User talk:Cloeven
Welcome!
|
It's the external links you inserted. They do not conform with WP:EL guidelines and Wikipedia is not a yellow pages. You can use {{dmoz}} instead of listing hosts or websites. I give you some clues above. Happy editing! Dekisugi (talk) 07:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Conflict of interest
Hello, Cloeven. 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:TransientX, 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: TransientX (August 27)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:TransientX 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:TransientX, 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.
|
Hello, Cloeven!
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! KylieTastic (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
|
Paid editing
Hello Cloeven. 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 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 very 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 extremely 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:Cloeven. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Cloeven|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. Template:Z159 --Hammersoft (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right way to reply to your message? I attempted to disclose that I am in fact working for TransientX - but not paid as such for the entry. All I want to do is create a basic entry for the company, similar to what I did for my previous employer VMRay - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VMRay - what else do I need to change at this point?
- One, I would strongly recommend you immediately cease attempting to create an article about your company. You have a direct conflict of interest and it would be very, very difficult for you to write an article about your company from a dispassionate, neutral perspective. See WP:NEUTRAL. Second, I would follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested articles. If you have more questions, certainly let me know. I'll be happy to help. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the quick response, but it honestly isn't very helpful. As you can see from the info posted all I want to do is create a basic profile so others can update. As I mentioned, I did it before for VMRay, no issue. Most tech companies like us have a similar profile. Would it be helpful to simply remove some (what?) info? Or simply ask an acquaintance to create an article on our behalf? I'm obviously not trying to hide anything, and the entry is clearly not a commercial promotion as such as you can see from what is entered. I checked some comparable entries (e.g. Vectra AI) to create this one. If you have another suggestion for what format or what info I could provide, that would also be much appreciated.
- The mission of Wikipedia is not to create a company profile for every company in existence. We do not create profiles of companies and then hope someone adds material to it. We allow people to create articles on notable companies. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). We strongly discourage people working for the company in question to create such articles, as it is very difficult for them to be dispassionate and neutral. A perfect example of this is the draft you submitted for consideration: [1]. This draft was promotional in nature and read as you would it expect to read from a person working for the company; advertising copy. It talks about "Our mission" and "leading cybersecurity experts", etc. You've stripped out some of this, but it still has that phrasing of "unique approach". Says who? The company? That counts as a primary source and is something we would use sparingly, if at all. I did a quick search for news items related to your company via duckduckgo and found...nothing [2]. I did a search on news.google.com for news articles about your company. What I found was a brief mention here, and mention in an apparent paid-for press release here. Nothing else. If you look through the general notability guideline, you will see that such a dearth of sources clearly makes this draft not eligible for consideration of inclusion in the project. The company simply isn't notable as yet. Maybe some day in the future it will be, but it is not so now. That you did this for VMRay is honestly of no concern. I haven't looked at it and don't need to in regards to this draft. You might find Wikipedia:Other stuff exists to be an interesting read. Asking an acquaintance to create an article won't solve these problems, nevermind that it would very likely still suffer from a conflict of interest issue. As I mentioned before, your best bet is to make a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles. But, given the apparent lack of news articles about this company, it's unlikely such a request would be accepted. You are not alone. To date, nearly a quarter of a million companies have attempted to do exactly what you are attempting to do and ended up not succeeding. That's about three dozen a day since Wikipedia started. This is why we have standards such as Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I hope this helps to clarify things. If you have other questions, certainly let me know. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I appreciate again the time you took on this. I've gone and made a couple more changes to make it as neutral as possible. I read your note about Notability. The challenge is, in this context, notability ends up in practice favouring our larger, well-funded competitors and disadvantaging startups, especially self-funded ones like ours. For example, one of our major competitors is Zscalar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zscaler . Note the warning that it's written like an advertisement yet is still permitted. Zscalar has a market cap of $18BN. So in effect, Wikipedia's notability guideline in this context means Wikipedia becomes a gatekeeper for large enterprises and disadvantaging smaller startups. Wikipedia has an overweighted impact on SEO. Not having that wikipedia entry suppresses further organic search results for a startup like ours, making it more difficult to be on a level playing field with the Zscalars of the world. I will resubmit our entry and would appreciate if you could reconsider whether might makes right and companies can have de facto advertisements in wikipedia by dint of their size while entries for startups are suppressed.
- Wikipedia is not a means of advertising your company. See WP:NOTADVERTISING. Your struggles in marketing simply aren't our concern. Wikipedia has no vested interest in the success or failure of any company, and allowing Wikipedia to be so involved is counter to our purpose. If we were to become an advertising platform, the project would end. We are not a champion of the underdog, nor a champion of the mighty. We simply don't care about the machinations of the global marketplace nor can we. Whether or not the Zscaler article has problems or not has no effect on your draft. See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Wikipedia is imperfect. It will never be perfect. That something else on the project isn't perfect doesn't provide justification for something else to be imperfect. If you want there to be an article about your company, your route forward is to find reliable, secondary sources that support notability of the company per WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. I realize this is frustrating for you. I'm sorry. I'm trying to tell you how it is, and why your efforts are not succeeding. There's a gulf of perception here that I am trying to reach across to help you understand where we come from on this.
- I took a look at the VMRay article. If the only sources available are the ones currently on the article, it would not pass WP:GNG. There are six sources noted. In order, 1 is published by the founders. I.e., primary source. Same goes for 2. The third source is a bad link, but a copy of it is available here. That's a press release, which is a primary source. 4 is also a press release. 5 is a press release as well, being sourced to the company itself. Only the 6th source is of any non-primary source value, and it's insufficient by itself to support an article being just a product review. In sum; five primary sources and one non-primary. Have a look at WP:PSTS which outlines the different sorts of sources. Please understand that a primary source isn't useful for establishing the notability of a company. Such an effort is asking us to agree a company is notable because the company says its notable. Not that I would want to be famous but I am not famous and no amount of my saying I am famous would make me famous anymore than a company saying it's notable would make it notable. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- I took at look at the Zscaler article. It had a lot of problems, not least of which was that most of the content were copyright violations from a variety of sources. The article has now been replaced by content that is not a copyright violation and is neutral in tone. Have a look, if you like. Almost all of the content that is on the article now was created by me, using a variety of reliable, secondary sources to support it. That's how we build articles here. If there were such sources available for your company, I would consider building such an article for your company as well. But, as I noted earlier such sources don't seem to exist. I hope you understand. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update and the offer. As you said, we're too new at this point to have those sources, so I'll revisit this in the future when we can provide those. - C.