User talk:JulieNYNJ

Your submission at Articles for creation

Vision 2020: New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan, 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 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!

DGG ( talk ) 15:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Waterfront Alliance, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless that text is available under a suitable free license. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Diannaa. I think I'm getting the hang of it. Best wishes to you. JulieNYNJ (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Waterfront Edge Design Guidelines (WEDG®)

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 Waterfront Edge Design Guidelines (WEDG®), 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. // Timothy :: talk 01:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, JulieNYNJ. 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 conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your message on my talk page ([1]), but we will keep it here for ease of speaking. I have this page on watch and will be notified of your replies. Since you state you are working for this organization as a "freelance writer", you are engaged in undisclosed paid editing, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. Your next edit must be to make the mandatory disclosures, or ask for help with doing those. After that is done, you must follow the conflict of interest guidelines. Specifically, paid COI editors may not create or edit pages directly in mainspace. To propose a new article, create a draft and request review by articles for creation. To propose an edit to an existing article, detail your proposed edit and the source(s) which support it on the article talk page, then place {{request edit}} above your proposal so that it can be checked by a non-COI editor. Continued violations of these policies, or failure to disclose, will result in a block from editing. And even if you do those things, you will not be permitted to fill up articles with external links (article text should not contain external links), use trademark symbols in articles or their titles (we don't use those), or write promotional fluff which in any way "talks up" the organization. It is not only for-profit companies or products that can be promoted—promotional material can be written about nonprofits, people, government entities, or even concepts. Wikipedia does not permit promotion of anyone or anything. All articles must be neutral in tone and content, and stick to facts verified by reliable and independent sources. We're not really interested in what an organization says about itself, or what its affiliates say about it, and Wikipedia is not a place to parrot that stuff. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I realize you took considerable time to provide those details. I am grateful.

I wish your colleague - Timothy Blue (or whomever) - had not taken the content down. I would like you to see it. I believe the content was flagged because the name is registered. The content is/was simply informational and NOT promotional. This is NOT something that is "sold." The content is about an environmental design PROCESS / CHECKLIST for building climate resistant waterfronts. It is endorsed by a number of science, climate-focused organizations and is used by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers.

I am not paid to write Wikipedia content. I produce fact sheets and newsletters primarily for elected officials and grants. The content I submitted was content produced for the aforementioned and simply put in Wikipedia format.

So .... how do I get this page published? This content is not for my self-interest, I'm not getting paid. (I was actually feeling great about contributing to Wikipedia and thinking I'd love to do more.) It also doesn't benefit the non-profit - except to support their mission. The content is important information for communities that are building/rebuilding waterfront to address rising waters.

I am truly grateful for your guidance. I feel stymied. Thanks! JulieNYNJ (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Blue flagged it for attention, but I deleted it, not him. The massive number of external links was one of the major problems, as was the huge amount of unsourced content, but mainly it was just "About Us" type stuff, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. What you would need to do is look for reliable and independent source material, and then write the article based upon what that verifies. If there is not a substantial amount of such material written about this subject, it is not appropriate for there to be an article about it at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you also delete Waterfront Alliance? The content on that page is again obsolete. Updates have disappeared tonight.

From an encyclopedic standpoint, the evolution of what has happened in the New York New Jersey Harbor Estuary is an important history involving Hurricanes Sandy and Ida, Mayors, council members, elected officials. I do think there are a few things that can be trimmed but I still don't get it what's going on - and certainly we can take out some of the hyperlinks. But many of those hyperlinks are to important policy and documents. Climate preparedness is important.

I think you're saying there's not enough info and you're saying there is too much. Help, please. Thanks. JulieNYNJ (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! It seems you deleted all updates to Waterfront Alliance page. I'm guessing that you didn't mean to do that. Please restore. There is SO much incorrect info on the page now. I am certain that is not your intention. Thanks! Once you restore everything, I am happy to look at your suggestions to trim. JulieNYNJ (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My replies to you seem to be deleted. JulieNYNJ (talk) 03:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I reverted your edits to that. They were again full of inappropriate external links, and promotional. It was absolutely my intention to do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Seraphimblade. You seem like a decent person and I respect that you have been volunteering and contributing to Wikipedia for 15+ years. Perhaps you were having a bad night last night? I am hoping to resolve what happened in the easiest, more professional and courteous way - immediately.

ALLOW NEW PAGE on Waterfront Edge Design Guidelines (WEDG)

Within an hour of posting content on an important community-sourced certification process for waterfront infrastructure design, you deleted the page. I recognize that the registration mark flagged this content and that one paragraph in the content sounds promotional. ALL other content is relevant, important, worthy of Wikipedia. I will delete the registration mark and the one salesy paragraph. I will consult with you on what are appropriate links. (NOTE - I had not fully loaded hyperlinks and you only saw links to explanations of (example) "policy and funding mechanisms" and "professional credentials."

