User talk:Andriuspetrulevic

January 2025

Please refrain from hijacking pages, as you did with Pipedrive. Should you believe the subject you were writing about deserves an article, please use the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version that you can then get feedback on. Please also see Wikipedia's disambiguation guideline which indicates how to handle separate subjects with similar names. If you continue to hijack an existing article, you may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions, you are always welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 09:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andriuspetrulevic. 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:Andriuspetrulevic. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Andriuspetrulevic|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) 11:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will not get paid for this Article, because its our company and our project. So what i need to do now to be published? Andriuspetrulevic (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you work for the company, that is paid editing as the company pays you a salary. You must make the disclosure.

Did you read the message by the reviewer? 331dot (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do I understand correctly that I should add the example you mentioned to my article?

Andriuspetrulevic, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by Artwin Baltics for their contributions to Wikipedia.

Andriuspetrulevic (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That notice is for article talk pages; if you follow the above instructions that is the notice for your user page. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you did not personally create the company logo, and do not personally own the copyright, you need to go to Commons and work with them to change the image information appropriately and indicate that the company wants to release the logo for use by anyone for any purpose with attribution(note that this would include competitors who could make money off your company logo and not need to give your company money). If you don't want to do that, you must request deletion of the logo.

Logos are typically uploaded to this Wikipedia locally as "fair use" images. Fair use images cannot be in drafts but can be in articles. Images are not relevant to the draft process, which only considers the text and sources. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The logo was created by the company and the copyright for the logo belongs to the company (Artwin Baltics). How do I contact Commons so that I can sort this out with them? We would just like to include the product logo in the wikipedia.

I have already provided the rest of the information in my profile.

Sorry for so many questions, it's just quite complicated :) Andriuspetrulevic (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for disclosing.

Images are not needed until the draft is accepted and placed in the encyclopedia. The draft process only considers the text and sources. You should just go to Commons and request deletion of the logo; once the draft is accepted you can then upload the image to this Wikipedia directly as a "fair use" image. 331dot (talk) 12:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted the Commons Help Desk about removing the logo. Do I understand that now I have to wait for them to remove it? When they remove it, I can publish the article without the logo and after approval I can somehow insert it? Andriuspetrulevic (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; images are an enhancement, not a necessity.

Now, regarding the draft, Wikipedia is not a place for businesses to tell about themselves, their offerings, and their activities. A Wikipedia article about a business summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the business, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business.

To succeed at this, you need to set aside everything you know about the business and all materials it puts out(like interviews) and all routine coverage of its normal business activities and only summarize independent sources with significant coverage, coverage that goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: ARTWIN (January 2)

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

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please see WP:NCOMPANY and add references from reliable sources.

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:ARTWIN 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.

Hitro talk 09:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Andriuspetrulevic! 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! Hitro talk 09:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: ARTWIN (January 2)

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Unsourced materials will not be accepted. Kindly, pay attention to reviewers comment,

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:ARTWIN 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.

Hitro talk 10:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of companies

Wikipedia is not a business directory, so a company is not entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists. All topics must be notable by Wikipedia's definition to merit inclusion. In the specific case of a company, it must meet the notability criteria for companies and organizations. For this to happen, the company must have already received significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. We have no interest in what a company wishes to say about itself, as this is an inherent conflict of interest. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]