User talk:Unitive

Welcome

Hello, Unitive, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Onorem ♠Dil 13:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Coaching, 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 from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, 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;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching 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 conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. --Onorem ♠Dil 13:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this to the talk page. It's not clear that the topic of unitive coaching deserves to be addressed in this article. --Onorem ♠Dil 15:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Coaching. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic material in Coaching

As my response to your question is growing long and my talkpage sees considerable traffic, I've decided to place a summary of the matter here.

A look at the article's history, here, shows that edits related to unitive coaching have been removed by multiple editors, who have given diverse explanations for doing so. I also need to note that it looks to be a very embattled article. It seems that it has a long history of contributors attempting to use it to promote their business interests.

At the base, objections to the inclusion of your material are:

That the material is not supported by reliable sources that are intellectually independent of the subject. All material needs to meet our verifiability policy. Sources used to do this should generally not be self-published or promotional.
That the subject may not be notable enough for inclusion in the article. The article concerns coaching. In order to include a reference to this particular subtype of coaching, it needs to meet Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue weight: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Reliable sources would help to verify that the subject is significant enough within the topic of coaching for inclusion.
That the material is promotional. This perception is partially encouraged by the fact that the sources that have been added are promotional or self-published and that the usernames of registered users adding the material suggest a "conflict of interest"—that is, close involvement with the subject that may make them non-neutral on the topic.
That you are not discussing the material on the article's talk page or otherwise addressing concerns with it, but instead persist in restoring it.

The best thing to do at this point is to find reliable sources to verify the notability of this material and to discuss it at the talk page of the article prior to placing it in the article. You'll want to be particularly careful to remain neutral and to avoid unpublished or self-published information. If you feel that the material is treated unfairly after that, you may wish to consider dispute resolution processes. In your case, with sources in hand, I would consider posting at the conflict of interest noticeboard if you cannot reach consensus at the talk page. Given the notes left by some of the editors who have removed the material, I suspect they will be reasonable in considering your proposal.

In case you would like the play-by-play, this seems to the history of the conflict in exhaustive detail: Information on "unitive coaching" was first added to the article here. The contributor who added it was advised here that reliable sources would need to be added to the information in order for it to remain. The information was modified slightly over subsequent weeks, but no sourcing added. Then, here, you (presuming you are also the IP editor on my talk page) added a source to the article which not only is not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards, but is discouraged both because it is "self-published" (that is published by a website that allows contributors to write their own material rather than one that has a reputation for fact checking) and because it is inherently promotional. For that reason, the link was removed, here. It was subsequently restored and removed several times. Then, a note was made that "Unitive coaching" is evidently a registered trademark (here) and another promotional link was added here. The promotional links were again removed.

Here is where the material was removed, by the same contributor who I mentioned above had advised that reliable sources were necessary. It was removed with the following explanation: "removed unsourced section; only link is to an application to trademark name; please source per news coverage; please see WP:RS" Unfortunately, when you restored the material, you did not add reliable sourcing. A different editor tagged the material at that point with a "peacock" label, which generally means that the material may need more concrete text. You removed this without addressing those concerns. The editor restored the peacock tag here, explaining concerns: "Lacks definition of process, correlation to coaching, and even the word(s) coach or coaching" and it looks as though you attempted to address those concerns, here. Here the section was again removed by the first editor, who said, " Removed non-notable section; only references seem to be on free article directories; please source per WP:RS or discuss on talk page; pls also see WP:SPAM and WP:COI. This was essentially another request for reliable sourcing. It also indicated some basic concerns that the concept might not be notable enough for Wikipedia. (We generally determine notability for inclusion here by whether or not reliable sources discussing a subject exist.) Your material was not solely singled out for this handling; the same editor removed several other unsourced or problematic sections immediately afterward. At this point, your effort to return the material without addressing those concerns was treated as disruptive, here, though the first editor continued encouraging feedback, here, suggesting Again removed unsourced section about unknown form of coaching; seriously read through WP:SPAM and WP:RS and discuss adding content on talk page. Then it was again removed, this time by a third editor, who said, "per COI, unsourced'" This is the same rationale provided at its most recent removal. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]