User talk:Paranoya23

NetReputation moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to NetReputation. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability and Makes assertions but the sources do not relate to this specific company. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it 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 your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Lopifalko (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on NetReputation.com

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page NetReputation.com, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:NetReputation a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into NetReputation.com. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. --Pokelova (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

False sources, OR, etc

I've deleted the cut&paste move mentioned above. Please revise the draft before attempting to move that in to mainspace. You included sources that were previously removed as clear fake articles in SEO/paid blogs. You've also included original research supported by articles that do not mention this company or are primary sources (search results, etc). If you'd like to talk about companies like this in general, add the material to Reputation management, Reputation laundering, or Online identity management. In the meantime, I've cleaned up the draft and removed fake/paid aritcles and articles that do not mention this firm - there is not enough left to establish the notability of the company, but you are free to find other material and build out the draft. Your best bet is third-party articles in real publications with editorial oversight that mention this specific company. Thanks. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: NetReputation (May 1)

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

Lopifalko (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paranoya23! 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! Lopifalko (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste move

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:NetReputation a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into NetReputation (PR firm). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. 2A00:23EE:1618:5247:2CB5:AFFF:FE2E:2DDA (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's always easy to criticize/rejest than help to improve or build from scratch. Might you can help? If page not will be reviewed I will abandon my contribution on WikiProjects, just frustrating. It's not my first page btw Paranoya23 (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Move it by yourself please. Maybe page was really stub Paranoya23 (talk) 08:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Paranoya23! Your additions to NetReputation have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of NetReputation for deletion

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

Mercenf (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate Canvassing

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence [[:see Special:MobileDiff/1166883634]]. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Mach61 (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rough week - don't get discouraged

You've been learning a lot about Wikipedia's ways, sometimes in off-putting ways. Don't get discouraged. We need your 50 articles, even if NetReputation gets deleted. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will never go back, too strict and unfriendly environment. But I have fun watching people fight amongst themselves over these subject. Re-vote, buddy, you even mentioned that Business Observer is a reliable source, so undergo WP:SIRS + WP:ORGCRIT even one reliable source is enough to stay. Or now we post only top-tier show-business scammers? This crooks needs to be public after Molloy's threaths. Paranoya23 (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Practically speaking for corporations, you need 2 in-depth articles. I strongly disagree with that. More importantly, there's a bias against businesses and a perpetual fear that Big Capitalism might be exploiting Wikipedia. Of course they're trying to exploit Wikipedia - so are Tories, Democrats, Liberals, Republicans and who knows, maybe even freemasons. Wikipedia's job is to filter that and still maintain good coverage.

Pool Corporation is a multi-billion dollar company in the S&P 500. They dominate the market for swimming pool supplies in North America and Europe. We don't have an article for them. I'd like to write one to fill in the blank but reporters seldom write an in-depth article about a big company for a newspaper. Instead you get all sorts of mergers, earnings reports, factory closures, etc. -- all deprecated as "routine events". Even bankruptcy is considered a routine event. So nobody has written the full-page "story of Pool Corporation" yet. Even if they wrote 2 of them, I'd still face a battle at AfD (and win).

Since I came back from a 10-year wiki break, I've taken this one on. I've really frustrated several of the hawks -- one even said I was a paid editor. (I've been here 17 years, made 50k+ edits on this and other Wikimedia projects and was an admin on Wikipedia and Meta-Wiki). I think some of them are getting more cautious about over-the-top nominations and how they phrase things in AfDs. Admins read that stuff as I like to remind some of those people.

Anyway, please reconsider. Or don't. Wikipedia's both the internet's most important website and it's also just another stupid website. Somedays for me it's one, some days the other.

Or, as you said, just lurk and enjoy the spectacle. There's something for everyone.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Altering the comments of others

Please do not edit the opinions of other editors; that change to BuySomeApples (talk · contribs) comment looks quite intentional. Sam Kuru (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfair to remove my 2nd own page. Too strict environment Paranoya23 (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, may be not too strict? Paranoya23 (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies section on Tony Robbins

Which part of WP:CSECTION did you not understand? --FMSky (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

buddy, I am a member of anticensorship wikiproject. good luck to wash his reputation Paranoya23 (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

can you answer my question please? have you read the guideline? What does it say? --FMSky (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will think about it later. After will report you for ad Paranoya23 (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, in the meantime you can self revert your edits that violate a wiki guideline --FMSky (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me read first, OK? Paranoya23 (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also stop accusing others of having a COI, i literally dont know who Tony Robbins is and just stumbled across this article by accident --FMSky (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, relax Paranoya23 (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

👍 -FMSky (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you right Paranoya23 (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]