User talk:Galamore

Hello, I'm DreamRimmer. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to Material flow because they seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok Galamore (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why my source is not good? Galamore (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. jp×g🗯️ 06:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, yesterday I wrote two articles about companies dealing with artificial intelligence. Apart from being a teacher who uses these programs, I have no connection, business or otherwise, with them. As I presented in the sources, these are two articles that I understand from using Wikipedia for years, should exist here. How am I supposed to prove my "innocence"? And how do I transfer these two drafts to the article space? Galamore (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG

I patrolled the article in NPP. I saw a likely GNG pass in terms of notability with Reuters (ref removed) and now [1] (unable to access but looked good enough) and [2] in the article when you draftifed.

Tonally, lead sentence is a bit off when I patrolled looking back. I don't see a clear COI with anything in any of the edits Galamore's made but rather a need to maintain a more neutral tone and focus more on secondary sources in the future :D

Galamore, I think its best if you'd click the "submit your draft for review" button on the top of the page. The backlog is... alright but slightly growing. Add the reuters source back in so reviewers would have an easier time. Trim usage of the

primary sources and you should be mostly good. Justiyaya 13:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Your submission at

Perplexity.ai

(January 8)

Hello, Galamore! 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! BuySomeApples (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to improve. But I really don't understand. I have already seen lots of less good articles than that. It frustrates me. Galamore (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Holmes Place. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability, it is promotional and reads like an advertisement and you may have a possible Conflict of Interest. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, 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 OR move the page back. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Galamore, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, GoTo (Israeli company), should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GoTo (Israeli company).

Deletion

, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|TheLongTone}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

TheLongTone (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Galamore, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Marokwitz (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry if your first articles encounter resistance; I am sure you will get the hang of it soon. The secret to creating company articles without concerns of being overly promotional is to cite well-known business publications and avoid anything overly flattering or affiliated with the company. More citations are not necessarily better, as the weaker ones often obscure the good ones. Publicly traded companies are almost always notable enough for Wikipedia, while startups often are more challenging to keep, except for very high profile ones. Marokwitz (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Jesse Lyu. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, 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 OR move the page back. Justiyaya 13:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I think Perplexity.ai could be notable, this article definitely is not. I haven't done a through search but none of the sources seems promising for meeting

WP:GNG. Justiyaya 13:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC) (please  mention me on reply)[reply

]

It frustrates me, but I don't despair. I think Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and if something isn't good enough, other editors help improve, rather than just draft it. All the articles I have written are very, very important topics in the high-tech world.Galamore (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

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. TLA (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be wise to read the article and do a quick Google search, before writing that it's an advertisement or something like that. It's a super well-known company in DevOps field. And it's really tiring that every article I write is met with such suspicion.Galamore (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Galamore. I know that it is tough to see something you create be deleted. I have been there myself. I can only suggest that you understand where the Wikipedia community is coming from here. Notability and promotional tone are two different things. In addition, your editing has all the classic signs of having a conflict of interest. Note that the page JFrog was previously created a few times by paid editors and then deleted which raises a flag so accompanied by promotional tone does not help. Now, it is okay if you have a conflict of interest, but it would need to be disclosed. As far as the promotional tone, this one read like it was something the company would want the public to know and not something suitable for encyclopedia readers. What I would suggest is to create future drafts through

WP:AfC. This way you can get feedback on everything form notability and tone. Once a few get through the process, you can get a better understanding of what is acceptable on Wikipedia. Good luck. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I also need to ask if you have edited Wikipedia from any other accounts. I found some edits that raised an eyebrow as to possibly using multiple accounts. If so, please disclose that as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. jp×g🗯️ 03:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147#Undisclosed paid editor making spam articles about non-notable companies. SilverLocust 💬 02:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay to write about people? I can also write about technologies... And be careful not to write about technologies unique to the company so that it won't be advertising...

I read Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody And I understood why you were so suspicious of me. I don't know how to prove that I'm not related to them. For me, delete the articles I wrote. each and every one of them. I have no sentimental connection and I don't care about the companies themselves. Right, I'm new. But in the last few weeks I read and learned a lot here. I want to continue to be a part. Galamore (talk) 06:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also have to say that if I were part of that group, and I would take money for editing Wikipedia, I would do it smarter than publishing a lot of new articles in such a short time...Galamore (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to put this in your appeal, not just on your talk page where it's possible no one will see it. Deb (talk) 09:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend writing a new appeal, explaining that you understand you created articles with an overly promotional tone, and asking for another chance to prove that you are not here for promotional reasons. Marokwitz (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have read this page and the section about you on an an administrator's noticeboard, and checked your editing history, and here are some of my thoughts on the matter.

