User talk:Gandolfthewhite

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stephen Kovach (May 3)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

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 when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Stephen Kovach and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Stephen Kovach, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * 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=Draft:Stephen_Kovach Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KylieTastic&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Stephen_Kovach reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

There is NO possible way that anyone at Wiki has thoroughly reviewed my submission! First, you have told me that it does not meet certain standards because it contains "passing by comments". I would hardly call verified, peer-reviewed journal articles that cite the patent listed as "passing by". Second, I listed at least 8 different articles that cited it over the past many years. Even though your own website says it will take several months to review, and that there are at least 1400 reviews ahead of mine, you somehow miraculously reviewed and rejected mine in a matter of minutes! For the record, I am trying to submit this article on behalf of my manager, who has made significant contributions to his field. Creating this article was only to make it easier for the many employees and students that are interested in his work. There is nothing "fluffy" or self promoting about the entry. Fact is, you didn't even read and/or research it. Google Scholar is one of the recommended sources to use. I used several from Google Scholar, yet you rejected it. Why?
 * Some reviews do take months, but most are given a cursory review the same day, sometimes within minutes. Yours for example so obviously fails our guidelines that it took very little time to decline. If you are making this page for your manager, then you need to properly disclose as a paid editor before any further edits, I have posted the applicable policies to your talk page. I would also recommend reviewing the linked guidelines in the decline messages for what needs to be done to demonstrate notability. Hint: Directory pages and links to patents do nothing to demonstrate notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stephen Kovach (May 3)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy 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 when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Stephen Kovach and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Stephen Kovach, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * 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=Draft:Stephen_Kovach Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sulfurboy&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Stephen_Kovach reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Gandolfthewhite. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Draft:Stephen Kovach, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Sulfurboy (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
Hello Gandolfthewhite. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:Stephen Kovach, 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

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:Gandolfthewhite. 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. Sulfurboy (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)