User talk:Razorzedge

July 2020

Hello Razorzedge. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Royal Albatross (ship), 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 serious 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. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely 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:Razorzedge. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Razorzedge|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. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Razorzedge, please sign in to your account and then make the required declaration and we will be fine. Thanks. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Justanothersgwikieditor, I follow tall ships around the world and have a keen interest in them. I'd like to provide a base of information to the users about this ship. As you know, there are fewer than 100 of them left in the world. It will be beneficial to start documenting them. I am doing this on a personal basis. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razorzedge (talk • contribs) 02:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Royal Albatross Mast Climb.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Royal Albatross Mast Climb.jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [e-mail], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [e-mail].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Royal Albatross Mask Clim.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Royal Albatross Mask Clim.jpeg, which you've attributed to Tall Ship Adventures. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [e-mail], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [e-mail].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 15:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Royal Albatross in Singapore Water.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Royal Albatross in Singapore Water.jpeg, which you've attributed to Tall Ship Adventures. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [e-mail], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [e-mail].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 15:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Royal Albatross at Dock Sunset.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Royal Albatross at Dock Sunset.jpg, which you've attributed to Tall Ship Adventures. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [e-mail], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [e-mail].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 15:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:The Royal Albatross sailing with all 22 sails.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:The Royal Albatross sailing with all 22 sails.jpg, which you've attributed to Tall Ship Adventures. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [e-mail], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [e-mail].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 15:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ISDN Holdings Limited moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to ISDN Holdings Limited. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Bakhtar40 (talk) 09:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I'm confused wouldn't a listed company on both SGX / HKEX be notable enough considering they will have to go through stringent auditing processes anyway? We are not talking about a startup here but a company that has been around for 38 years? Razorzedge (talk) 23:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia operates on a very specific and well-defined notion of notability, see WP:NOTABILITY. This has nothing to do with how long a company has been around, or whether it has been listed on a stock exchange, nor whatever criteria or process is involved for that. Wikipedia is not a business directory, we do not make articles for every traded company or compile listings of businesses. It is also not a platform for publicity or marketing.

As you have already been told elsewhere, to warrant a wikipedia article for the company requires significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, addressing the subject directly and in detail – this does not include passing mentions, and in the case of companies, excludes trivial coverage of routine business. So far, these thresholds have not been met.

Furthermore, your contribution history strongly suggests that you may have conflicts of interest. You must address the this by responding in the other thread below and make sure to thoroughly familiarize yourself and comply with the relevant policies and guidelines surrounding conflicts of interest, especially with respect to paid editing.

2406:3003:2007:1F3:F5ED:AE36:B8F5:BBCB (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently all the press mentions have not be paid as it's a requirement for local press to state if the publication has been paid or not. Aside to that a declaration has been made in regards to the article. Razorzedge (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

all the press mentions have not be paid that goes toward satisfying the "independent" part of the requirement, but the core issue here, as you've been repeatedly told, is the lack of notability, because reporting about routine business does not constitute significant coverage about the subject. I have already pointed you to the required reading about notability. Do everyone a favor and go read it as well as related concepts linked from that page, instead repeatedly bludgeoning people with the same old arguments about the company being listed on two stock exchanges. That is simply not the criteria we use here.

Regarding the draft's contents, you've been given pretty good advice at the teahouse. I'll add a couple of points: There is no use for an extensive listing of the various products and services – Wikipedia is not a catalog for the company's offerings. Get rid of the corporate/marketing speak, like "pillars", which is really just a convoluted way of stating the specific (sub)industries that the company does business in.

You should try the process described by WP:1STOP3, and get further advice from others regarding whether your chosen sources are enough to demonstrate the required notability. There is no point proceeding further if this first step cannot be met.

I see you have declared as a paid editor; do be very aware that paid editing is strongly discouraged and generally frowned upon by the the user base here. This is a community made up of unpaid volunteers, so do understand that you may be shown a lower level of patience and tolerance for various problematic behaviors such as being unwilling to listen, insisting on pushing promotional material, or just generally wasting people's time (advice given to you here and here is pertinent). Recommend reading WP:PRPEOPLE which succinctly explains why.

2406:3003:2007:1F3:F5ED:AE36:B8F5:BBCB (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidance i think i'd had missed this earlier. Commonly i'd thought the better way was to document it all down, I'd be more careful next time. And just to be clear i've not been paid any more to do this article our of my own free time.

