I made a couple minor tweaks to the page, nothing major. When you are ready to move the page mainspace, let me know. Looks ready, well sourced. Nice work! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:59 on May 19, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

@ Neutralhomer: Thank you! I'd love to move it to the mainspace. Sorry for multiple messages - like I said I'm still getting used to talk pages!

A tag has been placed on Draft:InGenius Prep, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Justlettersandnumbers was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:InGenius Prep 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:InGenius Prep, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{ Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 18:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello, Kayla kas! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering 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! Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 18:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello Kayla kas. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but 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. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged 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:Kayla kas. The template {{ Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Kayla kas|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, do not edit further until you answer this message. Theroadislong ( talk) 18:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Theroadislong: Now, I can't speak for the InGenius Prep page, but Kayla kas is one of the hosts of " Sounds Fake But Okay" podcast. That article was written by her in DRAFT, but was written in such a neutral way, I approved it for mainspace inclusion. Her writing, especially on that article, was very second person, not from an "I" or "me" point-of-view. Instead, she writes from a Costello (her co-host) <this> and a Kaszyca (her full last name) <that> point-of-view, really leaving nothing out. I found the article to be very inclusive. As a 14 year veteran of the project, I think I know an article worthy of inclusion in Wiki-Mainspace when I see one. But, again, I can't speak for the InGenius Prep article, just what I saw in the Sounds Fake But Okay article.

I will say it probably isn't a good idea to assume someone is a paid editor right off the bat, then demand that same someone doesn't edit anymore until they answer your question (which again, you demand an answer is provided), and the entire tone of your post is extremely BITE-y. I also note that you are not an admin, so she is under no obligation to answer your questiondemand and you can issue no consequences short of going to an admin and saying you assume she is a paid editor. Then, I will say what I am saying now.

You have shown not one shread of proof that she is a paid editor, just that the "nature of [her] edits gives the impression [she] ha[s] an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic". No diffs proving that point, no diffs linking to off-wiki articles showing the correlation between her and her edits, no diffs linking her to any companies paying her for her work, no diffs showing payment for any work, nothing. Just an assumption and a snarky, demanding post of a female editor. Need I remind you that demanding things of females doesn't turn out very well, neither does assuming? Didn't think so.

Let me take this one step further and put the focus on me, I edit primarily radio station articles. One could assume and argue that I am paid by those radio stations to edit their Wikipedia articles. I'm not....but one could assume and argue that. So, come up with some real evidence of this assumed paid editing by Kayla kas...real evidence, not assumptions...or back off and apologize. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:48 on June 17, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

A cursory Google search will show that they are the (Redacted) at InGenius Prep, that clearly constitutes paid editing. Theroadislong ( talk) 06:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Theroadislong: From a (Redacted)? Hardly damning evidence. I have one, shows I work for a school system and yet I edit that school systems page. Block me for "paid editing" right away. Still no connection to paid editing and her actually being paid. You have no proof. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:56 on June 18, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

@ Theroadislong: @ Neutralhomer: I'm quite new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure if I'm replying to this correctly. It is true that I do work for InGenius Prep. However I am not being paid to edit. I found creating Wikipedia articles to be enjoyable and so decided to create one for InGenius Prep since I was familiar with the primary sources and felt I could write it in an objective way. I am more than happy to change the tone of the article if it comes off as advertising or promotion. I am happy to work with admins and editors on this to make it the best article possible. But I am not being paid by this company to edit this article. Kayla kas ( talk) 15:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you for responding, I think I'm correct in saying that if you work for the company, then you will be considered to be a paid editor in Wikipedia terms and you will need to make the required disclosure on your user page. Theroadislong ( talk) 15:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Kayla kas, Hi Kayla, I understand the definition of being a "paid editor" can be confusing but at the very least I'd recommend you post {{UserboxCOI|1=Sounds Fake But Okay}} on your user page as well as the same for InGenius Prep as well. Thanks for your contributions and let me know if I can help at all. Cheers. Glen 04:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Theroadislong: @ Neutralhomer: I may work for the company but I am NOT being paid to edit. I did it of my own volition without anyone at the company asking me to. It is similar to Neutralhomer's situation. He works for his school system, edits their page, but is not a paid editor.

In which case they would also be considered paid editors. Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure says "Users who are compensated for any publicity efforts related to the subject of their Wikipedia contributions are deemed to be paid editors, regardless of whether they were compensated specifically to edit Wikipedia." Theroadislong ( talk) 16:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Kayla kas: Theroadislong is correct that, if your job function involves public relations or marketing, then Wikipedia deems you a paid editor with respect to your company, whether or not you have been instructed or specifically paid to make the edits. Once you've complied with Wikipedia's Terms of Use by making the paid editing disclosure, you may return to the draft.

Paid editors are allowed to submit drafts through Articles for Creation, but WP:BFAQ#COMPANY may give you helpful perspective on whether it is wise to do so. Editing with a conflict of interest is fraught with danger. If you're genuinely interested in improving the encyclopedia, why not edit some of its millions of articles with which you do not have a close connection? -- Worldbruce ( talk) 19:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Worldbruce, Theroadislong, Kayla kas: I'm going to publicly "out" myself a little more. I work for Winchester Public Schools (WPS). In our contracts, we are "public representatives of the school system". A lawyer could read that and say we are all "public relations or marketing" for the school system. Now, when I update one of their pages, I am not doing it as a paid representative of Winchester Public Schools, I am doing it as an editor. Though, one could argue, I am "technically" being paid right now as I am writing this post by the school system (gotta love contracts) so I shouldn't update any WPS pages, but I just did. Wasn't paid a penny by WPS to do so. I don't have a contract with WPS to do. I was not told by WPS to do. I am a custodian. I clean classrooms.

So, I believe we should take Kayla at her word, that she created this article of her own volition, something she has said would be "enjoyable" since she knew "the primary sources" and "felt I could write it in an objective way" and that she is "more than happy to change the tone of the article if it comes off as advertising or promotion" and that she is "happy to work with admins and editors on this to make it the best article possible".

Instead of tagging every article she has made with COI templates and snarky remarks from Theroadislong, which in no way help matters, why don't we help an editor who actually wants to be here, who wants to learn, who wants to work with us? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:37 on June 18, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:InGenius Prep. Thanks! Theroadislong ( talk) 18:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Hello Kayla kas! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:26 on June 18, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

Draft:InGenius Prep, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:InGenius Prep and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:InGenius Prep during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sounds Fake But Okay 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/Sounds Fake But Okay until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Waqob ( talk) 04:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC) reply