User talk:Sendero99/Archive 1
Nomination of Russ Hudson for deletion
[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russ Hudson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Alfonso Cobo moved to draftspace
[edit]Thanks for your contributions to Alfonso Cobo. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it is promotional and reads like an advertisement. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
November 2023
[edit]
As previously advised, your edits, such as the edit you made to Alfonso Cobo, give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Sendero99, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Sendero99|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. This is your second warning, you deleted the first notice i placed on your TP as being a bot message. Do not edit without making disclosure. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Alfonso Cobo for deletion
[edit]The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfonso Cobo until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.——Serial 15:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Reply
[edit]Hi everyone, thank you for bringing up these concerns.
Sorry for not replying earlier. I only read about Cobo in the news and really don't know that much about him. I used Unfold before and was simply interested in finding more about where how that app had originated.
This why half of the article is actually about Unfold, which I'm actually more interested in. There's still a lot more information about him that I'd like to find out.
If I were truly paid to write all about Cobo, I would be including tons of detailed autobiographical information about how he is the "best entrepreneur ever" and truly advertorial content. None of that was in my draft.
Please also take a look at WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:DONTBITE too. Just because some of us write about random businesspeople does not mean that we are all covertly paid to promote them.
Sendero99 (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, Sendero99,
- Editors with a lot more experience than you moved your article to Draft space several times so you could work on the article there without fear of it being tagged for deletion. But you kept moving it back to main space. This persistence raises questions that you are a paid editor. This is not casting aspersions, this is based on our experience with paid editors. Why couldn't you work on improving the article in Draft space and then submitting it for review and, hopefully, approval to Articles for Creation? If you don't want to be suspected of being a paid editor, you should act more like the new editor that you are and less like an editor with a conflict-of-interest.
- If you have questions about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and article creation, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 03:04, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. I appreciate the tone of it which makes a difference from what I received previously.
- New editors have different behaviors. I thought it was OK to move something back from draft after improving the content. I only did that once, not "repeatedly". If that's not recommended, then I will submit it properly using the proper draft submission options. I was not trying to be a stubborn "paid editor" on purpose at all. But if that is not OK, then I will go ahead and submit a draft and let others comment on it.
- The reason I did not reply at first was because I thought that since those automated messages did not apply to me, I was allowed to go ahead and make further improvements.
- And to be honest, it was this which rattled me. I didn't understand where this was coming from and I didn't feel like playing his games. Whatever happened to WP:AGF?
- In hindsight I just should have replied "No I'm not a paid editor" and that be that.
- But he is a vindictive bully not only accusing me of being a sock puppet but wanting to salt the page.
- I don't understand why anyone would say he's not notable - the sources and references are there.
- I will go ahead and re-submit a draft if that is the other feasible option.