User talk:CillianStaffer907

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cliff Groh (March 23)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Greenman were:

The comment the reviewer left was:

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:Cliff Groh 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Cliff_Groh Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Greenman&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Cliff_Groh reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Greenman (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

June 2023
Hello CillianStaffer907. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:Cliff Groh, 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:CillianStaffer907. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. 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. Listed on https://akhouse.org/rep-groh/ as 'Staff for Rep. Groh' - Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 15:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cliff Groh (June 14)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.


 * Draft:Cliff Groh may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:CillianStaffer907 Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rich_Smith&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:CillianStaffer907 reviewer's talk page] . or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

- Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 15:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Conflict of interest/paid editing
Please be aware of the following matters before making any further edits to Wikipedia:


 * 1) It is mandatory for you to disclose your employer per the terms of Wikipedia's paid editing disclosure policy. It must be a clear and visible disclosure for others to be aware of your affiliation to the topics you are writing about. The preferred method is to use the  template on your userpage (User:CillianStaffer907). You would be well-advised to review the conflict of interest guide as well.
 * 2) You have indicated that you have been tasked to create an article about your employer. You both should review When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia, and be aware that he is not entitled to have a Wikipedia article merely because he wants one, or believes he deserves one. Whether or not an article about him is accepted is determined by the next point in this list.
 * 3) Wikipedia requires that all topics meet its notability criteria to be deemed worthy of inclusion. In the specific case of a person, the notability criteria for people applies; and in the specific case of a politician, the notability criteria for politicians. And, any article about a person currently alive must adhere to the strict policy on biographies of living persons. In any case, this individual must have already been the subject of significant coverage by multiple sources that are both reliable and independent of the person himself or his affiliated organizations. Self-authored sources (such as press releases, political party websites, interviews and social media) are defined as self-published and therefore not reliable.
 * 4) You cannot post copyrighted material on Wikipedia - even if you are the copyright holder, or have the copyright holder's permission - unless the material has been released for use by the verified copyright owner into the public domain or under a license compatible with Wikipedia. These licenses allow anyone — not just Wikipedia — to share, distribute, transmit, and adapt your work, free of charge and in perpetuity, provided that you are attributed as the author. Also, because some derivative works may be commercial, we cannot accept materials that are licensed only for educational use or even for general non-commercial use. Releasing the material is both permanent and irrevocable.

--Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Copyright
It is almost never suitable to copy content from another web site to Wikipedia, for more than one reason, the most important being copyright. When you post anything to Wikipedia you release it for anyone in the world to reuse it, either unchanged or modified in any way whatever, subject to attribution to Wikipedia. It is very rare that the owner of a web site licenses content for such very free reuse, and in those few occasions when they do so, we require proof of the fact. We don't assume that content is freely licensed on the unsubstantiated say so of just anyone who comes along and creates a Wikipedia account. Certainly we can't accept text previously published on a web site which has a copyright notice saying "all rights reserved", as in the case of material you have posted That is an unambiguous indication that the copyright owners do not intend to allow unlimited free reuse. JBW (talk) 17:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)