K8bell

Your submission at Articles for creation

EF English Proficiency Index (EF EPI), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

• The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
• Please 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.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

Thank you for helping Wikipedia!

  jroe ^tk_cb  19:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

I work for EF Education First and am the author of the EF English Proficiency Index (EF EPI). I have made edits to some of the Wikipedia listings concerning EF and the EF EPI in the past to make them more accurate. I do so with great caution in respect for Wikipedia guidelines. I always provide national or international 3rd party sources and participate in talk pages. EF pages have been vandalized in the past and as any Wikipedia editor, I would like to ensure the accuracy and verifiability of our content.

TUSC token cefccb191c83ec4a2b51501a4e7dcac0

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

TUSC token d5a13aceea1856b18f09f2c801c62dd1

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Your submission at Articles for creation: EF Standard English Test (December 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Cloudz679 was: 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:EF Standard English Test and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• 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 get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

C679 22:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello! K8bell, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! C679 22:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: EF Standard English Test has been accepted

EF Standard English Test, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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 may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• 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 .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Missvain (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, K8bell. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and paid editing in Wikipedia

Hi K8bell . Thanks for disclosing that you are an employee of EF Education First.

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. Unmanaged conflicts of interest can also lead to people behaving in ways that violate our behavioral policies and cause disruption in the normal editing process. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosing your relationship with EF was the first and most important step. You have a conflict of interest COI for that company and related topics, as we define that in Wikipedia.

As I noted above, the second step in managing COI in Wikipedia is a form of peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI or who are paid, and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:

a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and

b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to

(i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor (paid) tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page; and

(ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section, put the proposed content there, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) please the {{request edit}} tag to flag it for other editors to review. In general it should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once. Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example. This is OK to do but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies. (There are good faith paid editors here, who have signed and follow the Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms, and there are "black hat" paid editors here who lie about what they do and really harm Wikipedia).

But understanding the mission, and the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission, is very important! There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Learning and following these is very important, and takes time. Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian - you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians.

I hope that makes sense to you.

I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about where the company has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content. If you are not sure if something is uncontroversial, please ask at the Talk page.

Will you please agree to learn and follow the content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and to follow the peer review processes going forward when you want to work on the EF Education First article or any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

pasting reply here, that was left on my talk page Jytdog (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog,

I wanted to thank you sincerely for your detailed message on the EF Education First article and my edits to it. I am not a very experienced Wikipedia editor and am always so appreciative when someone takes the time to explain things clearly, including the logic behind the rules. I fully intend to respect the community guidelines, but obviously in this case, I didn't. I've followed your instructions, hopefully, to the letter, and will wait to see what you and other editors think. If I've again done something incorrectly on the Talk page, I'll go ahead and thank you in advance for your patience, because I'll certainly need it.

best,

Kate — Preceding unsigned comment added by K8bell (talk • contribs) 12:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your gracious reply. Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting (see WP:THREAD) - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit. That is how we know who said what to whom and when. I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that. Will reply on the substance in a second...Jytdog (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again for your note! I will check it out later today -- gotta run for now. Jytdog (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow, this feels a little like having my own private Wikipedia tutor. I'm super grateful. I know all this stuff is documented, and I do read the documentation, honestly I do, but a lot of it is a little arcane as you said. I'm sure I'll get the hang of it. Just need more practice!K8bell (talk) 14:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Alex Hult for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alex Hult is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Hult until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jbh ^Talk 13:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• I am also concerned about the articles Edward Hult and Philip Hult. The sourcing for both is poor; consisting of sources which are either closely related to the subjects and/or simply not reliable sources. The Globe article which is used in all the Hult articles is really only germane to the father, the sons are only quoted or mentioned in passing. The Bring in People Who Are Better Than You is only a single interview of Philip and while it might be considered enough at AfD in my opinion it is not sufficient. Jbh ^Talk 14:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I've added a few sources to the article on Philip Hult, if you have a chance to take a look. They are lengthier interviews with him, but in Swedish, so not sure what the policy is on that. I'll have a look around for other sources for these three articles this week. Certainly if there are not enough, they don't deserve an article. K8bell (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Non-English sources are fine. As to them being interviews though, depending on the context, that can be a bit problematic if they are the only coverage he has since they are not really 'third-party' in the strictest sense. I see a lot of citations to corporate web sites. While those at be used, subject to certain caveats and restrictions, they do not contribute to notability. Only independant, third-party reliable sources do that.

Please follow the blue links. These terms have a specific meaning on Wikipedia and the links provide more details. Jbh ^Talk 15:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Please stop

As a paid editor you should not make edits like this. Please don't do that. Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, I'd understood from our previous exchanges that minor factual changes (like updating the logo or removing vandalism) didn't need to go through the talk page. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. This seemed pretty clear-cut to me. Otherwise I'd certainly have used the review process. I'll submit those changes now on the talk page. Thanks for keeping an eye on me. I appreciate your guidance.K8bell (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Negative, sourced content =/= vandalism. It needed improvement, but it wasn't vandalism. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. I took it as vandalism because it's such an old case and was added in its own section, clearly intended to make the company look bad (and added by an anonymous user, so no dialog possible). The way you've integrated it makes more sense. The woman was actually convicted of involuntary manslaughter, not 2nd degree murder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Woodward_case. Would you mind correcting that, or does that fall within the bounds of something I can edit myself?K8bell (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, K8bell. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)