User talk:MollyMaize
Welcome
[edit]
|
April 2011
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the username you have chosen (TheDFTA) seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of a group, company or website.
There are two issues with this:
- It is possible that you have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, you must exercise great caution when editing on topics related to your organization.
- Your account cannot represent a group of people. You may wish to create a new account with a username that represents only you. Alternatively, you may consider changing your username to avoid giving the impression that your personal account is being used for promotional purposes.
Regardless of whether you change your name or create a new account, you are not exempted from the guidelines concerning editing where you have a conflict of interest. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. The article in question is Domestic Fair Trade Association. Thank you. Fæ (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Domestic Fair Trade Association
[edit]
A tag has been placed on Domestic Fair Trade Association, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: 
which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice. Thank you. Wifione ....... Leave a message 13:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)- Note: Despite the fact that the above block notice says "you are welcome to create a new account with a username that represents only you", you should not do so if your purpose is to promote or advertise an organisation, as you did before. In addition, you should not generally be wrting about a subject in which you have a conflict of interest. It therefore makes sense to create a new account only if you intend to edit on completely different topics than you ahve with this account. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Remember, Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Unblocking
[edit]Following your message to my talk page I have unblocked your account. (Technically you were wrong to reactivate the old account: you should instead have followed the instructions in the block notice above to request an unblock, but clearly you were acting in good faith, so I'm not bothered about that.)
As for the deleted article, if you sincerely saw the article as neutral, and did not see it as being promotional in character, then I think that one of two possibilities must apply. Firstly, you may be so closely involved with the organisation that you are unable to stand back and see it from the perspective of an outsider. This is, in fact, one of the reasons why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages writing on a subject in which you have a personal involvement: even someone who genuinely intends to write impartially is likely to find it difficult or impossible to do so if they are too closely involved in what they are writing about. Secondly, you may possibly work in marketing or advertising, in which case you are likely to be so accustomed to marketing-speak that you have become desensitised to it. Either or both of those is possible from my point of view. I will give just one sentence from the article: "While such examples may seem sensationalist, what they tell us is that something is very wrong with how we grow, process, market and distribute food on a local, regional and global level." That is promoting an opinion, not stating an objective fact, and the article was full of such prose. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)