User talk:Frieda Beamy

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Nancy Friedman, 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 are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

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!

~Adjwilley (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse![edit]

Hello! Frieda Beamy, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Sarah (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COI+ certification proposal[edit]

I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.

WP:COI certification

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Groovedelicious concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Groovedelicious, 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) 14:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission Groovedelicious[edit]

Hello Frieda Beamy. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Groovedelicious.

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 that Articles for Creation is not for 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/Groovedelicious}}, 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) 21:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of User:Robkall/OpEdNews [edit]

Due to the COI considerations of Kall's contributions, and the unlikeliness that he would publish something negative about himself, I have chosen to instead improve the article in mainspace, rather than one in his userspace. That said, THIS bears little resemblance to the one in his userspace. And, I have also been working on this BLP, Would you look in and advise? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking, Michael, I've appreciated your input and your having a controversy to report, and your advising me of that link. That said, the controversy section seems on first blush immoderate and hard to follow, given the BLP policy, and it might be too much to have it in both articles. I would like to get to reviewing the articles and proposing a draft on article talk, and of course finding a Kall balance quote, which we don't have right now. It seems you've made a number of other improvements but I haven't reviewed everything yet. It's my hope to work on the User:Robkall draft and get it in line with the others until everything is in the main article or the main talk, except for redirects. More later, I trust. Frieda Beamy (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kall's reaction seemed a bit of an over-reaction and not worthy of his stated editorial goals for OpEdNews. I'm still looking for some published Kall reaction to the Jim Fetzer article, past Kall simply lambasting Fetzer in an article of his own in a tit-for-tat. Borrow what-ever you'd like. Best, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found out Kall's birthday is June 29th but have not yet found his birth year. Still looking. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 29, 1951. :) Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC K297BI was accepted[edit]

K297BI, 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!

j⚛e decker ^talk 14:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there[edit]

What you've started doing is something I've been doing for about three years now. Some folks say I do it quite well. If ever you need advice/help/whatever, feel free to ping me.

I did take a quick look at your Talk page and clicked on the first thing I noticed, which was Nancy Friedman. Despite being accepted at AfC by user:Adjwilley, she clearly does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for an article. In the sources provided she is merely mentioned, quoted, etc. but to meet notability requirements we need substantial articles where she is the subject of the article.

This is a problem you will run into often. There is a direct conflict between you being paid to maintain the article and Wikipedia's desire not to have one. The best way to handle it is to advise potential clients like Nancy that they don't meet the requirements and you can't help her. These are difficult conversations to have. I do it at least once a week. The worst way to handle it is to make poor arguments to keep the article or accuse other editors of bias or agendas.

One of the biggest lessons I have learned that I would impart on you is to be choosy about which clients you accept. Most cannot be helped ethically, because what they want is too different from what Wikipedia wants. For example, they may want an article, while Wikipedia does not. I accept maybe 30% of them.

Anyways, just trying to be helpful - I had a rough start here, but I grew from it. CorporateM (Talk) 17:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the kind words and welcome!

I have always been a little leery about the fuzziness of the quoted–featured distinction, and so I had judged that notability had been established by being what I would call "featured" in the Davies article, the Richards article, and the Greenberg book minichapter, with the other sources establishing support. However, my policy is not only to be transparent but also to take all concerns seriously, so I will look for the additional sources that I believe should be forthcoming.

Speaking theoretically, I respect your highlighting the tension between choosing to regard some topic as nonnotable and trusting your own potentially conflicted judgment that it is notable, and that is a pitfall to watch for, especially as one gets so comfortable with editing as to pass those judgments more automatically and less thoughtfully. Cultivating a bias against one's natural bias is the greatest challenge. I suppose I should say there are always plenty more interesting topics, "fish in the sea".