I don't know whether you are an undisclosed paid editor or not, but there is nowhere near enough evidence to have persuaded me to block you from editing for that reason. On the other hand, I do think that the promotional character of your editing is enough to justify a block. As far as I know, that promotional character could be because you are being paid to use Wikipedia for advertising, but it could alternatively be simply because, being new to editing Wikipedia, you simply didn't realise that Wikipedia style is to write in a neutral way, without expressing approval or admiration of what one is writing about. What I am about to write is based on the assumption that the second of those two possibilities is true.

Creating new articles is probably the most difficult thing for new editors to do, because there are so many ways in which to fall foul of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and generally accepted style, which a new editor is unlikely to be aware of. Many new editors who try to launch straight into creating articles therefore have a frustrating and disheartening experience. My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. It is also a mistake to try to get round the restriction on new editors creating articles by making trivial edits to get autoconfirmed, for at least two reasons. The more important of those reasons is that the block on new editors from creating new articles was introduced to help those editors to avoid problems, by stopping them from rushing in without knowing enough to avoid encountering problems, such as those you have experienced. Evading that block therefore exposes you to the problems it is intended to protect you from.

Assuming that you are a genuine good-faith new editor, not editing for pay, and that you are still interested in contributing to Wikipedia, my advice is to make a new unblock request in which you undertake not to try to create new articles, whether directly or via drafts, for a significant time, perhaps six months. It may also be a good idea to undertake not to write about businesses, but it is important to realise that the question of whether your editing is promotional or not is a totally different matter from the question of what topic you are writing about; promotion of a person, an opinion, or anything else is just as unacceptable as promotion of a business. JBW (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Does this suit? Cheers, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:1F9:1600:1D8A:1459:4D9A:F331 (talk) 12:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: OK to unblock? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please? Galamore (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW Thank you! Galamore (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page The Streams Method in the Israeli education, 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

. Thanks, ]

Thanks @The Herald, but I'm not allowed to deal with these topics - do whatever you want with this article.Galamore (talk) 07:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Galamore, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Midreshet Tavor for Zionist Leadership, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midreshet Tavor for Zionist Leadership.

Deletion

, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Remsense}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Remsense诉 15:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A 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

. Thanks, ]

Ways to improve Weizmann Prize for Research in the Exact Sciences

Hello, Galamore,

Thank you for creating Weizmann Prize for Research in the Exact Sciences.

and note that:

While some of the references individual prizes are referenced, most of the list elements aren't and we're missing key references describing the details of the prize.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the

.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Klbrain (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Galamore. Thank you for your work on

, had the following comments:

Thanks for helpfully creating this page. The main problem is the lack of referencing (and I'm not sure if the Hebrew article helps there either) and, at least for me, several of the references have security warnings or blocks. So, referencing is something to work on, particularly those that focus on the prize rather than the prize winners.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Klbrain Okay thank you. I will try to work on it. Galamore (talk) 05:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have noticed that you have created this page. However, a page on the topic already exists:

]

This is what the article he created looked like while I created the other article.

Unfortunately I did not see the first article. In any case, there's no point in merging... You can delete make it a redirect. Galamore (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your version has superior content so would be worth moving that content to the other article. AusLondonder (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My name is better too. This is an attack that never been seen before. Galamore (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are only allowed to make 1 revert every 24 hours on Arab-Israeli conflict articles.

You have violated this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_Iranian_strikes_in_Israel&diff=1218856099&oldid=1218855967

and then again here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_Iranian_strikes_in_Israel&diff=1218858190&oldid=1218858044

Please revert yourself. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a revert....Galamore (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Supreme Deliciousness I looked again. I understand why you might think it's a revert. I restored the content I deleted. Thanks. Galamore (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a revert as it was added in the edit right before: [3]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look, you will see that the number of characters that I removed is not the number of characters that the editor before me added. Galamore (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaidnoway (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Galamore. Could you let me know if this edit was made as a result of receiving an email from Dizmonreau‬? I ask because if it was, there would be policy considerations. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]