User talk:Gooma2

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Your inclusion of copyrighted material in the Your Mommy Kills Animals (film) article is a violation of Wiki policies. Please revert these additions or I will continue to do so. Bob98133 (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Millahnna (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC) I'm a little confused that an addition of a valid movie review would be considered spam since there other movie reviews listed. This is a well known movie critic I added from a well known and respected movie site.[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Water for Elephants (film), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Artoasis (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC) I'm confused as to how this can be considered a 'spam' link since it's a movie review from a known movie critic and very well known movie site. Does this mean you only will allow favorable reviews on this?[reply]

The review links

Hi there. I saw your edit summary questioning the removal of the links you added earlier. If the reviewer you want to mention is a notable reviewer and has something to say that helps expand a section on reception, then the commentary should be added with an inline citation. But links to film reviews are rarely, if ever, appropriate for an External Links section, which should be reserved for links that expand upon understanding of the article. Common External Links for film articles are IMDB (full cast and crew) and official websites. Sometimes you'll also see links to the review aggregate websites but these are becoming less common since they are usually included as refs via the reception section. Millahnna (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Best Movies Ever News & Reviews

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 Best Movies Ever News & Reviews 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, but it does not 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Baseball Watcher 22:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Gooma2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Cloud Computing Manifesto, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! — billinghurst sDrewth 08:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing with a possible conflict of interest

Hello Gooma2. 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 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

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, and if it does not, 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:Gooma2. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Gooma2|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. SamHolt6 (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

There was absolutely no compensation of any kind presently or in the future for the creation of this page. The site has been around since 2010, won awards, which were cited and seemed to be a fine inclusion for Wikipedia as other news sites have pages here. Goom2 Gooma2 (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC) 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Movie TV Tech Geeks for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Movie TV Tech Geeks 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/Movie TV Tech Geeks 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. Spicy (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm very confused as I followed all of Wikipedia's guidelines. This article is valid as I've seen similar articles for news sites on Wikipedia. All sources have been cited and are legitimate. Please let me know what else is needed for Wikipedia. Thank you.Gooma2 (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)Gooma2[reply]