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 http://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]