User talk:DragonMinions7428

April 2020[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Commissionit.co.uk, from its old location at User:Kovidofficial/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Commissionit.co.uk (April 7)[edit]

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Commissionit.co.uk 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:Commissionit.co.uk, 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.

Sulfurboy (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kovidofficial! 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! Sulfurboy (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Commissionit.co.uk (April 13)[edit]

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Commissionit.co.uk 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:Commissionit.co.uk, 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. 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 the submission 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 the submission, 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.

Kovidofficial (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have disclosed that I was paid by the Employer in the Talk Page!!

That is not enough. You have not properly disclosed. Sulfurboy (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sulfurboy, I'm currently having a look at this, but wonder which of the requirements of WP:PAID are not satisfied by the disclosure. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, You mean the improperly formatted statement they made on the talk page? Naw, not acknowledging it. If they want to make paid for edits then they are under the scrutiny of a robust review of all actions involving a party they have a COI with, this includes ensuring they've actually taken the time to read and apply our policies on UPE. The user is also very strongly encouraged to disclose on their user page as well. The user, per WP:PAID needs to ensure that every editor they have an interaction with on that page is fully aware that they are a paid editor and their contributions are as well so that way strict scrutiny can be applied to all edits and submissions by the user. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think text is fine; there is no need for using a specific template. It lacked a signature; I have fixed that for them. There is also a concern I have now mentioned in a new section below. I personally would like to see the middleman platform in the disclosure too, as the "affiliation". There is off-wiki evidence about a middleman platform probably existing between this writer and their client. I'm not a lawyer, though, and the disclosure might already be pretty fine. It was made much too late, though, and should have been the first step. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Kovidofficial. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Draft:Commissionit.co.uk, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You must disclose your advertisements on other websites[edit]

Hi Kovidofficial,

You seem to be offering your Wikipedia editing services on other websites. Per WP:PAID and meta:Linking_to_external_advertising_accounts:

Paid editors must provide links on their Wikipedia user page to all active accounts at websites where they advertise paid Wikipedia-editing services. If an advertisement is removed, any corresponding links on the Wikipedia user page must remain visible for at least one week.

You must create User:Kovidofficial with links to all your paid Wikipedia editing profiles on other websites. You should also add the {{paid}} template. Please be careful: Promotion is forbidden, and your user page must not be promotional. Keep it neutral and factual.

Thank you very much in advance and best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your draft[edit]

You asked in the IRC live help channel about your draft's review that says the "references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article". Wikipedia measures a subject's notability by the amount of coverage in reliable third-party sources that the subject has received. Your draft currently cites four references. Companies House is a directory that covers every British company, no matter how small. 's trivial coverage, largely based on what the company says about itself. Having a Companies House entry is a legal requirement, not an indication of notability. The Social Enterprise UK page clearly is written by the company itself, not independent coverage ("We're an online platform..."). The third source is a press release, again not independent coverage. And the last one is a mere list entry on a borough web page, not even a single sentence of content about the company. Even if we considered Greenwich borough reporting on Greenwich borough activities an independent source, that would not be significant coverage. So none of your references meets the requirements; none is helpful in establishing notability. If the company is notable at all, I'd suggest finding better references and rewriting the article from scratch based on what those sources have to say about the company. Trying to salvage the current content would be much more problematic since any new sources that might be found are unlikely to say the same things about the company. Huon (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Commissionit.co.uk[edit]

Hello, Kovidofficial. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Commissionit.co.uk".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm Arccosecant. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. — csc^-1 19:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]