Shadowaxe990

Your submission at Articles for creation: Graham Weaver (June 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Graham Weaver may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Shadowaxe990! 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! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

Hello, Shadowaxe990, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Shadowaxe999 (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Michael Gruen for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Gruen, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Gruen (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Rio Caraeff for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rio Caraeff 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/Rio Caraeff 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.

Mccapra (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Hello Shadowaxe990. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Rio Caraeff, 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:Shadowaxe990. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Shadowaxe990|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. BusterD (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Buster. So sorry for the delay, I had not seen this. I have NO financial interest or any paid relationship of Rio’s. I am not and have never been paid to edit a Wikipedia page. Frankly, I’m new and was trying to learn. Shadowaxe990 (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• With due respect, I'm seeing demonstrated concerns here on this talk of sockpuppetry, copyright violation and paid editing. Everything the editor has written has been correctly deleted (but the one active process). This sounds like four strikes to me. I await a comment from the user explaining all these "inadvertent" errors. BusterD (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  I’m a novice trying to learn how to use Wikipedia. I am sorry it wasn’t acceptable to your liking. I tried to search for controversies and negative press on reach and found some on Michael and put it up. Also, the rio one says an editor found it to have sufficient press? Shadowaxe990 (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  Something to think about:

  If Mr. Caraeff's article is kept, he and you need to remember he's always just one bad day away in the press from a neutral, factual and well-sourced but painful article:

  • An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing

  Factual bad news from reliable press will get embedded in his article. It could be a business scandal, job loss, poor business results or whatever. Just like good news. We're an encyclopaedia - just the facts.

  The entertainment industry is particularly cutthroat - makes life on Wall Street look like a game of Candy Land.

  I would never want a Wikipaedia article about myself. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)