User talk:HawkEggz: Difference between revisions
Scope creep (talk | contribs) Paid Template |
|||
Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
::@[[User:scope_creep|<font color=" #3399ff" face="Papyrus">scope_creep</font>]]: What are the grounds for deletion specific to the page? There have been third party sources added. Thanks. -- [[User:HawkEggz|HawkEggz]]. |
::@[[User:scope_creep|<font color=" #3399ff" face="Papyrus">scope_creep</font>]]: What are the grounds for deletion specific to the page? There have been third party sources added. Thanks. -- [[User:HawkEggz|HawkEggz]]. |
||
::: I thought it was promotional, but it looks a solid keep. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black;">[[User:scope_creep|<font color=" #3399ff" face="Papyrus">scope_creep</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|<font face="Papyrus">Talk</font>]]</sup></span>''' 15:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC) |
::: I thought it was promotional, but it looks a solid keep. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black;">[[User:scope_creep|<font color=" #3399ff" face="Papyrus">scope_creep</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:scope_creep#top|<font face="Papyrus">Talk</font>]]</sup></span>''' 15:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::Hi {{ping|scope_creep}}, am trying to clean up the promotional language and provide factual content are backed by references, as you can see in the edits. So will a "solid keep" still warrant a flag for deletion? Thanks [[User:HawkEggz|HawkEggz]] ([[User talk:HawkEggz#top|talk]]) 01:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC) |
|||
==Edit Requests== |
==Edit Requests== |
Revision as of 01:06, 17 April 2019
Welcome!
|
Paid editing
Hi @HawkEggz: Under Wikipedia Terms of Use any editor who is being paid to write or update an article, must confirm that they are a paid editor per WP:PAID and WP:DISCLOSURE. Any editor who is being paid and doesn't disclose risks indefinite blocking. scope_creepTalk 10:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Scope creep: the disclosure was already made on my user page in Nov 2015. Is there an issue with that now? -- HawkEggz (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry @HawkEggz: It is usually a paid silver template I was looking for. I never saw it. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 09:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Scope creep: by the way, are there issues with Apical Group? I've updated with third party citations after feedback from other contributors. Been trying to clean up the old PR language. Flagging it for deletion is a little over-the-top, no? Thanks! -- HawkEggz (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Apical Group for deletion
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Apical Group 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/Apical Group 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. scope_creepTalk 10:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- @scope_creep: What are the grounds for deletion specific to the page? There have been third party sources added. Thanks. -- HawkEggz.
- I thought it was promotional, but it looks a solid keep. scope_creepTalk 15:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi @Scope creep:, am trying to clean up the promotional language and provide factual content are backed by references, as you can see in the edits. So will a "solid keep" still warrant a flag for deletion? Thanks HawkEggz (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- I thought it was promotional, but it looks a solid keep. scope_creepTalk 15:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- @scope_creep: What are the grounds for deletion specific to the page? There have been third party sources added. Thanks. -- HawkEggz.
Edit Requests
Hi @HawkEggz: The content your adding seems to be designed to promote. These articles should offset discuss company events and processes that are notable, not fast post branding info off the wire that is promotional. I would suggest using Wikipedia:Edit requests to request an update to an article. It is standard way of doing it as the whole lot needs more scrutiny. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 02:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Paid Template
Hi @HawkEggz: There is a template called Template:Paid which is usually filled in by paid editors. Can you full it in please, so other editors can see that your paid, and bung it at the top of your user page. It used to drive the category system, process and WP software apparently. Thanks. scope_creepTalk 15:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Four tildes like ~~~~ will give you a signature. Best wishes. scope_creepTalk 15:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)