User talk:Cinemepro

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Raydann was:

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:SnapSave 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.

❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 08:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please check again I have edit it Cinemepro (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cinemepro! 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! ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 08:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Cinemepro was:

I have re-edit and submitted it please check

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 the submission 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.

Cinemepro (talk) 10:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cinemepro. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:SnapSave, 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:Cinemepro. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Cinemepro|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. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one pay me for articles creation I just use this as my first article creation and why would you say they pay me am just person who interested in been Wikipedia editor so don’t misquotes me Cinemepro (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually every source you used was SEO/PR paid placement. Please carefully evaluate your sources in the future - it may be best to find a topic that is less prone to spamming. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already told this is my first article’s creation I saw that they have a lot of source so I decided to create I will be careful in my next creation sir

I will be happy if you can approve this article thank you once again sir Cinemepro (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I would say it is clear you are somehow connected with the topics you are writing about. I just evaluated the draft for "Runway" and all the references are paid-for native ads (not to mention your replies above do not match the grammar of the drafts you submitted). I am not sure how Wikipedians are supposed to take your word for it given the nature of your edits. I would advise that you disclose what conflict of interest you have. There is no rule against having a conflict, but there is a rule about not disclosing such. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bonadea was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

None of the sources shows notability. It's all primary and/or non-independent, in addition to links to websites that sell the software.

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:Maby (software) 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.

bonadea contributions talk 15:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bonadea was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

No independent sources. Most of the sources used in the draft should be removed, and none of them can be used to establish notability.

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:SnapSave 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.

bonadea contributions talk 15:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. 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:Runway (agency) 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Ogilvy (agency) into Draft:Runway (agency). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails WP:ORGCRIT. On initial look it appears there is significant coverage in reliable sources. The issue is that it is all a push (likely by the subject of the draft) for press coverage. For instance, InTouchWeekly article was "presented by Ernest Sturm" (founder of Runway); Forbes was written by a contributor; The South African has a disclaimer that opinions of the writers are their own (indicating the same type of lack of editorial oversight as Forbes contributors); IBT is potentially a sponsored post (is not marked as native advertising but claims that links within are affiliate links which indicates such); even the USA Today reference says "this story is paid for by an advertiser." I don't see one reference that would be independent imo.

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:Runway (agency) 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) 00:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man

if i remove those that have issue that you listed above are we good to go and you say something about Forbes and I didn’t understand your point as you can see it was written by one the website contributor and it shouldn’t get any issue you just talk about only press that is not good you don’t consider the press that’s good am quite tired about this shit you’ve declined like my 4 to 5 page I don’t think I will still be editing on this website again Cinemepro (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's for the best. You've again used fake SEO sources on a promotional article despite the warnings above. I've disabled this account. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please am so sorry I don’t mean that sir Cinemepro (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have make amends please check it sir Cinemepro (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by CNMall41 was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Submitter now blocked for advertising. Although many of the promo references are removed, the remaining still do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. The images on each are supplied by the brand (if you look, they are all a three photo collage and most are marked as being supplied by the brand), there is no byline for the articles (stated written by staff but no name), the headlines are all marketing headlines (like a press release), and the content is advertorial (no benefit to the reader other than marketing). Even the Daily Caller reference is marked as "featured partner" which indicates it is native advertising.

CNMall41 (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But one of the administrators have review it and remove promotional press and all press that’s not reliable there so why declined it again Cinemepro (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. The reasoning for the decline is given above. I would refer you to WP:ORGCRIT which explains the sourcing for companies. None of the remaining references would meet that criteria and I highly doubt it would be kept if the article were sent to a deletion discussion. Once the company is able to obtain significant coverage that is not paid-for the draft can be re-evaluated. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cinemepro. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:SnapSave, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cinemepro. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "SnapSave".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cinemepro. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Runway (agency), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]