User talk:HeidiMaaria
| This is HeidiMaaria's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Welcome!
[edit]Hi HeidiMaaria! 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:
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:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: LYGG (June 27)
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:LYGG 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.
|
Hello, HeidiMaaria!
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! Qcne (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
|
June 2024
[edit]
Hello HeidiMaaria. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:LYGG, 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:HeidiMaaria. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=HeidiMaaria|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) 14:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message. I'm sincerely sorry for not understanding the wikipedia rules for editing. You are right that I'm working for the brand and wanted to add it to Wikipedia. As LYGG is a start up there is not a page to ask edits for and it's not that known that someone from wikipedia community has shown interest for.
- What is you succession I should do? You say that I'm not likely to get the article accepted as I'm a member of the team, even we have a lot of third party sources to back the facts. Or was it my writing style. I tried to reference all facts, but did not do it by word by word.
- Should I try to rewrite the article in academic referencing style or do you think it's not worth the time as I work for the brand.
- Thank you for our advice in advance!
- BR Heidi HeidiMaaria (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi,
- I don't think I've said that you couldn't get this accepted because you're writing about your employer. But you do need to formally disclose your paid editing, by placing the {{paid}} template on your user page User:HeidiMaaria as instructed above, before editing further. You are also not allowed to publish this draft directly yourself, but must instead go through the AfC review process, as indeed you are doing.
- After that, you need to provide further evidence that the subject is notable. As I said in my comments, the Helsingin Sanomat and Aamulehti articles are pretty good, we just need at least one more (usually three are required to establish notability, although in the case of businesses, a fourth one would be even better). Note that the source must be reliable and independent, and provide significant coverage of the subject, which excludes interviews, passing mentions, brief business 'profiles', anything where someone from the business is commenting on matters, any sort of sponsored content or advertorials, as well as routine business reporting such as opening new markets or locations, appointment news, M&A, financial results, and so on. The sources must also be secondary, ie. newspapers, magazines, TV or radio programmes, books, etc.
- The content should be mainly composed of a summary (in your own words, but without putting any 'spin' or embellishment on things) of what such sources have said. You can also include information supported by primary sources such as your website, but this must be limited to purely factual details such as location of HQ, names of the senior management team, year of founding, etc.
- The overall tenor must be neutral and boringly factual; your job is to describe the subject, not 'sell' it or try to make it look good. At the same time, you must show why this business matters, what impact it has had on its sector or the wider society; in other words, what makes it noteworthy enough to be included in a global encyclopaedia?
- HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your valuable advice. I have now placed 'paid' template on my page.
- I'll create a new version with tighter referencing policy. One more question though. Did I understand correctly that no interviews or comments in the article are not allowed?
- As a start up, there is limited amount of sources where no-one from the company has not been commenting. Our sources are pretty reliable and independent like national Helsingin Sanomat, Aamulehti, Taloussanomat, Talouselämä, YLE (Finnish BBC), SVT (Swedish BBC), and some smaller regional newspapers. HeidiMaaria (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for making the disclosure.
- Interviews are non-independent primary sources, like your website; they are the business telling the world about itself. They can be used to support purely factual, non-contentious information, but they do not contribute towards notability.
- Yes, I get that it can be difficult to find sources that satisfy the WP:NCORP guideline – the bar is high, for a reason. The vast majority of businesses are not considered notable, and wouldn't therefore qualify for an article; this is especially true of relatively new ones. It really depends on whether your business has 'made waves' enough for journalists to have decided, without any prompting or inducement by you, to write about you.
- On that point, probably also worth mentioning that trade magazines usually have a lower publication threshold, because their job is to cover their sector, and anything that happens in the sector is by definition of some interest to them. (They are also well-known to accept editorial content in exchange for paid advertising and sponsorship.) For this reason, they aren't as credible in establishing notability as are more mainstream, major publications like HS, Yle, and so on, which cover a broad range of topics and therefore need to be more selective in what gets featured.
- Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: LYGG (June 28)
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:LYGG 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.