Woodman1977

Hello,

In response to your message on my talk page, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development article is in need of sources other than the organization's own website. Specifically, it needs citations from what Wikipedia considers reliable sources (click both of those blue links for the appropriate guidelines and policy). While it's true that an organization's own website can be used as a source for some material in an article, if there are no other 3rd-party reliable sources that can be used to back up the article's contents, then it might fail notability criteria.

I hope this clears things up. Let me know if you have any further concerns or questions. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok if the guidelines are unclear, then here's the story in a nutshell: it doesn't matter if the organization states that everything in the article is correct and factual. What matter is whether other sources (reliable sources) contain information about the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Major newspapers magazines are good examples of reliable sources.

I see you've added some links to the references section of the article. I'll discuss them here, and perhaps this will better explain what is missing from the article

The www.get.hobsons.co.uk link: doesn't appear to meet WP:RS criteria
The www.charity-commission.gov.uk link: this appears to be just a general link to a website. If there is specific information at this website about the Institute, please adjust the link to point to it - or even better turn it into a proper citation.
The www.privy-council.org.uk link: while useful for background information, I see no mention of the Institute at this particular link. Again see above about adjusting links to point to specific relevant information about the Institute
The www.iipuk.co.uk link: no mention of the Institute on this page either.

--AbsolutDan ^(talk) 12:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry that you're feeling frustrated. I'm not trying to prevent you from editing. All I'm saying is that the article is in need of proper citations. If reliable sources have published material that discusses/describes the Institute, then we need proper cites to that material, not just links to their website. Think of a Wikipedia as a research paper - you can't just say "this organization can vouch for the Institute", you need to cite the material where they talk about it. Please read through WP:CITE for information and examples about how citations should be added. Thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Great - the link amendments are a good start. The article is no longer in need of the {{unreferenced}}, so I will not be re-adding it. At some point it'd be a good idea to turn those links into proper citations, but for now this article now passes inclusion criteria. Thank you --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Logo 01 74x74.gif)

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo 01 74x74.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Spamming of Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

http://spam.cipd.co.uk

Accounts

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent insertion of spam, commercial content, and/or links is prohibited under policy. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please stop. If you continue to use Wikipedia to advertise you will be blocked from editing.
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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 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 you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. --Hu12 (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

April 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You have been blocked for a period of 2 weeks from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. --Ged UK 19:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Add topic