User talk:Yuliia K

February 2024
Hello, I'm MrOllie. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia.  MrOllie (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but there were references to independent sources for each piece of information, primary source publications from companies mentioned in the contribution as required. It can be re-referenced from other third-party sources like online news magazines about gaming and IT if that is what is necessary. I do not understand how stating facts from news is promotional, and what differs this information from other paragraphs about other cloud gaming providers. Please give exact examples of what in the text was promotional so that it can be re-written. Yuliia K (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Please don't copy text from elsewhere into Wikipedia because it's a violation of the copyright policy; everything you add needs to be summarized in your own words. DanCherek (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks, that's much more helpful, although one would think if the source is named, it is not a copyright violation, but rather a quote. But maybe in that case it should be marked as such. I will rewrite the text as a summary, with all the sources mentioned again, maybe that will work. 213.159.243.88 (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Note in particular that press releases are not acceptable places to find content. MrOllie (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all the links have been changed to 3rd-party resources. Also sentences that could be deemed promotional were removed or rewritten. Yuliia K (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A collection of blogs is not an improvement, sources have to meet the minimun standards in the policies linked above - and even with better sourcing Wikipedia will not be able to accept obvious promotion of this platform. Edit warring about this as you have been is only going to get your account blocked. MrOllie (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain in details what is considered promotional in the passage as it is merely a list of facts and events regarding company's activities, just like any page about a company would do.
 * Also, please explain which minimum standards for sources you are referring to, because all the chosen sources were third-party and independent. They were not all blogs, by the way, but news websites reporting on the events referred to in the passage. The Verge has been listed in sources in this article multiple times, CNET, TechCrunch and Engadget are on the list of sources and they are quite similar to the sources I listed.
 * If you want users to be able to edit their content effectively to suit the standards, it would be much more useful if you could state exactly what is wrong and why, and what it should look like to be accepted instead of referring to rules with no explanation on how they were broken. Yuliia K (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you associated with boosteroid in some fashion? MrOllie (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Not employment-wise. I am a paying customer, and I noticed that there is no page for the company on Wiki, and it is also barely mentioned in this article. The company is Ukrainian, and I wanted to do something nice for them as they are probably in struggle right now due to the war. They would not be allowed to add info about themselves here, so I though I would do it. But it turned out more complicated than I thought it would be. Yuliia K (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)