When my ethics project gets started you'll be the first invitee! Frieda Beamy (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also commented at User:Ocaasi/Seren. An additional response to your points occurs to me: While it's obvious that someone who wants something different from WP's policy goals is noncompliant and should not be editing or meatpuppeting, it's also true that (in the onwiki version) you run into problematic editors who claim to want to follow policy and whose misbehavior is merely newb growing pains. And among those one certainly must be choosy in whom one believes as to their high-minded claims: AGF unadorned may lead to a promiscuous scope, while "trust but verify" may properly narrow the scope for me. Call it countering an innate inclusionist bias. Frieda Beamy (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GovLinks[edit]

In reply to your request at WP:REFUND I am copying the content of the deleted template below. I put 'nowiki' tags around it to make the code visible. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{#if:{{{natgov|}}}|
* [http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.29fab9fb4add37305ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid={{{natgov}}} Biography] at the [[National Governors Association]]
|}}{{#if:{{{nga|}}}|
* [http://www.nga.org/cms/home/governors/{{{nga}}} Biography] at the [[National Governors Association]]
}}{{#if:{{{ballot|}}}|
* [http://ballotpedia.org/{{{ballot}}} Profile] at [[Ballotpedia]]
}}{{#if:{{{nndb|}}}|
* [http://www.nndb.com/people/{{{nndb}}} Profile] at [[Notable Names Database]]
|}}{{#if:{{{votesmart|}}}|
* [http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/{{{votesmart}}} Biography],
 [http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/{{{votesmart}}} interest group ratings],
 [http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/public-statements/{{{votesmart}}} public statements],
 [http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/{{{votesmart}}} votes and actions],
 and [http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/campaign-finance/{{{votesmart}}} campaign finances] at [[Project Vote Smart]] 
}}{{#if:{{{politifact|}}}|
* [http://www.politifact.com/personalities/{{{politifact}}} Fact-checking] at [[PolitiFact.com]]
|}}{{#if:{{{followmoney|}}}{{{followthemoney|}}}|
* [http://www.followthemoney.org/database/uniquecandidate.phtml?uc={{{followmoney|{{{followthemoney}}}}}} Financial information] at FollowTheMoney.org
|}}{{#if:{{{ontheissuespath|}}}{{{ontheissues|}}}|
* [http://www.ontheissues.org/{{{ontheissuespath|{{{ontheissues}}}}}} Issue positions and quotes] at [[On the Issues]] 
}}{{#if:{{{worldcat|}}}|
* [http://www.worldcat.org/identities/{{{worldcat}}} Works by or about {{{2|{{{name|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}] in libraries ([[WorldCat]] catalog)
}}{{#if:{{{c-span|}}}|
* [http://www.c-spanvideo.org/{{{c-span}}} Appearances] on [[C-SPAN]] programs
}}{{#if:{{{cspan|}}}|
* [http://www.c-spanvideo.org/person/{{{cspan}}} Appearances] on [[C-SPAN]] programs
}}{{#if:{{{rosetemp|}}}|
* [http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/{{{rosetemp}}} Appearances] on [[Charlie Rose]] programs
}}{{#if:{{{imdb|}}}|
* [http://www.imdb.com/name/{{{imdb}}} Appearances] at the [[Internet Movie Database]]
}}{{#if:{{{bloomberg|}}}|
* [http://topics.bloomberg.com/{{{bloomberg}}} Collected news and commentary] at ''[[Bloomberg News]]''
}}{{#if:{{{guardian|}}}|
* [http://www.theguardian.com/{{{guardian}}} Collected news and commentary] at ''[[The Guardian]]''
}}{{#if:{{{nyt|}}}|
* [http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/{{{nyt}}} Collected news and commentary] at ''[[The New York Times]]''
|}}{{#if:{{{washpo|}}}|
* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/{{{washpo}}}_topic.html Collected news and commentary] at ''[[The Washington Post]]''
}}{{#if:{{{wsj|}}}|
* [http://topics.wsj.com/person/{{{wsj}}} Collected news and commentary] at ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]''
|}}<noinclude>
{{documentation}}
</noinclude>

Very good, I just switched "nowiki" to "pre" and added four linebreaks so we can make sense of it. Frieda Beamy (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Frieda Beamy. You have new messages at Talk:Limitless (luxury yacht).
Message added 20:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

APerson (talk!) 20:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nancy Friedman (June 2)[edit]

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nancy Friedman.
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.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

j⚛e decker ^talk 01:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC The Irish… and How They Got That Way was accepted[edit]

The Irish… and How They Got That Way, 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!

