User talk:Robertrobert987

Hello Robertrobert987. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic. 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.

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, 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:Robertrobert987. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Robertrobert987|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. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to the above request; are you or are you not being paid to conduct these edits? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to continue to ignore this request? Are you or are you not being paid for your edits here? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where to properly respond to this question so I hope this is satisfactory. I am not involved at all with this company but doing research on cyber security firms and notice Crowdstrike does not have a wiki page. Some of their competitors have one and felt Crowdstrike should have one too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertrobert987 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your response. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of CrowdStrike for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article CrowdStrike 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/CrowdStrike until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]