User talk:Nrochluz

May 2024[edit]

Hello Nrochluz. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Huupe, 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 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:Nrochluz. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Nrochluz|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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rosguill,

I am not receiving any financial compensation for this nor am I receiving anything from the company huupe. This alert is a mistake and hope that this alert can be removed from the page. Happy to answer anything.

Best,

Nrochluz Nrochluz (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @Rosguill I have noticed your comments from the history. Would you want me to add other sources as well? I know that everything is factual but just want to help and remedy the situation. Nrochluz (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article requires additional citations to secondary, independent sources that discuss it in detail in order to satisfy WP:ORGCRITE. Other than the coverage in SBJ, the cited references do not meet that standard, and multiple quality references are needed to justify keeping an article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill thank you for the feedback. Although the citations are real, I see your point. Could I change the citations with higher quality sources? They carry the same information but it will be from more credible sources. Nrochluz (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, do add higher quality sources. The less-independent sources may still be usable for trivial or uncontroversial claims, they just don't contribute towards building a case for the article being kept. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill thank you for your response. I will add them shortly for you to see

Only other question is that the "h" for this company is lowercase. I know that Wikipedia prides itself on authenticity, is it possible to change the "H" to "h" in article title? If not, not a problem but thought that it would be worth mentioning. Nrochluz (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen this for other pages such as eBay on Wikipedia. Nrochluz (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that can be done with a page move, you can see how to do that at H:MOVE. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill could I have some assistance with adding the sources. There is some difficulty on my end. I have added the citations below. They are following your guidance and advice. Please let me know if I can answer anything. I am happy to try again if can't advise.

Nrochluz (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Rosguill I have found the move section. Just to be clear, does anything else change besides the title? I do not want to change any of the information. Nrochluz (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill I was able to add the citations. Can the alert be removed from the page since this issue has been resolved? Nrochluz (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the cited sources don't quite make it to ORGCRITE. The Mens Journal article opens with a disclaimer This article was produced in partnership with Thomas Herd that suggests it is a promotional placement ad, an assessment that is not dispelled by the article's breathless prose and exhortation to follow huupe's social media. TechCrunch funding reports, meanwhile, are not considered significant coverage for the determination of notability (RSP entry). The NationalNews article is a cut above the other two, but 90% of its content is direct quotes from stakeholders in huupe, so while it begins to establish notability, it's not a huge step in that direction. At a minimum, I'd want to see another source or two that is equivalent to or better than the National News and SBJ coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill thank you for clarifying. Please note that I took down the Men's Journal article. I have added one from Front Office Sports. Please let me know if this works and approved to proceed forward with moving the page to proper spelling Nrochluz (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill I also added another citation as well. Please let me know if both or either are approved. and look forward to hearing what you think. Nrochluz (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill I just want to make sure I follow the rules accordingly. I can move the page without anything of edits from you or anyone else being removed. Being mindful of the work that was put into this page. Is that correct? Nrochluz (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. Regarding the Business Insider source, I am unable to access it so I will defer to another new page reviewer's decision on the subject's overall case for notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I am sorry that you are not able to view it. Can I take the Business Insider source down for the alert to be removed?

This concludes that the other three would work for the page. Can you confirm? Nrochluz (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill I am confirming that the Business Insider page has been removed as a source. Nrochluz (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend leaving it in, as it may help your case, I simply can't evaluate it myself. Notability is ultimately a gestalt assessment, each individual source is just a piece of the puzzle. At this point, I'd ask that you please just wait for another editor to review the article, this back-and-forth here on your talk page is highly atypical. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill I want to follow the instructions and regulations. It is just that you added this notability tag when there has been evidence. I understand and appreciate you wanting to make sure everything is up to Wikipedia standards.

As stated, I have no ties to this but have seen how this company is deserving of keeping the page since they have more than enough articles that show non bias and follow the guidelines.

As a Wikipedia editor who wants to and is focusing on sports, this should qualify as notable and hope that the tag can be removed as the page follows the guidelines.

Please let me know if I can answer anything. Nrochluz (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Huupe. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 11:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @ObserveOwl. The comment the person made is not right and is saying that the page is promoting spam when it is just a history of a company. Can you see how it is not right for this notice to be there? Nrochluz (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to comment your thoughts in the nomination page, then!

I also know how it feels when someone says that my work sounds promotional. It happened when I rewrote an article, so I had a chat with that person on the talk page to understand the issue better and we both managed to clean up the article. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. My advice, then, is simply to discuss, in a civil manner, with the user nominating it (user Oaktree b) to understand why it sounds promotional. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 12:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ObserveOwl thank you for the explanation. I have watched this page and want to find a solution to this quickly. If we are both able to remedy the situation in a quick manner, can Oaktree b remove the notice. Can you explain the removal and how it could be? Nrochluz (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have also seen another user who agrees with this comment on the discussion Nrochluz (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Due to procedural reasons, the deletion notice must be kept until the discussion ends. An AfD nomination usually lasts 7 days, but it can be ended earlier in certain circumstances, like when the nominator withdraws and no one else favoured deletion, or when the nomination is just vandalism (full of swears or something). See Wikipedia:Speedy keep. There is no deadline, so it's not necessary to make it quick. Oaktree b might be in a different timezone. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 13:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ObserveOwl thank you for the explanation. Just wondering since you added it back, are you able to remove it. Please feel free to look at the sources as well. I intend to follow the right protocol but just want to make sure I understand correctly. Nrochluz (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill

this is my only account. Nrochluz (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nrochluz (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]