COMPLETELY RESTORE PAGE on Waterfront Alliance

Without notice, you deleted another associated up-to-date Wikipedia page: (Waterfront Alliance). It is NOW a very incorrect page with old, dated information. You cited too many links but I don't believe you even looked at those links as all documented and verified accomplishments and several were PDFS to collaborative work. This history of workings on preparing waterfronts for extreme weather events is VITAL. Groups around the country are addressing this issue and looking to what NY-NJ is doing. I will consult with you on what are appropriate links. as I continue to load content on that page. It is important that this content is restored IMMEDIATELY.

With respect for your perspectives and your commitment to Wikipedia's code of conduct -- mutual respect, support, mentorship and coaching -- thank you in advance for your assistance. JulieNYNJ (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've sort of been watching this from the sidelines and thought I might chime in. I cannot see the deleted draft, but if it was like the edits you made at Waterfront Alliance, then the deletion was appropriate. The reversion of your edits to Waterfront Alliances was also appropriate. The edits you made were promotional in nature and unsuitable for Wikipedia. The draft was deleted under WP:G11 which refers to promotional text that would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. In other words, even with some appropriate updates, you would have to start from scratch for the writing to be suitable for inclusion. As to the links, as a general rule, it is not appropriate to add external links to the text of an article. Your links also appeared to be mainly to primary sources. Wikipedia bases its articles on information from secondary sources that are not affiliated with the article's subject. What an organization has to say about itself warrants little consideration. And preferably articles should be written mainly by unaffiliated people as well. Those connected to the topic often have trouble writing about that topic objectively. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TorandoLGS - thanks. I greatly appreciate another set of eyes ... and any/all advice you can provide. And I love the fact you're writing about climate. My desire in updating the original Waterfront Alliance was to make certain it was correct and updated, and focused on what's important to other communities. I also want to add two associated pages that can be helpful. I am having a hard time seeing the content as promotional but I'm willing to rewrite. I just need some guidance. I honestly thought I was doing the right thing in loading up hyperlinks to show credibility. I hope you can see my response to Seraphimblade. I hope they don't give up on me! Thanks again. JulieNYNJ (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the problem with what you wrote is "one paragraph", I'm not sure there's any more to be done here. The problem, in both cases, was all of it. Nor does it matter what the links were to; external links are not permitted in article text period. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade -

I gave you the courtesy of responding and waited a day. Something you did not do. YOU deleted content - without warning. YOU have now posted OLD INCORRECT INFO about Waterfront Alliance. Wrong board chair, wrong founder, wrong dates, wrong mission, no info for recent years .... isn't the goal of Wikipedia to be accurate?

Moreover, you have given me no advice how to change anything. Take out the hyperlinks? Put the reports as references? The history of what has happened in the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary is important to other coastal, lake front and river front communities. It should not be censored.

Please. I have gone through Wikipedia voluminous tutorials and so much of what you're saying doesn't make sense with verifying content, hyperlinking to Wikipedia content - which I have done. Please advise.

I mentioned in earlier correspondence I value Wikipedia and the community of contributors and editors. I actually had drafted an outline for an article for LinkedIn on the importance of Wikipedia in sharing climate solutions. I still believe in this media source as vital for sharing solutions. HOW DO I GET BEYOND YOUR DELETION?

Here is what I propose:

- Can you please restore the recently edited Waterfront Alliance page? And let me know how to amend it? I will take care of this promptly, by Monday 5/20 at noon. You can restore to Sandbox and I will make certain to consult you.

- Can you please confirm that I can use Wikipedia links? (Example, Wikipedia link to provide background and show the geographic range of the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary and to show where the harbor stands in ranking as shipping ports, definitions of carbon management, etc.)

- Should I move reports to references? And, if so, do you advise as PDF or URL hyperlinks?

- Can we agree to a long historical section? I know there are some parts of WFA history, like being invited to speak at water conferences around the world, that could be perceived as promotional. I can edit those out. But it seems important to outline original projects of building eco-docks, evolving into recovering a waterfront brownfield, to now guiding the planning and public input processes to build a massive seawall at Battery Park.

- Give me a number - a word count number. I can and will write to it.

- And for the two additional pages I'd like to contribute:

- I apologize I did not realize that registration / trademarks cannot be added to Wikipedia pages. I will delete the registration on Waterfront Edge Design Guidelines (WEDG), the page you initially scrapped. I can take out hyperlinks. Can I add papers/reports as references? And I will review all content to make certain it's doesn't appear promotional.

