Talk:Wiliot

Neutrality
Hi, Having read up on the detailed enwp COI policy following your tag on this article and a note on my talk page, I have now added the corresponding templates to disclose my affiliation with Wiliot to this talk page and my user page. I hope I got right, otherwise please let me know. With regards to the content of the article, I can assure you that I've done my best to keep it as neutral and verifiable as with any other subject I've engaged myself in on Wikipedia over the years. Hence, if you believe a cleanup is required, I would need your input to understand in what way you felt that the article does not represent a neutral point of view. I'll be happy to try and suggest edits and/or sources to remedy any remaining issues. Otherwise, I'm hoping you'd consider to remove the coi template. All the best, Urbourbo (talk) 18:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi again, Given that I received no answer here for the past month, I assume that the main concern was the disclosure, and that my actions towards that were satisfactory. Would you agree? I'm not sure what the standard process is for the Template:Undisclosed paid template, but given that it's no longer accurate (as a disclosure has been made) I would suggest to remove it. If there are any objections - and, again, if there are any specific concerns regarding how the article might be cleaned up, please let me know. Thanks, /Urbourbo (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * All good. I've swapped the tag over. - Bilby (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Is there any light you could shed on what type of cleanup you believe the article might still need, and what we could do to make that happen? Best, /Urbourbo (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Now, over two months now have passed since this article was tagged for paid contributions. During this time, there has been no details given on what might need to be improved, and no material edits have been made to it. Hence, it seems to me that we can conclude that the article is not problematic and that there is no cleanup required, and hence no need to keep the tag as per its usage documentation. Therefore, I'm now taking the liberty to remove the tag. If there are any objections to this, please feel free to revert it and please let us know what might need improving. Many thanks, /Urbourbo (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The thing about paid editing is that we know that the article is a result of a COI, but we can't know how that has affected the article. The tag indicates to editors (and readers) that there is a potential problem. At some point someone will need to look into the topic and determine that the coverage is either reasonable or not, but the person doing that cannot have a COI, or it defeats the point. This is not about "have any problems been identified", but "has anyone confirmed that there are no problems". - Bilby (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)