Pudsk

Hello Pudsk. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that 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:Pudsk. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Pudsk|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, please do not edit further until you answer this message. SmartSE (talk) 16:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Penny. Thanks for disclosing and sorry - it looks as if I had jumped the gun above. The main thing to bear in mind if you wish to update the article is to only use information about the organisation if it has been written in independent sources. When you have a COI it is best to avoid all primary sources (like the website). The FT article is ok, but doesn't say a great deal about the organisation. You can't cite a single article in the Express to support The organisation is frequently cited as an expert source on cancer stories (To be honest, we shouldn't cite the express for anything!) Let me know if you have any questions - just reply below. SmartSE (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

It's good that you are so responsive to edits. Hard work for you, better for everyone else. My apologies, I read the information about suggesting edits rather than directing editing COI pages after I had done it. There are lots of other examples of where the organisation has been cited as a source on cancer stories, but I couldn't see how to add more than one citation. The articles about the organisation itself tend to be scientific journals – presumably it's OK to cite them even if the user cannot access the whole journal because of a paywall? I am going offline now (home time in the UK...) but am very grateful for you assistance. Pudsk (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Well you got lucky there! To support the claim about frequently cited, you'd need to have a source explicitly stating that rather than many articles that do cite it. We should only repeat what has already been published elsewhere before. More to the point though, I don't see why we should say that at all - I don't doubt that it's true but the message is fairly promotional. Citing journals is fine but ideally go for articles that have been written by independent authors e.g. this. You should see a button labelled "cite" in the editing page above where text is entered, if you then click on "templates" and select "cite journal" you can enter the doi number of the article, press the magnifying glass below and all the details will be fetched and put into a nice template (we don't it easy!).

Is there really any distinction between World Cancer Research Fund International and World_Cancer_Research_Fund_UK? While they might be discrete legal organisations, it seems to me that they are essentially the same in their aim and research and that we should just have a single article at World Cancer Research Fund. The UK article is a bit of a mess, but could form the basis for it. SmartSE (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. I have also found a better citation for the Recommendations than the FT one [1]. Re the distinction between WCRF and WCRFI: the main difference is that WCRF-UK is a charity, and therefore has a charity number, registered with the FR etc. WCRFI is not a charity and cannot raise money – basically WCRFI spends the money that WCRF-UK (and WCRF in the Netherlands) raises. (Pudsk (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC))

Your submission at Articles for creation: World Cancer Research Fund (November 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. 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, go to Draft:World Cancer Research Fund and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:World Cancer Research Fund, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:World Cancer Research Fund

Hello, Pudsk. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "World Cancer Research Fund".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CptViraj (📧) 17:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)