Talk:CLX Communications

Per WP:LISTED most listed companies have enough sources to be notable. Legacypac (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, . However, you seem to moved an undisclosed paid native advertisement into mainspace without so much as asking to make the disclosure required by our WP:Terms of Use. I suggest moving this back to draft until and unless disclosure is forthcoming. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Upwords of 50% of AFC submissions are COI and/or paid editors and most do not disclose anything. I judge pages against established criteria. Legacypac (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that may be so. It's up to reviewers to make sure that they do not move paid content into mainspace unless a proper disclosure has been made, because doing so is (a) a violation of the Terms of Use and (b) probably illegal. I suggest moving this back to draft space. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Where exactly is this alleged advertising? The page says where the company is based, where they are listed, a sentence on what they do, who founded it when, and some well sourced paragraphs on which notable companies they acquired. It's history not advertising at all. If you object to the existence of the page as "native advertising" sorry but policy disagrees with you. This is how I would write up the page as a completely disinterested editor. Legacypac (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Native advertising is a legal concept, not local policy. The page was (I'm quite sure) paid for by the company in one way or another. It doesn't matter whether it looks like an advertisement – it is one, because the company paid to put it here. Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion of any kind, and a paid advertisement is clearly promotion. I suggest moving this back to draft until and unless disclosure is forthcoming. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Good afternoon, Andnowthefloodgateswillopen here. Could you please instruct how I can declare that I have no conflict of interest regarding this article? I am new to Wikipedia editing; creating this page has been a way for me to get into the swing of things. They are a company that have an office in my home town. I have not been paid to create this page. I am employed by in the office of a small landscaping company, and I am using Wikipedia as a method to help build my website editing and writing skills. Andnowthefloodgateswillopen (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Welcome User:Andnowzhefloodgateswillopen. You just did clear up any perceived conflict of interest. Building a well constructed new page from scratch is an advanced skill and you did a very nice job. Don't let the misguided crusade User:Justlettersandnumbers is on deter you from contributing on a variety of topics. Any issues, just post on my talkpage amd I'll try to help if I can. Legacypac (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
At least one major contributor to this article appears to have a close personal or professional connection to the topic, and thus to have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting request edit (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request, or by clicking the link on the lowest yellow notice above. Requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted.

Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)