174.137.217.177

Unregistered editors using this IP address received messages on this talk page years ago. Since users of the IP address have likely changed, these messages have been removed. They can be viewed in the page history.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marie-Eva Volmar (April 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Alpha3031 were: 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:Marie-Eva Volmar 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.

Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, 174.137.217.177! 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! Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

Hello 174.137.217.177. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:Marie-Eva Volmar, 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:174.137.217.177. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=174.137.217.177|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. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

Thank you for your message.

We are not being paid by any organization, group or affiliates to write a Wikipedia page about Miss Marie-Eva Volmar. There is no disclosure to be made because no request has been made previously. We have reach out to her organization to interview her and write about her after stumbling on her online profiles and a few articles written about her. We believe she is someone to watch for and that she has the 'X' factor. We are always looking for ways to promote underrepresented individuals with the ability to bring about serious world change and inspire people. Miss Volmar did not request this herself directly and our PR company is solely responsible for the creation of her Wikipedia. Matter of fact, when we reached out to her personally, she tried to discourage us and she said in her own words "I do not believe I have enough star power to be on Wikipedia yet. I believe when God wants me to be on Wiki; he will make a way." We were extremely surprised of her response. But our PR thought it would be great for her to start the process immediately since it is a long process. Miss Volmar is open to giving interviews, and participating in public events to create more notability. We are only trying to help her become more visible and less invisible. We are not trying to violate any policies. We do require help in being more neutral in our point of view. How can we be more neutral in the way of writing this page about Marie-Eva Volmar? We can provide more notable sources. 174.137.217.177 (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

You said at the AfC Help Desk that you work for a PR company and "were tasked by [your] PR Manager" to "create a page for Marie-Eva Volmar". Can you help me understand how that's not paid editing, in your view, because it sure sounds to me like it is. Before you answer, you may wish to revise WP:PAID. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Our PR company is always head hunting. It can be difficult to understand how this works from your perspective. I work for a company that pays me to hunt "Stars" or people with potential of having "Star Power". People who emanate clear "Light". I know how this sounds to you and it probably does not make sense at all.

This is the article which was referred to us and which caught our attention : https://www.quora.com/What-is-something-that-needs-to-be-said/answer/Marie-Eva-Volmar

When we looked into it, we discovered all that traffic and all those likes, including shares were all organic and there was no paid advertisement. All her likes and following is organic on all her social media pages. She doesn't have millions of followers or views but if she is able to drive thousand of likes, shares and followers organically on a small level, she has "X". She is clearly a voice and that's the reason why we reached out.

My PR company pays me to hunt down those people, but Miss Volmar does not pay our PR company. It's advertisement for our PR. A PR company doing self-PR. Makes sense? 174.137.217.177 (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

And If I may add; to confirm our point of view, Miss Volmar has a YouTube channel with no video but she accumulated almost 2k subscribers. How? If this doesn't scream "influential" to you, what does? She just needs more interviews and opportunities to be under the spotlight for her works and her voice. That's our role as PR. 174.137.217.177 (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make sense. You said it yourself right there – "My PR company pays me". Ergo, paid editing. Please, as your very next edit, you should make the paid-editing disclosure, before you get into trouble. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's concept of notability. In a nutshell, a topic is considered notable only if it has already received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the topic. In other words, Wikipedia is not a means for something or someone to gain notabilty; it is a place to report on topics that are already notable.

Wikipedia has specific notability criteria for people that must be satisfied to merit inclusion. And in the case of a person who is currently alive, an article must conform to the strict requirements of the policy on biographies of living persons.

Social media sources are self-published, meaning that the person creating the content also publishes it without any editorial review. This automatically disqualifies it from being reliable, and therefore cannot establish notability. The only acceptable exceptions are the official social media channels of existing reliable sources, as the content is presumed to have been reviewed by an editor prior to publication. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure of what you are advancing? Our PR company has down extensive research about Wikipedia and we've come across many pages like this one here -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelda_Harris. How is this Zelda Harris more notable than someone like Marie-Eva Volmar? Her page only has a few references and she seems to even have an outdated IMDB page with a photo of herself as a child. There is clear bias here. We've found several pages like this. Please explain this. 174.137.217.177 (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Notability is not established by comparing to other articles. It is established by reference to the guidelines and policies applicable at the time. The Volmar draft only cites a deprecated source (Last.fm) and a commercial press release, neither of which counts towards notability per WP:GNG. Moreover, virtually the entire draft is unreferenced, which is wholly acceptable in an article on a living person.

On a separate matter, you still have not formally disclosed your paid-editing status. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

You still have not adequately responded or taken action to the inquiry regarding your appearance as an undisclosed paid editor. If you make any additional edits without complying, you may be blocked from editing. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Marie-Eva Volmar

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:Marie-Eva Volmar, 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. DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

---