User talk:Bwash88

Welcome!

Hello, Bwash88, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Scotlandville, Baton Rouge, Louisiana did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  - Arjayay (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Baton Rouge, Louisiana, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Baton Rouge, Louisiana. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Research

All information provided is actually cited in the same source material currently available Bwash88 (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Most of your edit was either sourced by Wikipedia or genealogytrails; cut-and-pasted from sources cited; unsourced; or not supported by the source cited. Please stop your disruptive editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

All of my sources were sources correctly based on Wikipedia rules. All edits are sourced correctly. Please actually look at the sources before commenting inaccurately. I will add again soon with yet again proper sources. Bwash88 (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Well, the sources here don't even matter--you wrote ad copy for the city. I mean, Baton Rouge needs some positive news, but Wikipedia is not for advertising. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not writting an ad for city. I am merely stating the facts about the city. Wikipedia does in fact allow for factually citied information. No different than any other city. New Orleans Wikipedia is just about the same as which I have written Bwash88 (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Material

I am not writting an ad for city. I am merely stating the facts about the city. Wikipedia does in fact allow for factually citied information. No different than any other city. New Orleans Wikipedia is just about the same as which I have written Bwash88 (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

If you don't mean to write an ad for the city, then I suggest you re-evaluate your tone and your choice of sources. Some examples:

• "Baton Rouge has become not only an leader in the American South but continues to make headlines nationally as a growing economic hub" - full of fluff. It leads whom, precisely, by what metric? "makes headlines nationally" in what newspapers? How much is it growing? I don't see any facts here. And the source is a press release by an organization that very much is advertising the state.
• "Privately Owned Turner Industries is Top ranked by Energy New Record." - off-topic, devoid of context, and the source is Turner Industries.
• "Today, Dow Louisiana is the largest petrochemical company in the state, providing jobs for more than 6,000 Dow and contract employees, and pumping over $1 billion into the state’s economy each year." - "Pumping"? I don't doubt that they pump petrochemicals, but I do doubt that they have a money pump. Also, how is that relevant to Baton Rouge? And the source is Dow.
• "In addition Southern University's Nursing school is a perennial top ranked nursing school in the country." - not only is the source Southern University, it doesn't even say what it's cited for.

I didn't see a single reliable source that's independent of the entity it's used for. Even if the sources indeed were reliable, the tone would still not be acceptable. Huon (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have gone back and corrected all sources with outside sources that do no include the organization. I have also adjusted some tone issues as well , though I followed the similar rubric used in other cities Wikipedia. Each section is removed of any bias and backed by credible sourcing. I will add that current sources already had cities material from publications that promote the city hence why I used those type of sources.

We should be good now Bwash88 (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Three editors have removed the content you have been adding to Baton Rouge, Louisiana because it is overtly promotional, and because your sources are unreliable and biased. User:Huon and others have left suggestions on your talk page, which you have ignored. If you are a paid editor, this must be declared, and I will leave you a separate note about that. I urge you to read WP:NOTADVERTISING, in addition to the links suggested above. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I have change not only the tone but also used reliable sources. I used other cities Wikipedia pages as a rubric. Such a as New Orleans , Ft worth , and Dallas. I even had a separate party review to make sure I did come off as bias and the language was similar to the other cities. All sources currently used are reliable. Please let me know what further rules or edits I need to follow. I have adjusted each and every time. Bwash88 (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Please provide specific examples of bias tone sentences. And please provide specific examples of unreliable and unbiased sources. I need to know to if it is true , I can adjust. Thank you. Bwash88 (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

Hello Bwash88. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Baton Rouge, Louisiana, but 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:Bwash88. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Bwash88|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, do not edit further until you answer this message. Template:Z159 Magnolia677 (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not being paid directly or indirectly for any edits whatsoever. Bwash88 (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

./User:Magnolia677 have you Checked my answer. I need to know in order to proceed with my edits. Thank you. I will give 72hours for a response otherwise I will proceed. Bwash88 (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)