User talk:Zolakrystie

December 2022

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. [1] MrOllie (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Wiki's non-promotional policy. How can I better contribute without being flagged as inappropriate? Zolakrystie (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Data-centric security, you may be blocked from editing. Aoidh (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong? My contributions are sourced from a corporate blog post but it is unbiased, original content and non-promotional. Zolakrystie (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content you reinserted into the article is not sourced, but if the information is coming from a blog it needs a better, third-party source, preferably an independent source, that way the content can be written based off of that independent source's content in a more neutral way, because the content added in the article does learn promotional. - Aoidh (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying and understand your point. We definitely do not want our contributed content to be promotional/ad, and we'll try to contribute content in a more neutral way.

We are still interested to contribute in these pages and hope we can be considered to be an autoconfirmed user. Example of other resources we found are from spectrum.ieee.org, acm.org and national defense magazine articles. Would these sources be acceptable? Zolakrystie (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: NextLabs (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 CNMall41 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:

At the moment, I cannot even review for notability as this is so promotional it would be eligible for speedy deletion if moved into the mainspace. Also, this was deleted a year ago so there would need to be sources since that deletion discussion took place that show how this meets WP:NCORP. It would help if you could point out the WP:THREE that meet WP:ORGCRIT for other reviewers.

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:NextLabs 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.

CNMall41 (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zolakrystie! 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! CNMall41 (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Hello Zolakrystie. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:NextLabs, 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 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:Zolakrystie. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Zolakrystie|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) 07:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing,

How can I disclose my company at my user page? Is there an existing guide for this?

Also, it is not a paid affiliation with the article's organization. Zolakrystie (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DoubleGrazing, any updates on this? Zolakrystie (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you are writing about the company that employs you, but regardless you don't think you come under our paid-editing rules for some reason? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DoubleGrazing, I am not employed by the company? Zolakrystie (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then what did you mean when you asked "How can I disclose my company at my user page"? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies @DoubleGrazing, I misread and thought I was " required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer", but now realize I only have to if its a paid affiliation.

To clarify, I am not compensated for the edits. Zolakrystie (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And regardless of whether or not you're being "compensated for the edits", are you working for this company in any capacity? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DoubleGrazing, no I am not. Zolakrystie (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to LinkedIn there are two individuals working in this company's digital marketing function whose first names, when combined, would form your username. Are you saying that's just a coincidence? Please think carefully before answering. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DoubleGrazing, I appreciate your work to fact-check and help keep Wikipedia a credible source.

I am concerned about the company page submission and want to address the matter transparently. The goal is to contribute positively to Wikipedia by providing only accurate and non-promotional information, aligning with the platform's guidelines.

Could you please provide guidance on how I can meet Wikipedia's criteria for a company page? A similar company like Tresorit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tresorit) has one set up. How do companies like this have Wikipedia pages set up? NextLabs does have a rich historical background and serves Fortune 500 companies. Also, it had an existing page before, which got removed.

I want to emphasize that only credible information was submitted. Would it be possible for you to review the unbiased sources, ensuring the accuracy of the information presented?

Respecting your dedication to upholding Wikipedia's high standards, I look forward to your guidance in creating a page that aligns with the community's expectations. Zolakrystie (talk) 08:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this seems like an AI-generated comment. Please write in your own words.

Secondly, you did not answer my question. Are you, or are you not, one or more individuals working in the digital marketing function of this business? I will thank you for a clear and unambiguous answer, please, promptly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DoubleGrazing,

The previous message was in our own words. Sorry if it wasn’t clear, we did confirm affiliation in the previous message, but also emphasized our intentions to cite only factual content. Would you require any other information? Zolakrystie (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did not earlier confirm that you are working for this company. I'm glad that you now have, although I really shouldn't have to ask so many times before finally getting to the truth.

You must now make the formal paid-editing disclosure, as detailed in the original section of this thread I posted here on January 10. Please do this as your very next edit.

The next thing you need to do is ensure that only one individual has access to this user account. If there are two or more of you, the others will need to register their own accounts.

Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DoubleGrazing, I have inserted the statement template in my user talk page. Does this suffice?

Also, there is only one user having access to this account. The intention of the username is just to avoid posting a full name online. I can change if this causes conflicts. Zolakrystie (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the template (removed unnecessary nowiki wrappers and other crud) for you; please check that you're happy with what it now says.

