Jump to content

User talk:Lucas Cronic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:Cronic Digital)

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, Cronic Digital, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Draft:Shopmasp - Marcelo Sports, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

The page Draft:Shopmasp - Marcelo Sports has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seemed to be unambiguous advertising which only promoted a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to have been fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

[edit]
Your account has been indefinitely blocked from editing because it has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Also, your username gives the impression that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or website, which is against the username policy.

If you intend to make useful contributions instead of promoting your business or organization, you may request unblock and a username change. In your reasons, you must follow all these steps:

  1. Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the paid-contribution disclosure requirement; and
  2. Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked; and
  3. Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked; and
  4. Provide a new username.

To do this, insert the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked.

Please note that the new username you choose cannot already be taken and in use by another account. You can search to see if the username you'd like to choose is available. If the search returns that no global account with that username exists, that means it is still available.

Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your username

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Cronic Digital", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, service, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are permitted to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you individually (not your role), such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87", but not "SEO Manager at XYZ Company".

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, service, or website, regardless of your username. Please also read our paid editing policy and our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please request a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, choosing a username that complies with our username policy. Alternatively, you can just create a new account and use that for editing. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 21:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Lucas Cronic (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I would like to apologize for my oversight in not reviewing the guidelines governing the creation of Wikipedia pages. I now understand that it is not permitted to use these pages for self-promotion of businesses or companies. Moving forward, my sole intention is to contribute accurate, factual content. Thank you for your understanding. Cronic Digital (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Unblocking per the discussion below. Please make the required disclosures before making any edits in this area. Welcome back. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 18:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What topics do you intend to contribute about? 331dot (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I currently work for a company in Brazil, and we have noticed that some of our clients, who have played important roles in the history and development of their region, do not have Wikipedia pages presenting their contributions in a neutral, encyclopedic manner. I would like to help by contributing factual information about them, strictly following Wikipedia’s guidelines.
I acknowledge there may be a potential conflict of interest (COI) because of my professional involvement with these companies. However, my goal is to adhere rigorously to the principles of neutrality, verifiability, and impartiality, using reliable and independent sources to reference all information. I do not wish to engage in any form of advertising or self-promotion, but rather to share historical data and facts that could be valuable to the public. Cronic Digital (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) Hi @Cronic Digital, it sounds like the paid editing guidelines would be more appropriate if the subjects relate to your employment - even if you're not directly paid to create the articles you still have a broad financial interest in the subjects you'd be writing about.
Can you please read through the paid editing guidelines linked to above, then explain the policy in your own words, as this will help show your understanding of it to the admin considering your appeal?
In addition, not every organisation is entitled to an article as this is an encyclopedia, not a business directory.
You'll need to understand how notability works and how to find verifiable, reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Blue-Sonnet, thanks for such a quick reply.
I’ve read through the Wikipedia guidelines (especially around COI, paid editing, notability, and verifiability) and understand that Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion, advertising, or as a personal/corporate profile.
I recognize that the “Shopmasp” article doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability standards, as it lacks reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage.
To clarify, I am not being paid or compensated for writing about these topics; my only aim is to share neutral, noteworthy information about subjects in Balneário Camboriú, Santa Catarina, Brazil. I acknowledge there could be a conflict of interest since I’m close to the topic, and I will follow Wikipedia’s guidelines—proposing changes on the article’s Talk page and using the Articles for Creation process when necessary.
Please let me know if there is anything further I can do to address these issues or demonstrate my commitment to Wikipedia’s policies.
Thank you for your assistance! Cronic Digital (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are editing about clients, you are a paid editor. It does not require specific payment for editing. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: I had not noticed at the time that we both took action here, apparently at more or less the exact same time. Technicaly, you were "here first" but the timestamps are identical. I opted to warn, you opted to block, both are valid choices, so ...oops? So, given the above discussion,it does seem abundantly clear that PAID applies here, and we'll need a disclosure for that if the user is unblocked. The proposed new username seems ok, the user is not disputing that their edits were not compliant with policy, and 331dot and Blue-Sonnet have made it clear what policies the user needs to be mindful of going forward. Any thought on a potential unblock? Beeblebrox Beebletalks 20:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really say but I was going to consider unblocking if they acknowledged they are a paid editor, as they agree to use indirect processes to propose edits/drafts. 331dot (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, Beeblebrox, I'd seen and indeed wondered at your message, but not noticed the timing thereof – my apologies. I chose to indef because of (a) the grossly promotional nature of this and (b) this, from which it was clear that that promo was also WP:UPE. I can see no potential benefit to the project in unblocking a user whose only interest seems to be the promotion of the clients of his agency, but cannot object if someone else wants to do so. Thanks for comments and the rename, 331dot. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that even indirect request will not be an efficient use of community time- I usually like to see edits in unrelated areas first as a demonstration of knowledge of proper content and sourcing, but I don't oppose a chance here. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think going through the requested edit/AFC process is actually a better way to educate the user. Edit requests are generally handled quickly and with specific feedback. AFC can of course take quite a while but also usually provides detailed feedback. If they are able to take that feedback on board and edit withing policy, great, we've got more content and maybe even a new active Wikipedian. If not, they will just get blocked again. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 21:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that the PAID aspect is another matter. We need to be sure that is clearly understood before even considering an unblock. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucas Cronic: Have you read through this discussion and the paid editing page? Are you happy for your edits to go through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation/requested edit process if you're unblocked, or to edit in unrelated areas first? We need you to confirm both these things so we can continue with your appeal. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Heey guys, thanks for your time and attetion.
Basically, the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure page says I need to make my objective and relationship with the subject/company I'm writing about clear—either on my user page or on the article's talk page.
Your recommendation to avoid any COI is not to edit articles directly, but to use Articles for Creation and first make edits in unrelated areas. I feel like the Articles for Creation option suits me perfectly, because I plan to write about notable subjects from my region in Brazil, but we'll still need to check for verifiable sources before proposing a draft.
I really appreciate your patience and time, especially since I had no previous experience writing a Wikipedia page or article. I’m basically learning everything through these mistakes, haha. Lucas Cronic (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]