the article is to present USM as they want to be seen.]

I can’t imagine an encyclopedic purpose in giving the administration organization. The site you give for the campus has the address; so I assume the reason Orange Mike removed the address was that he felt it was an unnecessary detail. —teb728 t c 22:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, why aren't her sources notable enough? Regarding the warnings on the USM page, what do I need to do to meet the guidelines of Wiki and take the warnings down? Regarding neutrality, are interested people not connected to USM who want to make the entries (i.e. former students) who simply care about having a correct record? Also, regarding Mary and Ron's entry, validating their education, what if there is no web based proof points? She received her education a long time ago. Please respond, thanks. 97.93.74.40 (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.74.40 (talk)

Hello, I have some questions and inquiries about the USM site and haven't heard back since March 24th. Could I please get some guidance on how to make the USM entry polished/encyclopedic/sourced? ie. The warnings/notations on the top of the site, could I find out how to answer and abide by them? ie. references/secondary sources: I've inserted several reliable sources such as the Cannes International Film Festival. Other than the "Workshops" section, there wasn't much that was edited/added. Regarding the neutrality notation, my goal is to keep this encyclopedic and neutral and am wondering what part of the entry is not currently neutral. Would be happy to delete, in order to have the notation removed. What do you suggest? Or, there are interested people not connected to USM who want to make the entries (i.e. former students or similar) who simply care about having a correct record - would that be a better route? Thanks. Also, for Mary Hulnick's entry that was denied for the time being, what if there are no web based proof points for her education (for example)? If she received her education many years ago, and there's no third party online source, how is that noted in the entry? Suggestions? Thanks, again. 97.93.74.40 (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we keep coming back to the reliable sources, a term that definitely does not include the subject's own website or press releases, etc. written by the subject, the Hulnicks' publisher, and other "interested people" with a conflict of interest and unlikely to maintain the mandatory neutral point of view. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The warnings/notations on the top of the site, could I find out how to answer and abide by them? There (after much was deleted by editors) wasn't much that was inserted and all are sourced. What is the Wiki policy on fixing the warnings at the top of the page? thx. 97.93.74.40 (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - we are no longer working on this - closed project. We are relaying what would need to happen for the editors to take the warnings down. ie. no longer a "conflict of interest". Also, the sources noted are not from the Hulnicks, Hulnicks publisher or USM own website or press releases. They are from the Cannes Film Festival (for example) and other similar notable sources, ie. issues fixed. Thank you. 97.93.74.40 (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We would like to restore the USM page to the way it was originally (back in Jan. 2011). Can Wiki take care of this or provide recommendations? Obviously, the warnings would then be removed. Please let us know. Thanks. 97.93.74.40 (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and declined; it is now located at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Mary R. Hulnick. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Yoenit (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, why aren't her sources notable enough? 97.93.74.40 (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, why aren't her sources notable enough? Regarding the warnings on the USM page, what do I need to do to meet the guidelines of Wiki and take the warnings down? Regarding neutrality, are interested people not connected to USM who want to make the entries (i.e. former students) who simply care about having a correct record? Also, regarding Mary and Ron's entry, validating their education, what if there is no web based proof points? She received her education a long time ago. Please respond, thanks. 97.93.74.40 (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody has written about them in a reliable source so that we can provide verification of these claims, that is in and of itself evidence that they are not notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your U of Santa Monica article

You should better read WP:REF in order to see which types of references could be used in order to strengthen your claims. Newspapers and third party sources are great! You can also perhaps take a look at Mesa Distance Learning Program and other Uni articles to see how they are done. If you have any more questions, plese don't hesistate to visit us on the chat room again where we are more than happy to help!

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Mary R. Hulnick concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Mary R. Hulnick, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission Dr. Mary R. Hulnick

Hello KateSwim74. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Dr. Mary R. Hulnick.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dr. Mary R. Hulnick}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of University of Santa Monica for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article University of Santa Monica, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Santa Monica until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]