User talk:Mushycarrotsoup

April 2023[edit]

Hello Mushycarrotsoup. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Honeygain, 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:Mushycarrotsoup. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Mushycarrotsoup|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. Uhai (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, Uhai!

I must first apology for a ridiculously late reply. This one is on me, and I feel rather bad about it, and I am being honest.

Regarding the payment for article and the claims outlined in your initial message, I have to inform you that no, no compensation is being provided for me and I am not affiliated with the application that I wrote the article about. I mean, sure, I am a user of it, hence why I have written the article. Thought it would be good enough for Wikpedia and it was quite weird to see that there is no article on it. Decided to just go for it and make one.

I am holding any grudges on the accussation of this being a paid article or something. I do understand that many companies may work this way. And, truth be told, I have to respect your keen eye in these cases. After all, it helps Wikipedia stay neutral, informative, and not a hub for advertisements.

Anyhow, the article at hand is already removed. I hope to have a chance to make it later on and I wish it will survive then.

Once again, I have to repeat - this is a false positive. I am not being paid for it. Would be cool, but I'd refuse such an offer, even with a chance of putting an appropriate tag. It just doesn't sit right with me!

Thank you for your time, your message, and your notes! Mushycarrotsoup (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Honeygain for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Honeygain is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honeygain until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

AllyD (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Kilo Health (July 10)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by BuySomeApples was:

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.

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:Kilo Health 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.

BuySomeApples (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mushycarrotsoup! 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! BuySomeApples (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]