User talk:Mvolod83

Hello Mvolod83. 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 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, 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, 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:Mvolod83. 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. -- VViking Talk Edits 13:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for this edit. It is strictly for reference purposes only. Mvolod83 (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Mvolod83, you are invited to the Teahouse!
. Although, I am still not directly or indirectly compensated for this article.

Also, as I am submitting the article solely for reference purposes, I think it would help if an outside contributor proofread the article for any necessary changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvolod83 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is certain that this account is operated either by the same person as an earlier account known to have been used by an employee of Visual Awareness Technologies & Consulting or by another person working for the same company, with the same person being the more likely of the two. It is implausible that creating the article was not part of your paid employment, and it is therefore paid editing: it is irrelevant that there was probably not a payment specifically for editing Wikipedia and separate from your normal salary. You (or less likely someone working with you) had already been informed of the guidelines on conflict of interest before you created the current article. Moreover, you had acknowledged that information, and had even yourself expressed the opinion that it would be better for an independent third party to deal with making the page into an article. You were also aware that the page had been deleted because more than one editor had considered it promotional, and, although you had expressed disagreement with that assessment, the main reason for the conflict of interest guideline is that you are not in a position to make an objective or unbiased assessment, even if you sincerely intend to do so. Despite those considerations you went ahead and created an article, knowing full well that doing so was contrary to the conflict of interest guideline, and that the page had already been considered unacceptable as a Wikipedia article. (It also looks very much as though you may have deliberately become autoconfirmed in order to bypass the process of having a draft article assessed by an independent reviewer.)
 * I have known many editors here for the purpose of publicising their companies to be blocked from editing by Wikipedia administrators on much weaker grounds than what I have described. Nevertheless, I shall move the article you have created to draft space and allow you a chance to improve it. However, please make sure that you comply fully with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on conflict of interest and promotional editing and with the requirement for full disclosure of paid editing (which, as I have explained above, does apply to editing as part of regular paid employment). If you don't do all those things you probably will be blocked from editing by an administrator.
 * Finally, if you sincerely can't see why the page you have created reads to others as promotional, then there is probably no point in your trying to improve it, as you probably will not be able to do so. In my experience over the years there are two common reasons why editors in your situation are frequently unable to see why their writing is seen as promotional by others: (1) your close involvement in the subject makes it difficult for you to stand back from your own writing about it and see how it will look from the detached perspective of an outsider, and (2) people who work in marketing spend hours on end, day after day, month after month, reading and writing marketing-speak, with the result that they become desensitised to it and are unable to recognise it when they see it. I have no reason to doubt that you are sincere in stating that you do not see what you have written as promotional, but the very fact that you can't see the promotional nature of it means that it is unlikely that you will be able to remove that promotional nature. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)


 * One more point. Since writing the above message I have looked at a number of the references in the draft article. Nothing that I saw suggested that the company satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I strongly recommend that you check those guidelines before you consider putting any more time or effort into the draft, because if a subject does not satisfy those guidelines then no article about it, no matter how well written, is likely to be accepted. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Since you have attempted to submit the draft without making any changes whatever, indicating that you have no intention of taking advantage of the opportunity to make the necessary changes to make it comply with Wikipedia requirements, I shall delete it. As I explained above, I moved it to draft space "to allow you a chance to improve it", not to allow you to waste reviewers' time by submitting a draft which you had already been informed was not acceptable as an article. Furthermore, since you have now made it clear that you have no intention of doing anything other than using Wikipedia to promote your business, I have blocked your accounts from editing. If you would like to start editing in a neutral way on subjects other than your business, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks and then adding the text at the bottom of this page. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your review 331dot. I'm still confused, and realize this may not be considered for re-unblocking purposes, but... Numerous articles on Wiki are on organizations like the one I wrote about. My article contains information from reliable sources (news, publications, and government websites) and I've requested 3rd party help in editing the article. Again, I realize this probably won't help in ever getting it published, I'm only trying to understand. Thank you. Mvolod83 (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please understand that each article is judged on its own merits. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean yours can exist too, see other stuff exists.  Those other articles are likely not written by company representatives. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)