Hello Nrochluz. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Huupe, 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 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:Nrochluz. The template {{
Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Nrochluz|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. signed,
Rosguill
talk
14:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
This article was produced in partnership with Thomas Herdthat suggests it is a promotional placement ad, an assessment that is not dispelled by the article's breathless prose and exhortation to follow huupe's social media. TechCrunch funding reports, meanwhile, are not considered significant coverage for the determination of notability ( RSP entry). The NationalNews article is a cut above the other two, but 90% of its content is direct quotes from stakeholders in huupe, so while it begins to establish notability, it's not a huge step in that direction. At a minimum, I'd want to see another source or two that is equivalent to or better than the National News and SBJ coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 16:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove
Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in
Articles for deletion debates, as you did with
Huupe. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create
consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please
comment at the respective page instead. Thank you.
ObserveOwl (
chit-chat •
my doings)
11:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. signed,
Rosguill
talk
13:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Hello Nrochluz. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Huupe, 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 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:Nrochluz. The template {{
Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Nrochluz|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. signed,
Rosguill
talk
14:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
This article was produced in partnership with Thomas Herdthat suggests it is a promotional placement ad, an assessment that is not dispelled by the article's breathless prose and exhortation to follow huupe's social media. TechCrunch funding reports, meanwhile, are not considered significant coverage for the determination of notability ( RSP entry). The NationalNews article is a cut above the other two, but 90% of its content is direct quotes from stakeholders in huupe, so while it begins to establish notability, it's not a huge step in that direction. At a minimum, I'd want to see another source or two that is equivalent to or better than the National News and SBJ coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 16:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove
Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in
Articles for deletion debates, as you did with
Huupe. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create
consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please
comment at the respective page instead. Thank you.
ObserveOwl (
chit-chat •
my doings)
11:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. signed,
Rosguill
talk
13:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)