User talk:Steven.mike

Welcome!

Hi Steven.mike! I noticed your contributions to Constitutional Accountability Center and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Marquardtika (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marquardtika,

Thanks for the warm welcome!

I’m excited to be part of the Wikipedia community and eager to learn more.

I’ve recently created a new page, which is under review. Since I want to improve my Wikipedia editing skills, I’d appreciate it if you could review it and share any suggestions. I'm sharing page draft url below, Please review it. Your feedback will help me refine my work for future contributions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:CodingCops Steven.mike (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

Hello Steven.mike. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:CodingCops, 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:Steven.mike. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Steven.mike|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. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, you are considered a paid editor if you are writing about your company. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Helpful Raccoon,

This is not a paid contribution. I was once a part of this company, but I am no longer associated with it. I am a content strategist and recently decided to start editing on Wikipedia. Since I was unsure where to begin or what topic to write about, I chose this company because I already had knowledge about it. That is the only reason I wrote the article.

If my article is being rejected just because of my past association with the company, then that is not the case. However, if there is any other reason for rejection, please let me know so I can consider it while choosing my next topic.

Thank you. Steven.mike (talk) 09:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. Your draft was not declined due to any past association; it was declined and deleted because it read like an advertisement for the company. Also your company is very unlikely to be sufficiently notable in Wikipedia terms for its own article: this requires coverage in independent sources beyond directory entries and press releases. Articles should be based on what these independent sources have to say about the topic, and not what a company says about itself. You still have a conflict of interest with your former employer - it is much easier to write neutrally about other topics that you have no connection to. Relevant policies and guidelines to read about: WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).

In general, writing a new article is a very difficult task for newcomers. It's easier to start out by editing existing articles. You should also not use AI to contribute to Wikipedia, for reasons outlined at WP:LLM. If you don't know what to write about, you can complete some suggested edits from Special:Homepage. Good luck! Helpful Raccoon (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Asilvering. An edit that you recently made seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. asilvering (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: CodingCops (March 20)

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

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:CodingCops 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.

~Liance^talk 01:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Steven.mike! 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! ~Liance^talk 01:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:CodingCops

If this is the first article that you have 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.

A tag has been placed on Draft:CodingCops, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ~Liance^talk 01:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]