LukeSurl^{t c} 21:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Jonathan Quinn Barnett was accepted[edit]

Jonathan Quinn Barnett, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-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!

☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: CitizenShipper (June 13)[edit]

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Draft:CitizenShipper.
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.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

APerson (talk!) 00:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kevin B. Winebold (June 13)[edit]

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Draft:Kevin B. Winebold.
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.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LukeSurl^{t c} 17:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Jonathan Quinn Barnett[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Jonathan Quinn Barnett at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jonathan Quinn Barnett[edit]

On 27 June 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jonathan Quinn Barnett, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that super-yacht builder Jonathan Quinn Barnett also made model Klingon ships for Star Trek IV and renovated the Rubicon Estate Winery mansion for Francis Ford Coppola? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jonathan Quinn Barnett. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: CitizenShipper has been accepted[edit]

CitizenShipper, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-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!

APerson (talk!) 02:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited UShip, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inc.. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of CitizenShipper[edit]

Hello! Your submission of CitizenShipper at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Edwardx (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edits[edit]

You may be offended, but I want to dissect your edits a bit to show what I mean:

user:DGG has a saying that an encyclopedic article is intended for the public, while a promotional COI one is intended to persuade customers/investors/etc. in the justification for their services and their existence. For example, the first paragraph of the History section at CitizenShipper and the Reception section both give me the impression of trying to persuade the reader in the value of the company. When I click on citation 1, it's a press release cited 5 times, though it claims to be from Yahoo! News. The article would be better if those sections were taken out.

When I look at Jonathan Quinn Barnett I see stuff like "to whom his creative curiosity has been attributed" and "I have learned that everyone would like something truly one-of-a-kind. I never repeat myself and search for exciting ways to use new materials and technologies". Additionally, using a primary source to include that he spoke at an event is something that a disinterested editor would be very unlikely to do.

The Nancy Friedman article, as I have mentioned, probably isn't notable because there are no profile stories on her, only brief mentions and tips stories.

You say on your user page that you do not feel you have a conflict of interest, because you respect Wikipedia's principles, however, an experienced editor can see the influence your COI has had in your editing. In my experience, a financial connection gives the editor such a skewed point-of-view, especially due to the influence of their paymaster, that they genuinely cannot see it.

Regardless of how transparent and well-meaning it is, how could we advocate for more - rather than less - editing along those lines? The first step is to improve the edits, such that nobody can tell that they are COI, because they are the same edits an experienced, disinterested editor would make. If we can prove that we can make the same edits as the best of them, we're in good shape. Everything else is just self-serving lobbying and spin in order to justify lining our pockets with money - albeit it is not necessarily corrupt, but evident of just how skewed our financial interests have made our perspective. CorporateM (Talk) 14:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I share CorporateM's concern--the article on CitizenShipper is promotional, and promotional to the point where I have nominated it for deletion--my nomination explains why in detail. I have nominated Nancy Friedman for speedy deletion as both promotional and no indication of importance. If the other admin who will review it should disagree, I will take it to afd where it will clearly be deleted. In practice, is almost impossible to write an acceptable article about a motivational speaker. Barnett seems notable, but I will make some edits to remove the promotionalism but retain the material that actually shows notability. I've edited one or two of your drafts also: a article shows importance better when it concentrates on the major material--including really minor appearances for a performer gives the impression there aren;t enough major ones to show notability. (Similarly about including background that is present in the appropriate WP article--articles in WP do not stand alone--they contain links, and we expect people will follow them. It also improves emphasis on the important material not to wikilink common terms. And, as a matter of strategy, though incoming links are good, it's advisable not to make too many links to a new article until it has become established.

