User talk:Kpwat

Hello, Kpwat. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Actuarial Society of Hong Kong, 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 employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are 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 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:Kpwat. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Kpwat|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. Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Julietdeltalima, I am not paid or compensated in any way for publishing the page for Actuarial Society of Hong Kong.

May I kindly ask for your advice how should I declare or prepare the page to make it accepted?

Also, may you hint me which part of the page content may seem problematic? Thank you so much. Kpwat (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Actuarial Society of Hong Kong 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/Actuarial Society of Hong Kong 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 until the discussion has finished.

Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Julietdeltalima for your review.

Our team spent quite a lot of time to prepare for the page in order to catalog some information for the only actuarial society in Hong Kong.

We checked on Wikipedia that other actuarial societies can successfully publish a similar page:

Hungarian Actuarial Society

Society of Actuaries

Institute of Actuaries of India

Casualty Actuarial Society

Thank you for your kind advice. Kpwat (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I have to ask you first: who is your "team"? Does every team member have a personal English Wikipedia account of their own?

Accounts cannot be shared here, for a variety of reasons (copyright attribution foremost among them). For some reason, even though the one-user-per-account policy is clearly explained during the registration process, institutional public relations offices ignore it at least a third of the time and register an account called, say, "PalmhurstCollegeAthletics" that multiple staff members and student interns end up using over the years. Once an account is used by more than one person, though, it is subject to permanent blocking because there is no way to determine which individual human using the account took a given action or wrote a particular content addition. This is a very long explanation of why your reference to a "team" meant I had to ask you about this issue before anything else, but I get the sense you would rather know more than less about how things work here.

With respect to this article, I kindly urge you to read the entirety of Wikipedia's policy regarding notability of article subjects, and then go back in particular to the subsection entitled "Independent of the subject". It explains that notability cannot be established by "works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." This article appears to rely almost entirely on material published by, or at the request of, the subject. Such sources are strongly disfavored here because of another of Wikipedia's core policies, regarding verifiability (which I also kindly recommend you read)—since anyone can say anything about themselves in their own publication, those self-publications cannot be considered encyclopedically reliable.

A related set of problems with this article is that, because it does not appear that there are secondary sources independent of the subject, the non-independent sourced information concerns issues only of interest to the organization, at best. I deleted the section about the lapel pins for this reason. This is why most editors who do any work on articles about organizations immediately delete any "mission statement" or other self-generated, uninformative material of no interest to anyone at all (and we possibly groan loudly enough about it to wake up our pets). Another excellent guideline is about "words to watch" when writing and editing here; "peacock words" are one of my biggest peeves in any writing because they are, perhaps mildly but often strongly, intellectually not fully honest, even if the writer didn't intend or realize that. You will find that most longtime multi-subject editors here feel this way, so strongly that it is one of the reasons we keep volunteering our time here, eliminating unexamined "marketing-ese" and promotional content from this extraordinary global reference.

I hope you aren't discouraged from ever contributing here again. You are a very good writer and could have a lot to offer as a volunteer even if this article is deleted. (Oh, one final guideline recommendation: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) I'll close by emphasizing that, as many people don't know, everyone you are likely to encounter here is an unpaid volunteer fitting a few minutes in at a time to work on the project. In "real life" I'm a hospital attorney, but I've been a writer and editor for almost 40 years (I view my "day job" as being simply a very specialized writer and editor!) and it relaxes me to make others' writing better for a few minutes. I only want to assure you that there's a real person writing to you now who appreciates your kind, intelligent communication. Take care — Julietdeltalima (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Dear Julietdeltalima,

Thank you for your detailed reply, with informative resources and pointing me to the correct direction.

I do not use shared account, but my team is a group of volunteers (consisting of actuaries and students) who double check my draft content before it is released, to ensure the use of words is appropriate and the length is suitable (not too long or too short).

Indeed we are all members of the Actuarial Society of Hong Kong, and we will not hide this fact. But we do not think there is a conflict of interest in publishing the article, as long as the contents are described and cited properly.

Our intention to publish this article is to follow the other actuarial societies (linked in my reply above) to let the public know there is such a organization in Hong Kong. Since the others could do that, it seems that there is a way that we can do that too. (Or the other pages were established by a third-party to ensure independence and objectivity?)

May I know based on your cited policy, will there be any legitimate method that even with our role (we are associated with the society) that we can still establish the page?

We also found that other local societies (like thost listed below), which are all non-commercial organizations (like us), could also estaiblish their page successfully:

Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants

Law Society of Hong Kong

Hong Kong Institute of Architects

Because you are a seasoned Wikipedia editor and reviewer, may you hint me whether the members of the society may not be in a suitale position to establish the page? And for my follow-up action, am I still allowed to edit the contents and post the revised version again?

Thank you and wish you a nice weekend! Kpwat (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2025 (UTC)