- There is one other page I would like to add. Its a page about the Rise to Resilience Coalition. It is associated with Waterfront Alliance, a staffer manages it but it is a coalition of activists that pretty much determine their own agenda. I'd like to set it up for them ....

Look! I want to be a good Wikipedia citizen / contributor. I value facts, process, and community. And I recognize I've taken up your time. I appreciate you.

Thanks for hearing me out (vent) at the top of this page and helping me out. Really, I mean it.

LD / Julie JulieNYNJ (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As noted above, I have tried to cleanup the article Waterfront Alliance. I've removed material I was not able to find a proper source for, made the wording more neutral, but it still requires more work.

@JulieNYNJ:, I do not think you are objectively editing in this subject area, this can be difficult when you feel strongly about a subject. I think the test of whether an editor can objectively edit in an area they have a COI in is if other editors cannot tell there is a COI; in this case multiple editors have identified issues.

If you have independent WP:IS, reliable sources WP:RS, you believe contains encyclopedic information about this subject area, you may post them as an edit request on the talk page of the article; if you would like to ask an uninvolved editor to review your edit request, you can post at the WP:TEAHOUSE. Please refer them to this discussion for context.
If you wish to request that an article be created in this subject area, you can do so at Wikipedia:Requested articles, you may also request help at the TEAHOUSE. If an editor believes the subject meets the guidelines for a stand alone article, they may create it; if not they may add the information to a related article. Please refer them to this discussion for context.
A demanding tone or all caps shouting is rude and inappropriate. Everyone here is a volunteer and not here to meet your requests, shouted demands, or deadlines. Do not continue to communicate in the way you have above.
Understand that no one is under any obligation to assist you, and no one is obligated to meet your deadlines.

Please read the guidelines I have linked, in addition to Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. These will help with your editing on Wikipedia and in discussions. Continuing to ignore Wikipedia guidelines and policy regarding the above may result in a loss of editing privileges. // Timothy :: talk 23:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the advice you received above is very good, and would very much advise you to follow it. I assure you that being pushy is not going to get you where you want to go, and restoration of any of the prior material, which was heavily promotional, is a "no" and will remain "no" regardless of how many times you repeat the request. That doesn't mean you can't make basic factual updates or corrections, if and only if you have sources to verify those, but that means change the name of the chair, not also throw in several paragraphs about how great they are. Just the name. Similar for the rest. We are not interested in what organizations say about themselves, or about what those closely affiliated have to say about them. We are interested in what independent sources say about them. If there is not a substantial quantity of reliable and independent source material available about a subject, it is not appropriate for there to be an article about it at all. If there is, stick only to what the sources verify, present it in a neutral fashion, and do not use your personal knowledge of a subject that is not verified by published sources. And with your above, Wikipedia is not a place to "get the word out", but rather to summarize "word" that is already out. Wikipedia should never be the first place something appears, and generally should be one of the last. We are not out to "scoop" anyone, and if we ever did, we should not pat ourselves on the back, but rather ask what went wrong. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Seraphimblade,

Thank you. I genuinely appreciate your guidance. (Although, boy oh boy, I have had myriad emotions in the days we have corresponded.) Please know I have taken your comments seriously and I am tearing apart, demolishing, rewriting and will get back to you -- if you don't mind.

Just so you know, several months ago, I looked at Waterfront Alliance's Wikipedia page for background on a grant I was writing and was surprised to see it so out of date. I offered to work on updating it - yes, recognizing my offer needed to be unpaid and from an independent point of view. What I found in my research was impressive history and a number of reports produced by WFA and produced by independent sources. Yep, I acknowledge I got carried away in pointing out WFA's accomplishments. I will skinny content down (without my admiration) and I will rewrite with references to external sources only. Also, to be completely upfront, I went to WFA in January or February to inform them that I wanted to update their Wikipedia pages. They said "go for it" but have not been involved in the content I pulled together. Quite frankly, it's taken a lot of time to pull together the content. I will pass it on to WFA to see if they can use it. I have been working under access Julie NYNJ (a long-ago WFA employee) but WFA has not been linked to this page by email (apparently for years) and I have linked to my email. Any red flags here?

Thanks again. JulieNYNJ (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this account was once operated by someone else, you'll need to create a new one. For copyright and attribution reasons, we don't allow account sharing or takeovers. You're clearly not intending anything malicious by that, so I won't block this one as compromised, but the rule very much is that one account is operated by one and only one person. To retain your attribution for the edits you made with this account, you could note something like "Edits made by User:JulieNYNJ after (date) were made by the operator of this account" on the new account's user page. That's not required, but you can do that for clarity if you like. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]