Hi MexFin! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Kleuske (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have tagged a bunch of articles with WP:A7 and WP:G11. In none of the cases have you notified the author of the article. You are required to do that. You must notify the author(s) now, or you must remove the tags yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. @Bbb23 super aggressive and without reason. I made those edits about an hour ago, a client called and I had to prioritise my own work, so I am sorry (not sorry) that I had to do other things first. You know that Wikipedia is a voluntary activity, and it has a specific guideline for assuming good faith, so your rudeness is out of place.

Back to the topic. The articles in question are from an account that is spamming new articles. In the talk page of the user, there are several recent notifications about this act. MexFin (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I notified the author of the articles, and provided links to the notability guidelines for living people. However, I think that there may be a deeper issue because the talk page is peppered with notices for speedy deletion for biographies of people with WP:A7 MexFin (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MexFin, please read WP:CSD carefully. Neither Evan Lyons nor Nigel Harte, nor Draft:Aidan Devaney were eligible for speedy deletion A7 or G11. Storchy (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Storchy Ok, maybe the reason is that I am new here, but I sincerely do not get it. The notability criteria for the person was missing according to Wikipedia:Notability (people) specifically for sports personalities is not met. I went to the userpage and noticed that it is peppered with notices of WP:A7, so I assumed that this was the right template. I apologize if it is incorrect. What am I missing? Thanks for helping me learn. MexFin (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. Speedy deletion WP:A7 is for articles that make no credible assertion of notability whatsoever, like "My friend Joe is the best football player I've ever seen." The Evan Lyons article, on the other hand, had reliable sources about his notability as a player. WP:G11 is for blatantly promotional articles which would need a complete rewrite to make them suitable for an encyclopaedia, and not for articles that are a bit promotional. If you think an article needs improving, then it's best to fix it yourself, or you can tag the article for improvement, using cleanup tags. Storchy (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Business network, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Relationship. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Service network, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adversarial.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you have added Creative Commons licensed text to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Aviation. You are welcome to import appropriate Creative Commons licensed content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Compatibly licensed sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any Creative Commons content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am changing the text according to the templates MexFin (talk) 09:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial Marketing Management, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consumption Markets & Culture, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Marketing Management, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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 passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet 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:

Doesn't meet WP:NAWARDS.

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:Insight250 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.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MexFin! 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! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from Disinformation into Draft:Disinformation research. 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. Diannaa (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa Thanks for the pointer. However, I mentioned in the talk page of the draft mentions that it should be a good idea to move the content that is specifically about academic research (in this case the section) from disinformation to Draft:Disinformation research. The reason for doing that is that some of the elements discussed are within the scope of disinformation, but are presented in the form of various findings that make sense only as part of a stream of research findings. Perhaps the best idea is NOT to move the content but to create an explanation of what those research streams are. MexFin (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa Thanks for the pointer. However, I mentioned in the talk page of the draft mentions that it should be a good idea to transfer the content about research (a section) from disinformation to Draft:Disinformation research. The idea is to make the articles readable. A second option is to not copy content about research from those pages at all and then just leave it about the general context of disinformation research. MexFin (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay to mention it on the talk page, but the guideline says to include it in your edit summary at the destination article at the time you move/copy the content. Thanks, Diannaa (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa Got it, and will do for next time. For this specific case, it is no longer relevant since I changed the approach for Draft:Disinformation research to create new content that makes more sense for that article as it helps organize a description of a field that is quite disciplinary. MexFin (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2024 (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 TheTechie was:

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.

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:Disinformation research 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.

TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MexFin. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Insight250, 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) 08:07, 3 March 2025 (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 SafariScribe was:

I don't see covered much as a topic if not under the major scheme Disinformation. I suggest a merge could help.

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:Disinformation research 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.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MexFin. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Insight250".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disinformation research, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MexFin. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Social bot, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects 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 Request Wizard), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
• 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, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Belbury (talk) 11:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Belbury. In this specific case, the chapter in question is relevant for social bots and the AI slop, since the chapter is specifically about both. Citing published academic work is not a conflict of interest as per Wikipedia rules WP:SELFCITE Quote: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work."

In social bots,I followed all the rules and included references to other research to avoid undue emphasis on a single piece of work.

Wikipedia acknowledges that working with academic editors is special, and there is an article about it: MexFin (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked reply without finishing the idea. Rather than editing the previous comment I will expand as a reply.

According to Wikipedia:Relationships with academic editors "Academics and experts are welcome, but only under "Wikipedia Rules". Even when an academic or expert gets it wrong, other editors are asked to handle that well." The article has some useful common misunderstandings between "generalist" editors" and "academic" editors. It reads "The issue faced by academics and experts is that it is they who must bend their way of working to suit Wikipedia." This is a good thing because it includes things such as no original research and synthesis of published reliable sources.

Wikipedia acknowledges that academics are experts in their very narrow field, and that they know their fields quite well; hence, it is likely that academic researchers will focus on very specific set of articles. However, the special rules for academics is to follow strictly all the rules of wikipedia and to include references to other authors as well. Academic work, when cited after publication in a peer-reviewed journal is is considered reliable work, and academics are allowed to use their expertis; it is not a COI. Help:Wikipedia editing for researchers, scholars, and academics This article have very good guidelines that I follow closely.

There is even a recent article in Nature about how academic editors work with Wikipedia, and why this is a very good thing. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00244-7 MexFin (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]