User talk:BLWright236

July 2024

Your edit to Penn Quakers fencing has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Broc (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Titan Wealth (July 25)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by S0091 was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

S0091 (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BLWright236! 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! S0091 (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Titan Wealth

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:Titan Wealth, 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. S0091 (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Hello BLWright236. 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:BLWright236. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=BLWright236|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) 09:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have submitted a disclosure to my user page. Can you check this is okay before I submit for approval? BLWright236 (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have correctly made the paid editing disclosure. That is a distinct issue from submitting your draft, though. There's also the issue with the logo you uploaded. I'll start there- you have claimed that you personally created the logo and personally own the copyright to it. That would be very unusual for a company logo, is that the case? By uploading the logo to Commons you have (perhaps unwittingly) made it available for anyone to use for any purpose with attribution. The company may not want to do that; do you have the authority to make that decision?

The good news is that, since the logo is primarily simple text and a shape(the circle) it's probably not able to be copyrighted, so it can be uploaded to Commons(logos are not typically uploaded there as they are usually not copyright-free images). If you did not personally create it, you will need to work with those at Commons to change the copyright to indicate the logo isn't copyrighted due to its simplicity.

Regarding the draft, if you were to submit it now, it would not be accepted. It just summarizes the routine activities of the company, basic statistics, and its offerings. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" goes beyond just telling the activities of the company/its information and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company- how it is notable. Sources like press releases, staff interviews, and annoucements of routine activities do not establish notability. Please see Your First Article. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming, the copyright issue was a mistake yes - I can work to resolve this.

Am I correct in thinking it sounds we need coverage in more major outlets? If the sources we've cited are all that's available, what options do we have in terms of getting the company page uploaded to Wiki? BLWright236 (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we ask is because we've based our strategy for this Wiki page around various other Wiki pages that are available to view. i.e. what makes something like this page AnaCap Financial Partners different to the one we've tried to upload? I can see they have some Financial Times sources in there which is a major outlet but otherwise it appears to be press releases etc.

Appreciate all your help here by the way! BLWright236 (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is better if you think of it as an article about your company, rather than a "company page". It's not just semantics, but an important distinction. Wikipedia articles are not for the benefit of the subject in any way. There may be benefits, but those are on the side and not our goal. There are also good reasons to not want an article here(that link is written in reference to people, but the same principle applies to companies) Any information about your company, good or bad, can be in an article about it as long as it appears in an independent source and is not defamatory. Disgruntled customers could potentially vandalize the article, and while it would be removed, it would be seen by others.

If you've been asked to be here(or even if not, really) please see WP:BOSS and have your superiors read it too.

Your comment reflects a common misunderstanding about Wikipedia. This is not a mere database of information where existence warrants inclusion, and subjects can come here to tell about themselves. That's what social media is for- not Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles summarize independent reliable sources(as I note above). You need to set aside everything you know about the company, all materials it puts out, and all mere annoucements, and only summarize the content of independent reliable sources with significant coverage. It's not impossible, but most in your position have great difficulty with that.

If there are no other sources available, the company would not merit an article at this time, and no amount of editing can change that.

Beware of citing other articles to compare to yours- as a new user, you aren't aware of what is considered a good article yet- it could be that these other articles you have seen are also inappropriate and just not addressed yet by a volunteer. I haven't looked at the article you mention yet, so I don't know if it's appropriate, but if it's similar to yours it probably isn't. It is possible for inapppropriate content to exist here without detection, even for years. We can only address what we know about. If you want to use other articles as a model or example, use those that are classified as good articles, which have been vetted by the community. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to coverage, you need independent reliable sources with significant coverage- but you or your company can't force that issue- as then it wouldn't be an independent source. That coverage must come about organically, by sources taking note on their own of your company. 331dot (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is excellent, thank you for your help! BLWright236 (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Titan Wealth (August 22)

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:

Would need a substantial cleanup for tone and promotional wording prior to consideration. An example is having individual sections which read as if it is the company's own website. Think of what Wikipedia readers would like to know, not what the company wants readers to know.

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:Titan Wealth 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) 17:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

We've made some significant changes to this now and attempted to really strip it back to maintain the neutrality of the article, whilst removing some of the more redundant sources. Do you think if this was submitted for review now it would stand a better chance? BLWright236 (talk) 08:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not CNMall41, but I can say...no. You haven't shown how the company is notable as defined by Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not just want articles that merely tell about the company and what it does- an article should primarily summarize significant coverage of the company- which means coverage going into detail about what a source sees as important/significant/influential about the company. The tone is a bit better, but that was only one issue.

I can say more specifically- awards are useless for establishing notability, unless the award itself merits an article(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize). It's a normal, routine activity for a business to sponsor a sports team, as well as to acquire competitors- these do not contribute to notability either, unless there is some unusual, significant aspect about a particular acquisition(i.e. it set a record of some kind, or was otherwise significant to the industry as discussed by sources). The sources section is completely unsourced- and in any event, we don't want to know what the company considers to be its offerings.

Your sources are:

A government listing documenting the existence of the company, not significant coverage; government documents/information is considered primary sources as well so does not establish notability
is paywalled(which is fine) but seems to just document an acquisition, a routine business activity
the company LinkedIn page, which is a primary source
documents an acquisition, and also consists of an interview with a staff person- interviews do not establish notability as they are not independent sources
paywalled and I can't really determine what it's about, it seems like another acquisition but I'm not sure
paywalled but seems to be a basic profile listing or description
documents an acquisition
same as previous
different page from same source as previous, documenting a different acquisition
same source as #2
documents the industry award, which does not contribute to notability as the award itself has no article
documents sponsoring a sports team, a routine business activity
documents another sponsorship
documents the ownership of the company

None of these sources contribute to notability. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]