I am doing this work, not just listing for deletion, because I think (on the basis of my experience with a number of paid editors, including CorporateM) that you may well be able to do this work in away that meets our guidelines. It takes practice; I think you are getting this practice appropriately by working on matters of personal interest also. (There is not a single paid editor who does not do better work on their non-paid articles--this illustrates the extreme difficulty for even a good editor of doing paid work properly. And I think it is almost always possible to tell if work is COI--the question is whether the COI is so unobtrusive that is nonetheless acceptable.) You will always encounter here people who will try to find reason to reject any paid editing, so the articles have to be strong enough to convince others--this is one key reason to not accept clients of marginal notability; reputation from previous work here does in practice count for a good deal. By the way, it is expected here that after you get an article accepted, you will remove preliminary version in your userspace--just add the template {{db-self}} to the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually refraining from sending any articles to AfD. It is an interesting dilemma that by making himself known and participating in the community, the editor also draws extra scrutiny. In theory a paid editor should welcome the scrutiny, but in practice they would serve themselves and their clients better without it, allowing the edits to obtain the same level of scrutiny as if they were made by anyone else, which is to say very little. user:DGG is particularly aggressive about deletions and it's possible not all of them will be removed. However, his statements are correct. A COI almost always influences the editing and that is why it is discouraged, not just because it is often covert or in bad-faith, but because it influences the editor's perception of NPOV and notability, even when done in good-faith. You cannot rely on the community to prevent you from making COI edits (ie Bright Line), because they will both prevent good edits and allow bad ones, depending on their experience level and position on COI, but you can rely on DGG to provide on-target advice at a much higher accuracy ratio than most other editors. Therefore, if he is willing, I suggest seeking his advice often.

I would offer the following challenge. Before proposing a project to encourage more COI participation, or a certification, group or anything like that. Work your way up to standardizing on the GA rank. When we have more paid editors churning out GA-quality pages, there will be a stronger argument that our edits are in fact desireable and that more of them would be even more desireable. CorporateM (Talk) 19:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate scrutiny, and I'm not offended, and I agree with the GA idea. And I appreciate the work DGG put in (although watch out for typos). I hope to come back to these points in more detail. (You think that I may want to encourage more COI participation? I wonder if that's really what I said.) Frieda Beamy (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was implied, or I may have misinterpreted. Lets discuss it again at some point. I think what I would like to see is a group of certified sponsored editors that create a small trade association, whereby each member contributes about $10,000 annually for programs that further the industry (certification, legal fees against astroturfing groups, PR, a standardized ethics policy, etc.) and where each member has standardized on the GA standard where their COI works are concerned. CorporateM (Talk) 01:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed "email this user" is not activated. Is there a good way to reach you off-wiki? CorporateM (Talk) 01:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I may be very willing to nominate for deletion, but I am also very willing to withdraw a nomination if I see improvement; I actively want to see good articles on commercial topics, and I recognize that in practice they are not all that likely to come from volunteer editors. Although in principle deletion nominations are not supposed to be used just to get articles improved, in practice it can be an extremely effective stimulus: if someone disagrees with the nominator, the best way to prove him wrong is to improve the article, and this improvement may come from unexpected places. (And much of what CM calls my aggressiveness is actually a deliberate attempt to try to define the level of acceptability by proposing borderline cases.) If you ever want me to look at an article or a draft, ask me on my talk page; I try to give advice not on the basis of my own preferences for what ought to happen, but on the basis of my experience of what will happen here--although as CorporateM indicates, neither I nor anyone can always predict what the community will choose to do in any given case--there is a considerable amount of inconsistency here.

