User talk:VidLit

VidLit, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi VidLit! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cathy Colman

The article Cathy Colman has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. PamD 19:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Cathy Colman

The article Cathy Colman has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use of a citation in Cathy Colman

In Cathy Colman you put a source citation into a section header, beacause, it seems, you did not know how to use it. Please do not do that in future. The general way is to include content based on or quoted from the source, thwn add the citation at the end of a sentence ot paragraph, or right after the source info is used. See Referencing for beginners and citing sources for more detail.

I have created a "Critical response" section in the article Cathy Colman , and used the source you had added to the section header in it. This is a typic metjhod to record reviews and other critical reactions (approving or disapproving, or mixed) of a creative work or the work of a creative person to the article about that work or person. Each review should be clearly attributed to its source, cited, and quoted or summered in the section. Such cites reviews from reliable sources can help to establish notbility. Fan or personal reviews from personal sites should not be included, only reviews published by reliable sources with editorial control, or from known experts in the field. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have what seems like a useful source but aren't sure hpow to use it, create a section on the article talk page and place it there, or add it to a "Geneeral sources" section in the article, in either case without <ref>...</ref> tags. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi VidLit! You created a thread called Verifiable at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Email

I've seen your email, and I'll reply here later. What's the point of asking for help and then just going on to recreate the same spam instead of waiting for a reply? Just to avoid any doubt, if you do so again, I will indefinitely block this account, which I could well have done already, but you appear to have tried to make constructive edits elsewhere. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have an obvious conflict of interest and you must declare it. If you work directly or indirectly for an organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. If you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, 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 VidLit. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=VidLit|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message. Also read the following regarding writing an article:

you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, logs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company or organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls.

You had no references of any kind.

You must show how this product meets the notability guidelines.

There are no verified facts in your text, and even if we accept the content, there is absolutely no evidence to show why it's notable, no awards, coverage in multiple high-quality independent third-party sources or similar.

You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.

basically, company spam, often writing directly on behalf of the company KiTbetter describes its mission ... The brand’s stated vision... The company’s boilerplate describes KiTalbum... and similar.
and the tone of the content is promotional too, unquestioningly accepting what the company claims returning meaning, ownership, and connection to music... music experiences to be tangible, memorable, and rooted in long-term value... gives fans “something to hold” and offers artists a more direct and profitable way to share their work... access to high-fidelity audio, video content, and fan experience and so on throughout
Your text is basically a description of the product, plus your personal unsourced opinions on why this product is better than any alternative.

There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

I didn't check.

You had no wikilinks in your text, eg compact disc, although you obviously know what they are because you linked in a See also section.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources.

I probably should have blocked you when you reposted the same junk I'd already deleted, but I didn't. However, you should take your time on this if you continue with it, because if you don't address all the issues above, you won't get a third chance. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:16, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim,

Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed note, and I’m sorry for the frustration I caused by recreating the article after it had already been deleted. I understand now why that was the wrong way to go about it.

To clarify: I do not have a conflict of interest with this company or product. I’m not employed by them, I’m not being paid directly or indirectly, and I’m not acting on their behalf. I was participating in a Wikipedia hack/edit-a-thon focused on women and was trying to practice article creation. I’ve edited Wikipedia before, but I haven’t started a new article in years, and I can see that I’m quite out of practice with current standards.

I completely accept your points about:

The lack of independent, verifiable sources
The promotional tone
The absence of references, inline citations, and wikilinks
The issues around notability and needing coverage in reliable third-party sources

You’re right that what I wrote reads like company copy, and that’s on me. I won’t repost that text again, and I won’t recreate the article in mainspace.

If I work on this topic further, I’ll do so only in a sandbox draft, focusing on:

Neutral, encyclopedic language
High-quality independent sources that establish notability (if they exist)
Proper inline citations and wikilinks

Before any future move to mainspace, I’ll go through Articles for Creation or ask for feedback on the talk page so I don’t repeat this mistake.

I’ve read the COI and notability guidelines you linked and will abide by them. If you still feel my username or past edits suggest a COI, please let me know if there’s anything specific I should add to my user page to make my situation clearer.

I’m genuinely trying to learn and would appreciate any further pointers you think would be helpful.

Thanks again,

VidLit VidLit (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]