User talk:FoRBMonitor

Welcome!

Hello, FoRBMonitor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Best practices for editors with close associations
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style
The Teahouse, our help forum for new editors

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, visit the Teahouse, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Googling for "FoRB Monitor" there is no company / organization using this name. So it should be fine, shouldn't it? FoRBMonitor (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your username doesn't matter if you're obviously just adding links to a publisher. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it is normal to mention the publisher in literature references. FoRBMonitor (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not normal to add books with no indication of import, impact, or reliability to the further reading section of articles. Generally we call that spam. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even looked at the books? The relevance is pretty obvious. FoRBMonitor (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So they've been cited in other works, and reviewed in academic press? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are already press reports mentioning the book, besides only being published recently. Yet, if you intend to be consistent with your interpretation of standards of relevance, enjoy checking the dozens of other sources for these requirements :) FoRBMonitor (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a lack of response, this case seems to be closed. FoRBMonitor (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the case. FoRBMonitor (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source

[1]: why did you remove a source? JacktheBrown (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source was re-added in the article in the section describing the issue described in the source. It would be better though to use a source with a more profound analysis than a news article. FoRBMonitor (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]