Although declaring oneself a paid editor will bring attention to every edit, not declaring oneself and arousing suspicion will even more certainly bring such attention, and the attention is much more likely to have an unfavorable predisposition. At present, any new editor who works on corporate subjects will arouse a considerable degree of suspicion. (I do not say this is fair, but it's the situation. If you could see some of the really outrageous efforts that get deleted, you would understand the basis for this suspicion. )

I am not sure GA is realistic for articles motivated by COI. But I would certainly aim for above the minimum standard that will pass.

(btw, please do activate your email. When someone sends you one, your own email address is totally hidden=-unless of course you choose to answer)

and, CM, I think the idea of an outside trade organization for WP editing will arose the implacable hostility of the general community, which will almost certainly consider it an organized pressure group. If you try to do it in public, it will have strong negative repercussions; if you do it in private and it is discovered, it will lead to the total banning of paid editing even if the ban may not actually be all that effective. I'd suggest sticking to informal communication on-wiki. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DGG The purpose of a trade association wouldn't be to communicate with Wikipedians. it wouldn't even have much of anything to do with the general community... CorporateM (Talk) 03:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[[U|CorporateM}}You may be right, but we have normally regarded outside arrangements for coordinating the editing of WP articles with considerable skepticism. This has applied even to such impeccably sponsored projects as the Medical and Educational and WIResidence programs, and is likely to be much greater when the participants are people some respected people here think should not be permitted to edit WP at all. I'm not saying this is my own view--far from it; but it's my prediction. I may of course be wrong. Proceed at your own risk if you care to take the chance of it. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@user:DGG It would also not be for cordinating the editing of articles. Like most trade associations I have encountered, it would be for professional development/networking, certifications, training, a universal ethics policy, and for joint funding of things to advance the industry, such as funding lawyers that enforce the Terms of Use against those corrupting and mal-educating the marketplace. It would have nothing to do with anything on-Wiki and would not be contingent on the community's support any more than journalists would have to approve the organization of the PRSA. However, we are at least a few years off from being able to legitimately do something like that, where each member is doing GA-quality COI work. I think I am currently the only editor on the English Wikipedia producing a large volume of corporate GAs (maybe?). When/if there are several us rivaling the success of GLAM, perhaps in a few years, something like that will be more appropriate. CorporateM (Talk) 07:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CitizenShipper Yahoo News article appears closer to a primary source than suspected, edited.
History and Reception that gave CorporateM an impression have been edited.
I attributed one Barnett quote, DGG took care of the rest.
Both of you were looking at the old version of Nancy Friedman. In May I doubled the sources and indicated where more could be found, but I did not post this change to the article directly; I went ahead and did that now and you can review.
Why I say "potential COI": because all my edits are my own judgment about encyclopedic content, none are dictated (similar to what CM said). I may still be learning what is encyclopedic along with everyone, but my choices for sourcing are a result of being inclusionist in general, not a result of COI. This is shown by my goal of keeping only 50% of the topics actually "paid" (similar to what CM said) and by the fact that you cannot in fact tell which are paid and which are not (if you do or did call out any volunteer work as COI, or omit any "paid" work as being just my interests, I wouldn't tell you differently; that includes QPQ also). So I will continue working against my inclusion bias.
Making the best edits that nobody can tell are COI is the real prize. Without line-item disclosure it's impossible to say "there is not a single paid editor who does not do better work on their non-paid articles." And everybody has bias, and COI is just a category of bias with a fuzzy border.
Much other advice is well-taken.
Does lack of scrutiny serve anyone better? DGG might say no and I might agree that COI bias will always be caught sooner or later or else it's not bias!
If a group does arise, I'd think there would be several options for best practices to allow pick and choose, with GA being one of the better ones. If CM rejects topics that he thinks might not make GA, that's a different standard than just N and is worth considering.
Email: hold on.
If the nominator thinks an AFD is a borderline case, it might be good to say something more direct about that than what you said this time, because I usually think of a nom as a delete !vote. And I do get to see some outrageous items get deleted, if I'm quick to the scene.
"funding lawyers that enforce the Terms of Use against those corrupting and mal-educating the marketplace"?: I said that only voluntary disclosures are useful, same is essentially true for voluntary (self) enforcement. Corruption will be dealt with by an environment of best practices, not of countercharges.
GLAM has its hiccups but they are probably a useful model for PR types while we're brainstorming for many years' time. Frieda Beamy (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of CitizenShipper for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CitizenShipper is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CitizenShipper until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Frieda Beamy/Coffee Joulies[edit]

