User talk:Aeishmaa11

December 2023

Hello, I'm Pickersgill-Cunliffe. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to International Student Volunteers have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please use meaningful edit summaries

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Spideog (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Ozempic, you may be blocked from editing. Do not put commercial links within the lead. Zefr (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Lipo Corpus Review

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Lipo Corpus Review requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QuoteWizard moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to QuoteWizard. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because 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 the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there — thanks for taking the time to move the page into Draft space and flag the COI concern.

Just to clarify up-front: I’m not connected to QuoteWizard (no job, no payment, no stake). I’m only trying to pull together a neutral, well-sourced article.

On notability, the company seems to clear the bar because there’s solid, independent coverage that digs into the business, not just quick name-drops:

GeekWire did a full feature when LendingTree bought QuoteWizard for roughly $300–370 million (Oct 2018).

Insurance Journal and Reuters both covered the acquisition, including revenue numbers.

TechCrunch ran a deep dive on the 2024 Snowflake data breach that hit QuoteWizard.

Outlets like Property-Casualty360 and Axios cite QuoteWizard’s insurance research every year (2021-25).

Those cover multiple years, multiple publishers, and devote several paragraphs to QuoteWizard itself, which fits WP:GNG / WP:ORG.

Next steps on my end:

Tighten any wording that might feel promotional.

Double-check every fact has an inline citation (and add archive links where helpful).

Happy for any uninvolved editors to copy-edit or prune as needed.

If there’s anything specific you’d like me to fix or flesh out, let me know and I’ll jump on it. Thanks again for the guidance!

00:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC) Aeishmaa11 (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gabi.com moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Gabi.com. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because 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 the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

Hello Aeishmaa11. The nature of your edits 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 employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. 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:Aeishmaa11. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Aeishmaa11|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. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:14, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there thanks for taking the time to move the page into Draft space and flag the COI concern.

Just to clarify up-front: I’m not connected to QuoteWizard (no job, no payment, no stake). I’m only trying to pull together a neutral, well-sourced article.

On notability, the company seems to clear the bar because there’s solid, independent coverage that digs into the business, not just quick name-drops:

GeekWire did a full feature when LendingTree bought QuoteWizard for roughly $300–370 million (Oct 2018).

Insurance Journal and Reuters both covered the acquisition, including revenue numbers.

TechCrunch ran a deep dive on the 2024 Snowflake data breach that hit QuoteWizard.

Outlets like Property-Casualty360 and Axios cite QuoteWizard’s insurance research every year (2021-25).

Those cover multiple years, multiple publishers, and devote several paragraphs to QuoteWizard itself, which fits WP:GNG / WP:ORG.

Next steps on my end:

Tighten any wording that might feel promotional.

Double-check every fact has an inline citation (and add archive links where helpful).

Happy for any uninvolved editors to copy-edit or prune as needed.

If there’s anything specific you’d like me to fix or flesh out, let me know and I’ll jump on it. Thanks again for the guidance! Aeishmaa11 (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I encourage you to submit both QuoteWizard and Gabi through Articles for Creation. You can continue to edit the respective drafts and submit them when you feel that the issue of promotional wording has been addressed. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: QuoteWizard (June 9)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bunnypranav were:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The text of this submission has been removed from Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning biographies of living persons; we cannot accept such articles if they are unsourced, or contain unverifiable information which is potentially defamatory. All articles about living persons must conform to our biographies of living persons policy. In order to permit the author of this submission to provide sources that may satisfy the policy, the text of the page is available in the history.

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:QuoteWizard 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.

~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 05:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aeishmaa11! 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! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 05:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]