User talk:MarcAnthonyRodriguez

March 2022

Hello MarcAnthonyRodriguez. 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:MarcAnthonyRodriguez. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=MarcAnthonyRodriguez|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, do not edit further until you answer this message. 331dot (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day, 331dot

There is no paid advocacy on my part, we had been working with Wikipedia editors to gain placement of our Corporate information, however, the editors did not provide any editorial data on how we can disclose the information.

I am VoxPop's COO and have provided all organic SEO based citations for review, in order to present the fullest neutral point of view possible for the organization, VoxPop Games, Inc.

If you review the pages similarities to Itch.io & Steam (service) you will see that comparatively we have provided only neutral points of contexts for the organization MarcAnthonyRodriguez (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are paid for your work as the COO; if so, you are a paid editor and must make the required declaration. Please see the information above for how you can disclose. This is a Terms of Use requirement. Your account has no edits on talk pages until you edited this one, so where did you communicate with other Wikipedia editors? Wikipedia has no interest in SEO. Please read other stuff exists; if you want to use other articles as a model, make sure that they are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the feedback, are Wikipedia editor agencies needed to get this article placed, we are just looking for some feedback as a business, we had hired an agency and it was a scam MarcAnthonyRodriguez (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot stop you from hiring a third party to edit for you or your company- however they too need to declare as a paid editor. As you have apparently found, third parties claiming to offer Wikipedia editing services have varying degrees of reputability. However, articles are typically written by independent editors who take note of a topic in independent reliable sources and choose to write about it, summarizing what independent reliable sources say about the topic and showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability(in this case, WP:ORG). A subject trying to force the issue is unsuccessful more often that not. The best indicator of notability is when a topic is written by an independent editor whollly unconnected with the topic. 331dot (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not recommend or endorse any third party editing services. Despite what they may tell you, they can make no guarantees(such as guaranteeing they will write an article that will not be deleted). If you wish to pursue that, do so carefully. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, so for example, we are a new company that is in existence, that has articles being written about it, are you such an editor that you would be able to pick up the article for review on placement, or would you have to write about the subject.

I didn't want it to be a needle in the haystack search for a Wikipedia editor to pick up the fact that we have been having all of these stories take place about us.

We want to do this as by the book as possible MarcAnthonyRodriguez (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must be frank with you. New companies almost never merit Wikipedia articles. A company must almost always be established in its field and have a significant enough presence that independent sources choose on their own to write about it and why it is significant. Please review the Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Most sources offered about a new company are usually press releases or announcements of the commencement of operations or the raising of capital(as examples), which are routine business activities and do not merit a company an article, per the definition. What are the three best sources you have? 331dot (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our Topline Citation placements are as follows:

Game Informer (which is akin to the Wall Street Journal of Gaming Magazines)

https://www.gameinformer.com/2022/02/14/weaponeer-a-game-developed-by-a-17-year-old-that-you-can-play-with-one-hand-is-out-today

Tech Bullion - Site that has a worldwide Alexa Score of #22,673

https://techbullion.com/every-voice-matters-adorn-your-life-with-vox-pop-games/

Into Indie Games - another very reputable games site covering our platform service

https://www.intoindiegames.com/voxpop-games-interview-a-revolutionary-new-p2p-indie-games-client/

We are not paying for any advertisements these are all organic stories that cover out developer partners and what we are doing as a business.

By comparison if you review a page like itch.io & Steam and our draft below is comparable with those businesses, so saying new business being 2 years old with such coverage is a bit unfair. We are only trying to share our existence on the global web encyclopedia

Draft:VoxPop Games#cite note-:3-11 MarcAnthonyRodriguez (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Trying to share our existence" is exactly what Wikipedia is not for; that is a promotional purpose. As I said, Wikipedia is for summarizing independent reliable sources that demonstrate notability. The first source you provide is an interview, as is the third. Interviews are primary sources and do not establish notability. The second source might work, but its opening plus the fact that the writer had access to you leads me to see it as a promotional write up. Either way, you would need more than just that source to establish notability. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, so we will keep working at that notability and hopefully one day a submission will take place that will summarize all of the independent reliable sources that will write about VoxPop Games.

I truly do appreciate your time in assisting with this, and hopefully the draft will evolve to a point of subjective demonstrative notability MarcAnthonyRodriguez (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to emphasize that I'm not the only or last word here; you are welcome to resubmit the draft(once you formally declare as a paid editor) or you can solicit other viewpoints at the Articles for Creation Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this extra information, we will try to see what can be done, but I keep rolling back to the solicitation part being somewhat subject promotions or at least conflicting with the policy.

Have a great day, and stay safe & healthy MarcAnthonyRodriguez (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day, 331dot,

I’m writing to you to ask for help about something urgent: we are being extorted by the wiki writers I mentioned to you previously, called “Elite Wiki Writers.” Specifically, their CEO’s wording was "our editor will take their hands off the page and in such cases wikipedia delete the entry and ban the name of subject for 3-5 years, or sometimes they put a permanent ban on it."

I know you don’t approve of these sorts of practices yourself, which is why I was hoping to get your advice in formulating a response. Can they really ban us for 5 years? If they delete this draft page, is it possible for us to recover it or contest the decision? Do you know of anyone or any authority we can contact to prevent the closure of, or malicious edits to, our page?

Thank you so much for your help,

Marc MarcAnthonyRodriguez (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor ceasing their efforts at editing does not result in anyone deleting anything. Drafts are deleted after six months of inactivity, but all that is required to avoid that is editing it. Deleting a draft otherwise (barring it meeting one of the speedy deletion criteria) requires a deletion discussion with community input. It is possible to recover a deleted draft(see WP:REFUND). A draft subjected to vandalism can be protected from editing through a request to WP:RFPP(while pages are not protected preemptively, they will be if there is a demonstratable problem).

My advice is to not respond to these editors further and ignore them. Legitimate editors will not do this sort of thing. If you still have the emails, I would review and follow the advice at WP:SCAM and send them to the email address provided there. You may also want to consider contacting your local authorities and at least making a report of any fraud or extortion. Given the global nature of Wikipedia it would probably be hard for authorities to do much, but the more information they have, the better. 331dot (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for this feedback and info, it is truly appreciated MarcAnthonyRodriguez (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: VoxPop Games (March 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 331dot was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please read WP:COI and WP:PAID for information on required formal disclosures.

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:VoxPop Games and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:VoxPop Games, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

331dot (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MarcAnthonyRodriguez! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 331dot (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Company logos are a "non-free" image in terms of copyrightt, because they are used under fair use. Fair use images are not permitted in Drafts. You also incorrectly claim it as your own work- perhaps because you uploaded it to Commons. Commons cannot have fair use images. You may upload it to Wikipedia directly(though you are not yet autoconfirmed and cannot actually do so yet). 331dot (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the feedback, would you suggest we work with another Wikipedia editor agency to get this article placed, we are just looking for some feedback as a business MarcAnthonyRodriguez (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the above comment I made. You are free to continue to work on the draft yourself once you make the required disclosure- however you will need to set aside everything you know about your company, and only write based on the content of independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about it(no press releases or announcements) and are not based on materials from the company(like staff interviews). To pass the review process, you only need to summarize three independent reliable sources. What are the best three sources that you have? 331dot (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:VoxPop Games Features Page.png

Thanks for uploading File:VoxPop Games Features Page.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:VoxPop Games Logo 2022.png

Thanks for uploading File:VoxPop Games Logo 2022.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]