User talk:Emirdy

COI guidance

Hi. Thanks for disclosing your COI. For more guidance, please give Wikipedia:Conflict of interest of interest a read. Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia. JSFarman (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @JSFarman,

Thank you for your message and the guidance. I’ve already taken the time to read through the Conflict of Interest guidelines, but I’ll gladly review them again if necessary, I appreciate the reminder and your welcome to Wikipedia. If I need any help with edits in the future, may I reach out to you for guidance?

Best regards. Emirdy (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I created the talk page for Rick Yvanovich; if you were paid to write the article, you should add the COI template below:

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Username of the paid editor (talk · contribs) has been paid by Name of person/organization that is paying for the edits on behalf of Name of client. Insert diff to disclosure on your User page.

Feel free to reach out if you have questions. Happy editing. JSFarman (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @JSFarman, I will proceed to add the template now. Emirdy (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You state that you are a paid editor, but that some of your edits are unpaid. Have you disclosed every topic for which you are a paid editor? Note that the paid editing policy requires you to link to any external website where you advertise or offer your services as a paid editor. 331dot (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @331dot,

Thank you for your message. Yes, I have disclosed every topic for which I am a paid editor on both my user page and the talk pages of the concerned articles, in line with Wikipedia's paid editing policy.

I appreciate the reminder, and I’ll make sure to link to the external website where I advertise my services as soon as possible. Emirdy (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Peter Speare (January 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and 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:Peter Speare 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.

CNMall41 (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Emirdy! 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! CNMall41 (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Ridge RV moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Highland Ridge RV. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because you may have a possible Conflict of Interest and I would highly advise against moving anything to the mainspace in which you were paid to create. This page is an example of why not. The sourcing is not good and you have an entire section of industry awards which is highly promotional. . I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CNMall41 (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Wolfenden moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Rich Wolfenden. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and This is another example. The references do not show how this person meets notability. In addition, it was preiovusly deleted for being created by a SOCK. I realize you disclosed, but disclosure does not exempt you from following guidelines such as notability. You really need to submit these through AfC. . I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CNMall41 (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

Hello, I'm Dclemens1971. I noticed that you recently removed content from Priven Reddy without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. In particular, you removed reliably sourced content that reflected negatively on the subject without reflecting this in the edit summary. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, and thanks for the heads-up, @Dclemens1971

I’ll be more mindful of providing detailed edit summaries in the future. Appreciate you reaching out. Emirdy (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you also uploaded a photograph of Reddy without appropriate licensing to Commons. This will be deleted as a copyright violation. If you are editing on behalf of Reddy? If so, please disclose this as you have done with other edits. If Reddy wishes to release a photograph of himself to which he holds the copyright into the public domain for use on Commons, please follow the steps at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, and I appreciate the clarificatio,@Dclemens1971. I had already disclosed this paid edit on my user page, and now disclosed on the concerned page talk page also. I will ensure the appropriate licensing is followed. If a new photo is provided with proper permissions, I’ll follow the necessary steps outlined in the link you shared. Thanks for pointing this out. Emirdy (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rich Wolfenden for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rich Wolfenden 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/Rich Wolfenden 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.

CNMall41 (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Pervis Taylor for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pervis Taylor 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/Pervis Taylor 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.

Kylemahar902 (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A question relating to editing Draft:Ted Giovanis

Hello, Emirdy. I see that you have posted a paid editing disclosure at Draft talk:Ted Giovanis. Thanks for that. Can you clarify the details of the payment arrangements? You say that you are being paid by "Margarita"; who is that, and what is the nature of the business relationship between Margarita and you? JBW (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:JBW

Thank you for reaching out. I recognize the importance of transparency regarding paid contributions.

To answer your questions, Margarita is an employer who hired me through a freelancing platform to work on Draft:Ted Giovanis. My role in this project is strictly editorial. I was tasked with aligning the page with Wikipedia’s content guidelines.

Emirdy (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest, & related matters

Hello, Emirdy. 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 conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. I see that you have acted contrary to the conflict of interest guideline by posting a page which you are paid to edit as an article. It will really be better not to do that. JBW (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, @JBW. I appreciate the guidance and will be more mindful of these guidelines moving forward. Thanks again for the reminder. Emirdy (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ted Giovanis (February 28)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and 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:Ted Giovanis 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.

Gheus (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]