| This is Dhaim's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: RLC Ventures (April 30)
edit
|
Hello, Dhaim!
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! DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
|
Your thread has been archived
edit
|
Hi Dhaim! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
July 2019
edit
Hello Dhaim. 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 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:Dhaim. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Dhaim|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. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
As previously advised, your edits 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:Dhaim, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Dhaim|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Dhaim, can you also explain the following please. A new account, Davies717 (talk · contribs), created a duplicate of Draft:RLC Ventures at User:Davies717/sandbox (copied from this version of the draft) and yesterday asked at the AfC Help desk for the original draft to be deleted [1]. The day after it was explained why it wouldn't be deleted, you then went to the draft and have repeatedly tried to blank it. This is despite the fact that you had previously added material and references to the draft and had unsuccessfully submitted it for review. I second GSS's comments on undeclared paid editing, but I also want to alert you to Wikipedia's policy on using multiple accounts. Voceditenore (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.