User:Frieda Beamy/Coffee Joulies, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Frieda Beamy/Coffee Joulies and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Frieda Beamy/Coffee Joulies during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WT:COI header wording[edit]

Frieda I agree with your change. However, the specific wording was agreed to, and changing it now risks upsetting the apple cart and causing yet another unholy row. Let's leave well enough alone, please. I know that one of the people on that list will hit the ceiling if he is referred to as "paid to edit." Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Hi Frieda, Many thanks for your input to the discussions on my editing at A2 milk and on paid editing in general. Your insights and suggestions were valuable. BlackCab (TALK) 23:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dorothy Stringer High School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preston Park. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving at COI talk page[edit]

Frieda I agree with the unarchiving, if the bot has been archiving every five days (far too frequent). But I am not clear what you've unarchived and what you added by way of comment. Can you add an explanatory note on the page? Thanks, Coretheapple (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winebold[edit]

I replied here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Kevin B. Winebold was accepted[edit]

Kevin B. Winebold, 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!

And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Employer, client, and affiliation"[edit]

Hi Freida. I see from your userpage that you are trying to make a general COI disclosure for your editing. However, I think you're misunderstanding what the Terms of Use require of you in this regard. You say your "employer, client, and affiliation" are "Self, Frieda Beamy, and the entities indicated by my edit history", respectively. You may well be your own employer, and you may not be affiliated with any group, but if you are, as I assume from that disclosure, a freelance contractor being paid for your edits, then you should have a specific client or clients to declare. I imagine it is not the case that you are taking money out of your own pocket with your right hand, putting it in your left hand, and saying, "A job well done, Freida, here's your pay!" - someone else is paying you, and just viewing your edit history, as your userpage suggests, does not actually make clear who those someones are; for example, I'm trying to review Draft:Charles Yukl and it is not clear to me whether your client is, say, Robert K. Tanenbaum, the publishing agency for The Piano Teacher: The True Story of a Psychotic Killer, Kevin B. Winebold, or someone/thing else entirely. Please be sure to make it clear, either on your userpage or on the edits you make, what specific client you are serving when you write an article, edit a topic, or make an edit. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Charles Yukl was accepted[edit]

Charles Yukl, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-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!

--Slazenger (Contact Me) 04:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/CitizenShipper[edit]

Frieda, it's been a while since the article survived AfD and the DYK nomination became active again. A comment was left there on August 13, over twelve days ago, that is very reluctant to allow the nomination to proceed to the main page. I believe that the nomination will likely founded on neutrality grounds if pursued, but it will certainly founder unless you take action soon. I hope we hear from you in the very near future; it has been over two weeks since your last edit on Wikipedia. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination was closed today; it had been two weeks since the most recent comment. I'm sorry it didn't work out. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FAAN/FARE Conversion[edit]

Hi Frieda,

You had helped starting to edit the Food Allergy Research & Education page - I'm wondering if you can take a look at the draft that I posted to make the edits? I added a {{Request Edit}} to the talk section on the page a while ago, so just wanted to follow up. It is located at User:Acl92886/FARE - thank you! Acl92886 (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate request to the one on Food Allergy Research & Education, removing it from the backlog. Altamel (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nancy Friedman for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nancy Friedman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nancy Friedman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]