User talk:Bergmangrid

Welcome from Rasnaboy

Welcome, Bergmangrid!

Hello, Bergmangrid, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm Rasnaboy, one of the thousands of editors here at Wikipedia. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Introduction

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia

How to edit a page

Help

How to write a great article

Simplified Manual of Style

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, users like you are what makes Wikipedia such a great encyclopedia!

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Rasnaboy (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bergmangrid, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Bergmangrid! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Gestrid (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Hello Bergmangrid. 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

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, and if it does not, 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:Bergmangrid. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Bergmangrid|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 16:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Greg Fleishman (entrepreneur) (December 10)

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

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 people). 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.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

I don't see one independent reliable source that discusses in depth and in detail what this person has achieved. Those few sources that are even vaguely about him (1, 4, 5) are press-release or similar publicity materials – this is, after all, a marketing person. Note the frequent use of stuff like "according to Fleishman" or "said Fleishman" in those pieces. Wikipedia is built on independent sources, and really does not care at all what people or organisations choose to say about themselves.

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:Greg Fleishman (entrepreneur) 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:Greg Fleishman (entrepreneur), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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.

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]