User talk:ChrisNolanH

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, ChrisNolanH. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. - Bilby (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing

Hello ChrisNolanH. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic. 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a black hat practice.
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, and if it does not, 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, 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:ChrisNolanH. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=ChrisNolanH|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. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message.

SmartSE (talk) 09:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Smartse: I have not been paid, not sure what else to say, I read lots of different online publications and have random interests on a variety of things and simply wanted to create some articles on Wikipedia. I didn't think any of the edits I made were written, for example like a press release, and I thought they all had valid citations in accordance to Wiki rules. But I now see the small nature of the topics I have focused on over the years has caused problems. For creating new articles I will only stick to bigger topics then from now on if this is what can happen, but I would still like to improve articles I find that I am interested in by adding additional references, and other improvements, like I have done in the past. Very sorry for all this hassle. ChrisNolanH (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Well it's a bit strange then that there's an ad posted in Augsut 2016 on upwork that requested an article about Andreas Breitfuss for which someone was paid $250 isn't it?! SmartSE (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Smartse: I guess that is how it could look but I don't know. I hope to be able to resume editing and improving existing articles at some point in the future as that is something I have enjoyed doing, but as instructed I won't edit again until further notice. Thank you. ChrisNolanH (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Andreas Breitfuss for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Andreas Breitfuss 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/Andreas Breitfuss until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. SmartSE (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mark Patrick Seminars

The article Mark Patrick Seminars has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable company

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SmartSE (talk) 09:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Daat Research Corp.

The article Daat Research Corp. has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable company created for pay

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SmartSE (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Apollo Chamber Players

The article Apollo Chamber Players has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable musical group

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SmartSE (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Funds2Orgs for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Funds2Orgs 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/Funds2Orgs 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. SmartSE (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)