Commercialindustrial

 

Hello Commercialindustrial. 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 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:Commercialindustrial. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Commercialindustrial|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. bonadea contributions talk 15:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello bonadea,

Thank you for reaching out regarding my edits. I want to clarify that I am not being compensated, either directly or indirectly, for my contributions to Wikipedia. My intent with these edits is to provide neutral, factual, and verifiable content to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the topic.

I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines regarding neutrality and disclosure, and I assure you that I have no conflict of interest in this matter. If there is any part of my contributions that appears otherwise, I am happy to discuss it further and make adjustments to align with Wikipedia's policies.

Please let me know if there is anything else I can clarify or improve. Thank you for your guidance. Commercialindustrial (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

What - if any - are your connections to the company? Above, you deny COI, but I am asking for clarity. Employed? PR firm? Friend of people in management? David notMD (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

To clarify, I do not have any connection to the company, nor am I being paid for this submission. My sole intention is to contribute verifiable information about a subject that I believe meets Wikipedia’s notability standards, supported by significant independent coverage in reputable publications. Commercialindustrial (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Robert McClenon was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft reads like an advertisement, but Wikipedia is not for advertising.

This draft has been resubmitted without any visible improvement, or with very little improvement. If you do not know what is needed to improve this draft, please ask for advice rather than making minor improvements and resubmitting.

You may ask for advice on how to improve this draft at the Teahouse or on the talk pages of any of the declining reviewers. (The declining reviewers may advise you to ask for advice at the Teahouse.)

If this draft is resubmitted without any improvement or with very little improvement again, it is likely to be rejected, and it may be nominated for deletion, or a topic-ban may even be requested against further submission by the responsible editor.

Does the author of this draft have any sort of financial or other connection with the subject of this draft? Please read the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy and make any required disclosures.

You may ask for advice about conflict of interest at the Teahouse.

If this draft is resubmitted without addressing the question about conflict of interest, it may be Rejected or nominated for deletion.

This draft has been Rejected by a reviewer in the Articles for Creation review process. DO NOT resubmit this draft or attempt to resubmit this draft or prepare or submit a draft that is substantially the same as this draft without discussing the reasons for the rejection. You may request a discussion with the rejecting reviewer, or you may request a discussion with the community at the Teahouse. A discussion will not necessarily agree to a resubmission.

It should be noted that the reviewer has not decided that the topic is not notable. An article on the topic may be accepted in the future. However, there is no reason to think that this draft will become an article, and there is evidence that this draft will never become an article. If there is to be an article on this topic, this draft must first be blown up and started over.

If this draft is resubmitted without discussion and without starting it over, or if an attempt is made to resubmit this draft or an equivalent draft, without addressing the reasons for the Rejection by starting over, a partial block or a topic-ban may be requested against the submitting editor.

You may ask for advice about Rejection at the Teahouse.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I noticed that my draft was rejected without the option to resubmit. I will be making the necessary edits and would like to know how I can resubmit it for review. Could you please enable it for resubmission? Thank you for your guidance! Commercialindustrial (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

No. I don't know how many times this has been resubmitted without ever seeing proper improvement--Robert McClenon believes, I think, that we're at the end of the line and we do not expect that anything more is going to come out of this, or that any more volunteer time should be spent on it. In addition, you've not given us any reason to believe that you are not connected to the company one way or another. Robert, I think a COI/UPE block is warranted, don't you? Drmies (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your feedback. I want to clarify again that I have no connection to the company. Since I live in the neighbourhood of this topic, I chose to contribute to it because I believe it is deserving of an encyclopaedic entry. If there are specific issues with the article that need addressing, I am willing to make the necessary improvements based on constructive feedback to ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Commercialindustrial (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

User:Drmies - Unfortunately, I agree that the only real question is whether a block or a partial block is in order. If this editor is only a neighbor, they are writing like a neighbor who owns stock in the company, even if they don't own stock in the company. After the second or third decline, the editor could have asked for advice as to why their draft was still being declined, but they didn't. If an editor won't stop writing like a marketeer, they should either stop writing or learn how to write like a technical writer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think I see what you were doing here, but unfortunately it's precisely the kind of writing that made Robert McClenon and me doubt your intentions and perhaps your skills when it comes to neutral editing. Drmies (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am new to Wikipedia and still learning, so I appreciate any constructive feedback to help improve my neutral writing. I have received some helpful feedback from the Teahouse. Thank you. Commercialindustrial (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply