User talk:Eme.Line.SEO

November 2020

Hello, I'm Fuzheado. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Bostik—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 19:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Fuzheado. 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. Fuzheado | Talk 20:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bostik

Hello Eme.Line.SEO. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Bostik, 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 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. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely 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:Eme.Line.SEO. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Eme.Line.SEO|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. Gyrostat (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Gyrostat: , Thank you for your message. My tutor on Wikipedia France also told me that I had to integrate this mention into my FR user profile. It is therefore done [[1]]. I will also do it on the EN version (profile not active in English) to be sure to respect the rules. Please don't ban me ! ;-)

Your email

I received your email. Please note that it is highly discouraged for editors with a conflict of interest (COI) to edit affected pages directly. Please make sure you read our guidelines at WP:COI. Disclose your COI, make edit requests on the article's talk page, and have these requests handled by a neutral individual (e.g. myself). Please see WP:COIREQ for help with the second point. Going down this route will make the handling of your potential content additions easier for everyone involved. Furthermore, the "slight details" that you say are to be provided by the company cannot be included unless they are already public (via the company's website or otherwise); otherwise, they are not verifiable (and Wikipedia should not be used to publish new information). Regards, IceWelder [✉] 16:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are already editing the article. Please follow the above advice. IceWelder [✉] 17:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. I will do my best to source the information and respect neutrality so as not to create a conflict. If you think some changes are against the rules, don't hesitate to undo them or start a discussion. All your advices are welcome. Thx again. Eme.Line.SEO (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit worrisome that you, despite my request, keep editing the article directly. One of your recent edits even introduced unverifiable information (which you noted yourself as having "no source"). As I said above, we cannot have such details on Wikipedia as all information must be verifiable using reliable outside sources. Had you posted edit requests on the talk page, I could have ensured (and where necessary, discussed) the changes' suitability for Wikipedia beforehand. Now, I will have to rework the article in its entirety later to have it comply with our guidelines. Intermediate changes will likely only cause editing conflicts. IceWelder [✉] 18:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @IceWelder, as I said in my private email, and in my response to your first message, I will do the changes "step by step" so if one of the modification does not fit to the Wikipedia rules or your previous work, don't hesitate to undo it or to start a talk. I understand if you remove information without a source (which, often happens in many times in many articles, especially when it comes to very general information), but the sourced information added previously should be kept, right? Most of the information added comes from reliable sources, is neutral and does not present a conflict of interest. I do not understand how we should erase everything? Could you please explain ? Eme.Line.SEO (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of the lines you added reads:

Both Yazdi and Ritter saw the potential for video games on mobile, and the strong opportunity for growth. They aimed to innovate within the market using a new approach to game design, streamlining publishing and trialling user friendly creative concepts.

This is not sourced, pushes a corporate point of view, and contains "peacock" words. In another case, you renamed the "Criticism" section to "Claims" (a name that does not make sense) and tamed the language to remove the central aspect of the related sources – cloning. There are also other examples.

I find it alarming that a lot of the changes closely resemble those added by another COI user last year (including the same wording and formatting), large parts of which I had to remove for various guideline violations. Back-and-forth editing like this ultimately wastes time for both parties, which is why I suggested the use of change requests. However, since you have already performed large changes, it is likely too late to revert all of it and do it all over again via requests. Instead, I will most likely have to rework the article once you have completed your assignment. IceWelder [✉] 23:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you haven't edited or responded over the last several days, I have cleaned up the article again. There were several instances that were not or improperly sourced:

Both Yazdi and Ritter saw the potential for video games on mobile, and the strong opportunity for growth. They aimed to innovate within the market using a new approach to game design, streamlining publishing and trialling user friendly creative concepts.

(no source)

The name ‘Voodoo’ comes from Yazdi and Ritter’s belief in the ‘magic’ of the mobile industry, and its ability to drive trends in gaming.

(no source)

In 2016, Voodoo released Fight List and Paper.io, which both were the first majorly successful releases and allowed Voodoo to expand its operations.

(no source)

Voodoo increased from 100 employees at the end of 2017, to 200+ employees in 2020 with further plans to grow the number of staff.

(used an article from 2019 for a number from 2020; I used it for the 2019 staff count instead)

All of these exactly (with one minuscule exception, "208" changed to "200+") match those added by the other COI editor I mentioned previously. This suggests that you were given a pre-written article to implement. Since all statements on Wikipedia need to be sourced (and none of these constitutes a WP:SKYISBLUE exception), I had to remove these. I rephrased other parts of the article, such as the "Criticism" section (as stated above, "Claims" is highly ambiguous), which should now be more balanced between the sources' statements and neutrality. The "Accolades" section (not "Accolades and Awards" as awards fall under accolades) was reduced to those that are notable/have representation on Wikipedia, and was rewritten in prose format. This has been combined with other copyediting and reference cleanup.

If you intend to make further changes, please use the WP:COIREQ route: requesting changes X, supported by sources Y that I can easily review, rephrase, and appropriately implement with no hassle. This would definitely make life easier for both of us. IceWelder [✉] 17:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IceWelder, Thank you for your last intervention and the modifications made on the page. If I had to provide further information, I will be careful to provide reliable sources and write the information with a neutral ton. Of course, I will do my best to respect the many Wiki rules. In case I could bring new elements, I will do it through requests. Thank you again for the advice and information provided on this talk. We stay in touch (maybe) ! Eme.Line.SEO (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]