User talk:LeonardHigh

Welcome![edit]

Hello, LeonardHigh, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see:

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page and how to develop articles
Help pages
Tutorials
Article wizard for creating new articles
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! --VViking_TalkEdits 13:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LeonardHigh, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi LeonardHigh! 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 Blaze The Wolf (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The College of Remote and Offshore Medicine Foundation (CoROM) (October 16)[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 Greenman was:

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:

Promotional and full of WP:External links.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The College of Remote and Offshore Medicine Foundation (CoROM) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

Greenman (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The College of Remote and Offshore Medicine Foundation (CoROM)‎[edit]

I see you have been hired to promote The College of Remote and Offshore Medicine Foundation (CoROM)‎. I'll spare you my diatribe about how decent people don't perform a work of love for money. Encyclopedia articles are necessarily driven by sources. Your client/ employer doesn't care about this but you should. If you can find good sources that discuss the subject, you can write an acceptable article. The problem of being a paid editor, which I have done before, is that notable entities are seldom the ones paying writers. Your client inevitably paints you into a corner in this way. I have seen some entities scrape by on churnalism. It doesn't always work but any firm with enough funding can buy the coverage they want. For a corporation to be notable, I would say they need to earn honest media and that means being a stand-out in their field. Otherwise, all the other media coverage is not going to be independent because it will be interviews or content from related firms or customers and those don't fly. Long term, you can't be a paid editor here because your clients will put you in this un-enviable position and you'll be butting heads with us to get drafts accepted, and that is no fun. I encourage you to write what you love, sticking to good sources one can find at a library. — Chris Troutman (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LeonardHigh. 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:LeonardHigh. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=LeonardHigh|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. 110.175.82.144 (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022[edit]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:

Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

--Blablubbs (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the COI regarding Draft:The College of Remote and Offshore Medicine Foundation (CoROM), which the IP pointed out above, was indeed disclosed (see Special:Permalink/1110581500); the problem is with other contributions. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]