User talk:Kazanstyle/Archive 2

October 2022
Hello Kazanstyle. The nature of your edits 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:Kazanstyle. 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. SmartSE (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * SmartSE I'm not a paid editor and I did the article about Rosenberg in good faith. :I'd like to declare here from the beginning that I created the article about the scientist Louis Barry Rosenberg because I read this:

Once I read the article, I checked the scientist's h-index on Google Scholar and it was 128, which is beyond outstanding. Then I did my own research and found a lot of articles and decided to write a draft, which I submitted for review on Wikipedia. The page was approved by another experienced editor. Only now (after the notice I received from BrigadierG, I discovered that there were some issues with the same person before. My understanding is that the page was deleted before but I also believe that it was very poorly written back then. Also, I'd like to declare that I've written the page in good faith and that's all I want to say about it.Kazanstyle (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.unilad.com/technology/tech-pioneer-warns-rise-of-ai-will-be-as-dangerous-as-alien-invasion-20220515

It seems I was blocked and cannot participate anywhere now except for my Talk page. Therefore, I’m sharing my explanation here about what happened. The article was started on the assumption of the scientist's clear notability with the h-index of 126 and meeting the requirement of "works broadly discussed and cited". The article was submitted via review system and approved almost immediately by another experienced editor based on the same assumption. I don't mind re-write but I oppose to its deleting and I claim that I created the article in good faith despite all the accusations. As to the name of the article — I did it because  too many people  have surname "Rosenberg" with various occupations that can be quite confusing: Kazanstyle (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenberg