User talk:Rwrobson

This is Rwrobson's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Točná has been accepted

Točná, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Chenzw Talk 10:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article created: Welcoming of Spring

Hi I notice that you very recently created a new article, Welcoming of Spring. Whilst new content is always welcome from editors - and you are clearly contributing in that respect - I admit to being unclear how it will significantly add to another existing article, on what you've stated is its central element, Marzanna. Hopefully you will be adding more content and references to support notability of the article in its own right? Or possibly you may wish to consider expanding the article on Marzanna, itself? I don't mean this feedback to sound negative or be discouraging to you - and welcome back to Wikipedia editing after a break of 11 years! Regards Parkywiki (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 8 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Modřany Gully page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accolade (company)

Hello, I have undone your move of Accolade (company) as it appeared utterly wrong for various reasons. For your action, please consider:

The article Infogrames (Accolade's former parent and later parent's parent, as well as its later name's namesake) already exists, if there was a redirect "Infogrames (company)", it would go there, or be disambiguated.
You moved the article to "Infogames (company)", notice the obvious typo "Infogames", which does not exist and has nothing to do with the company
Per WP:COMMONNAME, the article should keep its common name, and since "Accolade" was the company's name for 15 years, while Infogrames North America just for a few months, we will keep Accolade.
Your rationale states that the company at accolade.com "deserves to get the title Accolade (company)", this is in so far not correct since this company has existed for just about 10 years, so although the czrrent Article entity died years ago, it lived for about 16 years and holds a strong legacy still today, wherefore it would either be primary over, or same-level with this Accolade, if it had an article, which it does currently not.
For the active Accolade itself: The entity, as far as I can see, geniunely fails WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV as well as WP:CORPDEPTH and as such currently does not deserve any article here on Wikipedia. If we ever were to have an article, it should be located at Accolade (healthcare company) to differentiate it from the video game company, and, with consent and preparation only, we could move Accolade (company) to something like Accolade (video game company), and turn Accolade (company) itself to a disambiguation page, or a redirect to such a page. If there is no consensus, there should be no action.

To sum this up, please refrain from performing errornous moves without consent and with invalid rationales. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me. Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 14:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Hello Rwrobson. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Polarion, 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:Rwrobson. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Rwrobson|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. MrOllie (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Waarsen per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Waarsen. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]