As long as there is only one person using this account, you needn't change your username.

Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @DoubleGrazing. What will be my next steps to post content for the page? Zolakrystie (talk) 07:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's how this works:

Forget what you (or your boss, etc. – you should also show them this: WP:BOSS) want to say about your company. I mean that. This is not you telling the world about your business, this is you summarising what independent sources have said about it.
Find a few (minimum three, ideally no more than 5-6) sources that unquestionably meet the WP:GNG standard for notability, namely: secondary sources that are reliable and fully independent of your business, and that have provided significant coverage of it. This excludes interviews, routine business reporting (M&A, appointments, new office locations, financial results, etc.), anything where someone from your company is commenting on other matters, and anything based on your press releases or other publicity efforts.
Summarise what those sources have said about you, without putting any additional 'spin' on things. Avoid using any peacock words like 'leading' or 'cutting-edge' or 'groundbreaking' etc. because they immediately give the text a promotional slant. If you do use such terms, make sure that they come from an independent source, and not from you.
Cite each source against the information it provides, so that readers can easily verify the contents and check their provenance.

This way you will have appropriate content, sufficient referencing, as well as evidence of notability all covered in one fell swoop. Any other approach is pretty much guaranteed to fail.

You may then also supplement the content with information from primary sources such as your website, but only things that are purely factual and entirely non-contentious, such as founding year, names of your senior management team, location of your HQ, etc. Do not be tempted to make claims, even if backed up by your website, where the reader would have any reason to question or challenge them, or which would have any promotional feel to them.

Do not also provide excessive details of your products and services, clients, channel partners, projects you've completed, etc. – this is meant to be an encyclopaedia article, remember, not a corporate presentation. Readers can always find that sort of content on your website etc. if they so wish.

HTH, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @DoubleGrazing, I will note these. How can I submit the page draft? Zolakrystie (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have submitted a new draft for your review Zolakrystie (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you haven't. What you've done is wipe out the earlier contents (including the AfC templates which are supposed to stay there until the draft is accepted) and replace them with a new draft. You have not submitted it yet.

It also seems you haven't taken onboard my earlier advice. I told you to base your draft on sources that meet the WP:GNG standard, yet you cite no such source. This is still just pure marketing blurb, straight from the marketing team. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DoubleGrazing,

I only erased the previous draft because it was entirely rejected. I replaced it with a new draft along with revised sources.

I thought I published in my draft page - how do I formally submit the draft? Also, which source(s) did not meet the standard? Zolakrystie (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing Zolakrystie (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are you asking? You want to submit the draft for review? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DoubleGrazing, I want to ask:

- How do I formally submit the draft, and

- Which source(s) did not meet the standard, so I can edit accordingly. Zolakrystie (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the AfC submission template for you. The draft can be submitted by clicking on the blue button in it.

None of the sources contribute towards notability per WP:NCORP, as they are routine business reporting or primary sources.

BTW, that infobox template (which doesn't work in any case, as it's been placed inside nowiki wrapper) is wrong, it uses parameters which are not included in the {{Infobox company}} template. So either remove it altogether or use the correct template, please. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much @DoubleGrazing Zolakrystie (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: NextLabs (May 6)

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

The comment the reviewer left was:

Pure promo blurb, with no evidence of notability.

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:NextLabs 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) 08:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @DoubleGrazing

How are sources from Crunchbase, Zoominfo, NIST, Kuppingercole and the rest not reliable/independent/notable? Zolakrystie (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can only explain you the policies, I can't understand them for you. But once more, since you ask: Crunchbase is actually deprecated and must not be cited at all. NIST and KuppingerCole are primary sources. (There is no ZoomInfo cited in this draft.) Not one of the sources in your draft meets the requirements of WP:NCORP.

It is frustrating that after all the advice you've been given, not just by me but by multiple editors going back 18 months, you still don't understand what is wrong with your draft. I can only assume that you haven't actually read the various policies and guidelines that you've been signposted to, and that you aren't therefore taking this with any degree of seriousness.

What's more, you are paid to do this as part of your job, and are leaning far too heavily on the time, effort and patience of multiple volunteer editors, purely for the promotion of your business. I find this wholly unacceptable.

I think we're done here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:NextLabs

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:NextLabs, 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. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]