User talk:Contributor Marius

This is Contributor Marius's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Welcome!

Hi Contributor Marius! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Superbet (December 22)

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

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 brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of 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:

Routine business reporting (investment raised, appointments, new markets or locations, M&A, etc.) does not establish notability.

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:Superbet 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Contributor Marius! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Hello Contributor Marius. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:Superbet, 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:Contributor Marius. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Contributor Marius|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. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DoubleGrazing. Thanks for your feedback on my submission! I’ve gone through your comments and made several changes to ensure the article is more neutral and fully aligned with Wikipedia’s guidelines. I’ve also made sure everything is backed by independent sources that highlight Superbet’s economic and social role.

The goal is to provide an encyclopedic overview of Superbet Group, focusing on its impact within Romania’s gambling industry and its broader economic significance. I don’t have any promotional ties to the company—just aiming to document its relevance using publicly available references.

Please let me know if there’s anything else that needs to be addressed before resubmission. I really appreciate your time and input in helping improve the article.

Thanks again! Contributor Marius Contributor Marius (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Superbet (February 8)

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

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 brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of 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.

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:Superbet 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.

Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your feedback on my draft, and I’ve taken the time to make significant improvements based on your suggestions. I’ve added more reliable, independent sources that provide in-depth coverage, expanded the content to better demonstrate notability, and ensured everything aligns with Wikipedia’s guidelines. It’s been almost one month since I resubmitted, so I just wanted to check if there’s any update or if there’s anything else I should adjust to move things forward. Thanks a lot for your time. Contributor Marius (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Superbet (May 27)

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

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 brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of 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.

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:Superbet 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.

BuySomeApples (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Superbet (June 16)

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

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 brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of 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:

The cited sources are simple routine announcements and churnalism.

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:Superbet 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.

Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:23, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

Please refrain from making edits generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology) in Wikipedia pages without carefully reviewing them, such as those you made to User talk:Contributor Marius, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, pythoncoder, thanks for the heads-up! I understand your point and I'll assure you that my message was written to reflect my own thoughts, just using a clear and structured tone. I definitely reviewed it before posting. That said, I get that this is Wikipedia, not a place for essays or polished PR-style writing 😄.. so I’ll make sure future messages sound more natural. Appreciate your time and efforts in maintaining the quality of Wikipedia! Contributor Marius (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Superbet (June 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vanilla Wizard was:

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 brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of 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:

Likely does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). While the rewritten draft is structured better than its previous version, the key issues mentioned by the other reviewers in their decline rationales remain. Coverage of this company appears to be mostly trivial and passing, not in-depth.

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:Superbet 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.

Vanilla Wizard 💙 18:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the reply and for taking the time to review everything. Just to clarify, I tried to focus only on cases where Superbet is the central subject, like the Bloomberg piece about global expansion, or the detailed coverage of the Napoleon acquisition in Economedia and iGaming Business. These weren’t just mentions in passing, but the focus of the articles themselves. If the subject still doesn’t meet full notability standards, I completely understand. I’d really appreciate your thoughts on whether a better approach might be to incorporate this into a broader article, like Gambling in Romania.

Thanks again for your guidance! Contributor Marius (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Contributor Marius! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Looking for neutral opinion on declined Draft:Superbet, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]