User talk:Saskia Schuldig

March 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm Thepenguin9online. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to User:Saskia_Schuldig have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Thepenguin9 (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Branding. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Branding was changed by Saskia Schuldig (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.858101 on 2020-03-02T09:24:21+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (March 18)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Robert McClenon 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 organizations and companies). 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 appears to be a duplicate of another submission, 1-grid, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft is written from the viewpoint of the company, focusing on what the company says about itself. Corporate notability is based on what independent reliable sources have written about the subject.

Not every business corporation is notable, and this draft does not establish corporate notability. You may ask for advice about corporate notability at the Teahouse.

This draft reads like a directory entry, but Wikipedia is not a directory. This draft does not establish notability.

Does the author of this draft have any sort of financial or other connection with the subject of this draft? Please read the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy and make any required declarations.

You may ask for advice about conflict of interest at the Teahouse.

If this draft is resubmitted without addressing the question about conflict of interest, it may be Rejected or nominated for deletion.

This draft does not make a credible claim of significance. This draft would be subject to speedy deletion in article space. If this draft is resubmitted in its current form or a similar form, it should be nominated for deletion.

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 User:Saskia Schuldig/sandbox 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 User:Saskia Schuldig/sandbox, 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Saskia Schuldig! 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (April 6)[edit]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Theroadislong was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

Theroadislong (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1-grid (April 6)[edit]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Theroadislong was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Undisclosed paid editing.

Theroadislong (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Saskia Schuldig. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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. Theroadislong (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure of working for organisation[edit]

Hi there,

I am an employee at 1-grid who has been tasked to create a Wikipedia page for our company. I am not being compensated additionally for this, however it has integrated with my existing tasks.

Please note that I am attempting to be as un-promotional as possible and would appreciate any guidance or advice along the way as to how I can better achieve this.

Saskia Schuldig (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia only publishes articles for topics that have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Your draft was rejected it will not be considered further. Wikipedia is not a place for companies to promote themselves. Theroadislong (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not promotional in anyway - I don't understand - the article speaks to milestones that the company has achieved. We have received more queries about our company hence why we wish to create a page where people can find all of this information. It does not include any information about our products or services. Please explain how other companies have managed to load their information on Wikipedia - most of which are including the same un-promotional content that I have published. If you are standing by the statement of "Wikipedia is not a place for companies to promote themselves" - please explain this to me? Thanks

Saskia Schuldig (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes information that appears in independent reliable sources with significant coverage showing how a company meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself. Your draft has zero sources let alone any independent ones. Theroadislong (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you are telling me that all of the below sources are not notable enough according to the notability standards?

https://mybroadband.co.za/news/cloud-hosting/258419-gridhost-is-now-1-grid.html https://mybroadband.co.za/news/cloud-hosting/231051-webafrica-splitting-its-business-in-two.html https://mybroadband.co.za/news/it-services/356789-south-african-websites-flooded-with-traffic-during-lockdown.html https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/entrepreneurs/uct-student-establish-startups-as-part-of-their-course-33122901 https://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/500/192410.html

Saskia Schuldig (talk) 08:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft here Draft:1-grid has no such sources. Theroadislong (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I include the above resources do you think it will enhance the notability?

Saskia Schuldig (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They all look like press releases or blogs to me, which are not considered reliable. Theroadislong (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I am responsible for the PR of the company, I can tell you that these articles were created by the staff writers - whereby questions were sent to us and we answered. The content was created by the independent sources.

Saskia Schuldig (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Saskia Schuldig/sandbox[edit]

Hello, Saskia Schuldig. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]