User talk:Williamoliverhenry

This is Williamoliverhenry's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Welcome!

Hi Williamoliverhenry! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mining in Australia: Challenges, Improvements, and Current Threats (December 27)

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

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mining in Australia: Challenges, Improvements, and Current Threats and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Williamoliverhenry! Having an article draft 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Hello, I'm DoubleGrazing. An edit that you recently made seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Williamoliverhenry! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Hi All, If I want to post article on Wikipedia, How may I? How to know my tone., has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Apex Digital Agency Pty Ltd (January 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by HitroMilanese were:

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.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Apex Digital Agency Pty Ltd and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

Hitro talk 10:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, HitroMilanese !

I've made this article putting consecutive 5 hours. I have previously added an article _ informational that was_ It got deleted they informed me to follow some other done work.

This time I fulfilled all rules, regulations, and formats added Wikipedia's explanations, added reference [ it is a small company, so I do not have plenty of external linking's and reference ] still you delete this?

It wasn't an promotional stuff instead a company's introduction. Williamoliverhenry (talk) 11:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HitroMilanese didn't delete this, I did, and I'm happy to explain why.

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a platform for you to promote your business. And before you say "I wasn't promoting", yes you were; you were telling the world about your business, which is pretty much the definition of promotion (see WP:YESPROMO). We have no interest in what you want to say about your business, we almost exclusively want to know what independent and reliable third parties (mainly secondary sources) have on their own said about it and what makes it worthy of note. Wikipedia articles should be primarily composed by summarising such earlier coverage, however your draft cited no such source, it was all backed up by close primary sources such as your company website.

If you wish to try again – after making the paid-editing disclosure, as I've suggested below – please see WP:GOLDENRULE for advice on the basic approach to drafting, and then study the WP:NCORP notability guideline which tells you what sort of sources are needed to establish the notability of a business or other organisation.

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Apex Digital Agency Pty Ltd

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Apex Digital Agency Pty Ltd, 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 Wikipedia: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 deleting administrator. Hitro talk 10:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

Hello, I'm DoubleGrazing. 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. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Williamoliverhenry. 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 employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. 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 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 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:Williamoliverhenry. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Williamoliverhenry|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. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I can see that you've sort of made a paid-editing disclosure on your user page already, but it would be clearer if you did it using the standard {{paid}} template. In any case, I wanted to post the above message here, as it provides information on paid editing rules and restrictions. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have written this article to make a company page so that I may take part to list of --- page.

They have told me to first have a company page, now when I made a company page, they have marked it promotion. Its my own agency. I have added all references, meanings, fulfilled format then sent to review.

I was expecting to know your stance, because at first place, I am clear what I am doing. Instead of getting response they have deleted my page, saying they see it a "promotion". I've worked on it consecutive 5 hours . Williamoliverhenry (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do not publish 'company pages', not a single one. We publish encyclopaedia articles on subjects, some of which are indeed businesses and other organisations, which have encyclopaedic merit. So far you have not shown that your business does that.

Also worth noting that Wikipedia is not like eg. LinkedIn, where you are expected to create your own 'profile'. Here, we expect more or less the opposite: that any article is created and subsequently edited by editors who do not have any external relationship with the subject. Note also that if an article is one day published on your business, it does not belong to you or your company in any sense, it is freely editable by anyone. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Williamoliverhenry (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Hello, Williamoliverhenry. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thank you for your time! Happy New Year! Phoebezz22 (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]