Hi Mnfndr! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Blasting News, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mnfndr. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that 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:Mnfndr. The template ((Paid)) can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: ((paid|user=Mnfndr|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, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Jytdog (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdoog, I am afraid I am not paid, nor I will get paid, for writing content on wikipedia. I work in the media industry in the UK. I honestly don't get your point about Blasting News: I added back information (that according to me you mistakenly took out) that are not promotional and are verified via sources and links. What you defined as "churnalism websites" are very well respected sites in Italy (e.g., Avvenire, Formiche.net which also is a Think Tank, Milano Finanza which is the second largest financial publication after Il Sole 24 Ore). After a in-depth research, I agreed with you that some other sites were promotional (e.g. Engage) and were only re-writing corporate press releases, and I thanked you because you took them out. So: where am I biased? Thanks for helping me to understand. Regards. Mnfndr (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdoog, to be more factual.

When I write: "Blasting News has headquarters in London and main offices in Milan, New York City, Rome and Sao Paulo", where am I promotional? This is a list of places where the company has offices.

When I write: "The site is registered with number 531 at the Tribunal Court of Milan", where am I promotional? This is an official document saying the company is a registered media company!!! From what angle this can be considered promotional?

When I write: "The site has national publications in Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Portugal, Spain, United States, United Kingdom (as it is easily visible on the site).". This is a plain fact, stated in several of the sources added as references, and easy to be verified on the Blasting News site. From what angle this can be considered promotional?

It is not my intention being polemic, I would like to understand why you think those statements are promotional. I am not saying (and I never said) that Blasting News is good or bad. I just wrote about plain facts about a (rather big) media publisher that to me quite surprisingly did not have an entry on wikipedia!!

Moreover: if you have specific comments/feedbacks about some of the content I wrote, I am happy you apply changes. If I can improve sources, I am happy to do it (but I did at the time of the creation of the content quite an extensive research and I think there are not a lot of other sources for this entry around the web). Just please avoid to delete all the content as a whole, as you did last time, because this - I am afraid to say - is a bit unrespectful. I am just trying to bring my contribute, as you do as well.

Thanks :-)) Mnfndr (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

moving additional replies that were left at my talk in these diffs, here, to have the discussion in one place. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdoog, I am afraid I am not paid, nor I will get paid, for writing content on wikipedia. I work in the media industry in the UK. I honestly don't get your point about Blasting News: I added back information (that according to me you mistakenly took out) that are not promotional and are verified via sources and links. What you defined as "churnalism websites" are very well respected sites in Italy (e.g., Avvenire, Formiche.net which also is a Think Tank, Milano Finanza which is the second largest financial publication after Il Sole 24 Ore). After a in-depth research, I agreed with you that some other sites were promotional (e.g. Engage) and were only re-writing corporate press releases, and I thanked you because you took them out. So: where am I biased? Thanks for helping me to understand. Regards. Mnfndr (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be more factual. When I write: "Blasting News has headquarters in London and main offices in Milan, New York City, Rome and Sao Paulo", where am I promotional? This is a list of places where the company has offices. When I write: "The site is registered with number 531 at the Tribunal Court of Milan", where am I promotional? This is an official document saying the company is a registered media company!!! From what angle this can be considered promotional? When I write: "The site has national publications in Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Portugal, Spain, United States, United Kingdom (as it is easily visible on the site).". This is a plain fact, stated in several of the sources added as references, and easy to be verified on the Blasting News site. From what angle this can be considered promotional? --- It is not my intention being polemic, I would like to understand why you think those statements are promotional. I am not saying (and I never said) that Blasting News is good or bad. I just wrote about plain facts about a (rather big) media publisher that to me quite surprisingly did not have an entry on wikipedia!! Thanks :-))

Moreover: if you have specific comments/feedbacks about some of the content I wrote, I am happy you apply changes. If I can improve sources, I am happy to do it (but I did at the time of the creation of the content quite an extensive research and I think there are not a lot of other sources for this entry around the web). Just please avoid to delete all the content as a whole, as you did last time, because this - I am afraid to say - is a bit unrespectful. I am just trying to bring my contribute, as you do as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnfndr (talk • contribs) 19:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying and saying that you are not being paid, nor will you be paid, for editing. I do understand that you would like to discuss the content, but let's finish working through this first.

Do you have any connection with Blasting News? COI is broader than just "being paid". Please do reply here, to keep this in one place. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog. To be sure to give you a proper answer, i had a look at Conflict of interest. I don't have any conflict of interest with Blasting News - as an example, I am not a contributor at Blasting News, I am not an editor, I am not an employee. (From the page: Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest). I know Blasting News because of my job, but this is not a source of conflict. Mnfndr (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask you to evaluate whether you a conflict of interest and I am not interested in throwing up very specific quetions about this role or that, or hearing you deny having specific role X or Y.

I asked you to disclose any connection you have with the company.

Would you please disclose any connection you have with the company? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any connection with the company (that can lead to a conflict of interest). I read news articles on Blasting News (this is a connection, but it does not lead to a CoI), I listened to two speeches in public conferences from the founders (this is a connection, but it does not lead to a CoI), I have briefly talked with the founders once and asked some questions (this is a connection, but it does not lead to a CoI). I may add, I genuinely like the open but curated model. I believe it is a very good model to improve freedom of information (this is somehow a connection, but it does not lead to a CoI). Hope it helps. Mnfndr (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring your edits was incorrect behavior.

Your recent editing history at Blasting News shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Blasting News has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

self-promotion of a content farm that lacks notability both in Italy and abroad.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Mᵒdᵘlᵃtᵒ.📩 09:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]