User talk:Nwiles1414

Your submission at Articles for creation: The eXERO Process (June 9)
 Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask 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:The_eXERO_Process Articles for creation help desk] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Mcmatter was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: this is just an advert

McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:The eXERO Process


A tag has been placed on Draft:The eXERO Process, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Nwiles1414. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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 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. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 17:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Paid editing
Hello Nwiles1414. 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:Nwiles1414. 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. Theroadislong (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * This material is indeed for one of my clients, but I did not write the article and am not receiving compensation for submitting. It was drafted by an outside source used to assist with the patent to keep it highly industry focused and specific to the scientific discoveries. My client just asked if I could submit as they don't understand how to create articles with code. Nwiles1414 (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The content sounds entirely inappropriate, patents confer zero notability and you have a clear conflict of interest which you need to properly disclose on your user page. Theroadislong (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no code involved in editing Wikipedia and you clearly don't "understand how to create articles" here either. Theroadislong (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * All I meant was being able to add references by using and being able to center text, etc...again I didn't write this article, only submitted and I am receiving no compensation for submitting. Any assistance would be very much appreciated. I have no problem stating the company is a client. Would it be better to have someone else submit the article for review?
 * When you mention that the "content sounds entirely inappropriate" - how so? It is a new scientific process for energy conversion that has never existed before -- is that not worthy of being submitted? Nwiles1414 (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No it isn't worthy of being submitted! That is NOT what Wikipedia is for, we don't announce "new" things here we merely report what reliable independent sources say about notable topics. Theroadislong (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)