User talk:Ceo yc

Speedy deletion nomination of Angsana Group of Companies
Hello Ceo yc,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Angsana Group of Companies for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Musa Talk  05:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Reply
Hi, thanks for message. You can sign your comments automatically using four tildes ~ . Musa Raza simply nominated your article for deletion, and did not bock or delete it I deleted your article because
 * it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the company, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company claims or interviewing its management. Your article had no references at all.
 * it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced claims presented as fact include: leading food products manufacturer... our group enjoyed tremendous growth since our group... exceptional leadership... secured itself a strong presence... still actively expanding... we are keen to acquire... reputed...&mdash; just spam for your company
 * the article was created in a single edit without wikilinks or references, and looks as if was copied from an unknown and possibly copyrighted source. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient. But in any case the copyrighted text is far too promotional to be useful for Wikipedia's purposes, so there would not be any point in your jumping through all the hoops that are required.
 * You use of "our" and "we" make it clear that you are editing on behalf of your company rather than as an individual. You have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles about this subject, which you must declare. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that your organisation is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Requested articles for the article to be created. See also Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.

You seem to have assumed that Wikipedia is a free advertising platform, I'm afraid that's not the case Jimfbleak - talk to me?  09:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Ceo yc, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

Reply
Hello Ceo yc. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic. 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. Paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a black hat practice. 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, and if it does not, 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, 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:. The template Paid can be used for this purpose. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You can't hide your edits, but you can initially write your draft here until you are ready to move it to article space. This gives some protection, particularly while you are finding references, but it can still be deleted if you copy text from your own or another website, or if your text is blatant promotion of your organisation. Please read my previous posting here carefully before starting Jimfbleak - talk to me?  05:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)