User talk:LeoniePRSec

LeoniePRSec, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi LeoniePRSec! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: British Urethane Foam Contractors Association (September 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Primefac was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

No substantial independent coverage of BUFCA itself. The few that do talk about it in detail are PRIMARY sources (written by execs or the company itself). Wikipedia requires more than just the generic "BUFCA suggests..." tagline at the end of a story, or promotional pieces designed to generate sales. Please add additional independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail. As a side note, this is about BUFCA. It is not about foam and/or its importance as a building material. Promotional sentences like "The insulation value of polyurethane foam is amongst the best available" should be removed.

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:British Urethane Foam Contractors Association and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Primefac (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: British Urethane Foam Contractors Association (October 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Language such as 'BUFCA was set up to promote the numerous benefits and applications of polyurethane foam' is promotional.

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:British Urethane Foam Contractors Association and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Mojeek has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Mojeek. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Hello LeoniePRSec. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that 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:LeoniePRSec. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=LeoniePRSec|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. 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, please do not edit further until you answer this message. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pythoncoder: Please accept my apologies for not declaring that Mojeek is a client of ours, although not to create a Wikipedia article specifically, we are dealing with marketing in general and it was noted that they lacked a Wikipedia page. It was an oversight on my behalf, rather than intentionally (as clearly evident by my username). I've now fixed this. With regard to the article, I’ve attempted to provide only basic, objective information with easily verifiable facts, whilst avoiding “hype” or “marketing speak”. I am also more than happy for you to edit or suggest edits wherever you see necessary, or for myself to only interact further with the article via its talk page. I strongly believe Mojeek is notable enough in many ways to be included in Wikipedia and would hope you take this into consideration. For example, they have been around since 2004 and so are one of the longest running search engines, they have one of the largest independent indexes, certainly ever created in the UK, and were the first no tracking search engine. They have been mentioned in the UK Parliament (see refs), appeared on the BBC, both TV and radio, have references from Nvidia, scientific journals, and been included in books and print, and many more (this is all before my connection with them). They are always being asked why they don't have a page and 'Mojeek Wikipedia' is even a suggested search term on Google when you type in 'Mojeek'. There have been multiple drafts for an article over the years by people unknown to them, not dissimilar to this one, and there's also been a red link since 2007. Please also note that a draft article Mojeek created themselves previously was fully declared and not submitted for inclusion, also considering they’ve been around since 2004, I hope this shows not declaring is *not* the usual way they work, and that was my mistake. I hope you take this all into consideration when deciding to keep the article, and again please accept my sincere apologies.LeoniePRSec (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply and disclosure. As you may have seen your draft was accepted by another user and is now located at Mojeek. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mojeek has been accepted

Mojeek, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Mojeek

Thanks for creating Mojeek.

A New Page Patroller Rosguill just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you:

Several of the provided sources appear to be blogs, which are generally not considered reliable sources. Consider replacing these sources with citations to more reliable sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and ping me. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:56, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]