User talk:Cmojim

Talkback
I am trying to get this page up and error free but it seems as soon as I fix one problem I get another problem. The page I am working on is CyberArts International and I am trying to get rid of the warning tags on the top but don't understand what the problem is. It says that the article is an advertisement, the sourcing style is unclear etc. Since I have nothing to do with the topic, and didn't even write this article, I don't see how it could be an advertisement and I thought my citations where correct. I could really use some help in explaining what they mean, what is wrong with my citations, and how I can go about fixing them properly. This is my first Wikipedia project and I am a bit lost at the moment as what seems to be the matter, so any help would be splendid. Thanks so much! --Cmojim (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You didn't write the article and don't see how statements such as "The book [...] was itself the closing chapter of the early digital revolution, a seminal period in the evolution of human communication." sound utterly promotional? "[...] their legacy includes much of the technology-based entertainment in theatres and theme parks"? Says which source? It "featured landmark performances"? "It was in factwhere many of the recognized leaders of today's digital media world got their early inspiration"? Which leaders, according to which reference? All this is vague, sounds great, and is not supported by reliable sources. Those are the hallmarks of unduly promotional content, also known as WP:SPAM. The "unclear citation style" comment probably refers to the "Sources" section. Parts of the draft have footnotes that indicate the relevant source, but what is, for example, Report by Electronic Cafe International used for? What's the difference between the "Sources" and the "Citations"? Huon (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Disclosure requirements
Hi Cmojim. Just as a quick heads up, you may not be aware that the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use were updated last year to place requirements on paid editors, and that this update extends to editing on Wikipedia. Under the new terms of use, if you engage in paid editing you are required to disclose your affiliation to your clients and employer when making paid edits. You have a few options for doing so - you can make the disclosure on the article's talk page, on your user page, or in the edit summaries with your changes. There is some additional information in the FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure, and Wikipedia's stance is outlined at Conflict of interest.

To clarify, although Wikipedia continues to very strongly discourage paid editing of articles, the new terms of use don't forbid it. Their aim is to require transparency. - Bilby (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)