I am a paid employee, however there should be a distinct difference that being under the company to do my own work under company hours is very different from adding in articles and editing them during my free time on weekends when I can be out having coffee or spending family time. This is outside of my work hours so i'm technically not paid, nor will i get a bonus or hit a KPI if i end up getting this article out. As I understand there is no distinction or seperation of that in the declaration under Wiki.

And incase you are curious on why i'm doing so, as I've shared I've always been in the IT space and always thought OT and IT were connected. I wasn't aware (maybe it's my ignorance) and I feel there are many others that need to know that the IT and OT spaces are distinctly separate spaces. When i tried to look at examples of companies in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_technology it doesn't show companies that are really investing into developing OT. With no such expansion of information its hard to visualise the types of systems that come into play that makes OT what it is. And technically putting in companies like Schneider Electric (on Wiki) it wouldn't help that comprehension as majority of us regular people will think they do electric light switches and components.

I just really hope you'd see my perspective and the rationale behind writing this piece and not just bulk dump it as I'm a "paid" editor. I'm still here to learn and contribute. Razorzedge (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is outside of my work hours so i'm technically not paid, nor will i get a bonus or hit a KPI if i end up getting this article out.

If so, then why take on a task that is so fraught with difficulty? WP:BOSS explains why it is very challenging – if you weren't even asked to write the article, perhaps you should ask yourself if it is really worth the trouble navigating the complex policies and procedures involved (you still have a conflict of interest, regardless.) More below...

I feel there are many others that need to know that the IT and OT spaces are distinctly separate spaces.

Two points:

1. You could work toward this by editing other existing articles related to the subject, instead of making a page about your employer. If you can accomplish this without writing about your employer, it would nicely avoid the issues and pitfalls surrounding your conflict of interest, and likely be a more efficient use of your time.

Why not let the draft rest for now and work on other pages for the time being? You can come back to it later on if you want, after gaining more experience with editing and becoming more familiar with the policies and guidelines.

2. Besides notability, another important Wikipedia policy is verifiability. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are tertiary sources, which means simply reporting what other sources say. Be careful of this when editing in a subject area that you are personally familiar with, or have expertise in – you shouldn't add content purely based on what you believe is true, or even what you know to be a fact; it has to be verifiable.

"Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors." –[WP:VERIFYOR]

A corollary of the verifiability policy is that Wikipedia is a lagging indicator – it may be slow in keeping up with the latest developments because we have to wait for other sources to report on them first. This means that sometimes, Wikipedia is wrong, at least until sources become available that correct the error.

— 2406:3003:2007:1F3:F5ED:AE36:B8F5:BBCB (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True, i think i will take your advice on letting the draft rest. Shall look to contribute in other areas. Thanks again for your time. Razorzedge (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: ISDN Holdings (July 25)

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: 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:ISDN Holdings 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) 06:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Razorzedge! 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) 06:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

As previously advised, your edits, such as the edit you made to Draft:ISDN Holdings, give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Razorzedge, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Razorzedge|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, I've made the declaration on my page. Razorzedge (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the disclosure regarding ISDN holdings. I'd also like to ask you to revisit your earlier declaration regarding Royal Albatross. If you (and possibly others) were also paid to create that article, you need to be upfront and transparent about it as well - disclosure is mandatory under the terms of use. This isn't aimed at getting you in trouble, but rather bringing things into compliance. Moving forward, it is important to demonstrate that you, in the here and now, understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and are committed to abide by them.

2406:3003:2007:1F3:F5ED:AE36:B8F5:BBCB (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand but it does take a financial support from my day job at ISDN to be able to chase tallships around the world. Plus we all are due a hobby or two in life to unwind yes? Razorzedge (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to express my incredulity: your keen interest in tall ships around the world does not appear to extend beyond one ship, and the information that you felt was most pertinent to contribute about revolves around awards and name-dropping celebrity visitors. 2406:3003:2007:1F3:F5ED:AE36:B8F5:BBCB (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might fascinate you that the only true commercial ship at allows dining that exists is the Royal Albatross with the visitors that are there (they actually have a wall on the ship to showcase, so perhaps less judging and more visiting?). Apart from the one in Thailand, "Sirimahannop" at Asiatique (that doesn't sail at all) the only full experience with sailing is the Royal Albatross. The rest are training and military ships. And barquentines are also a rare breed considering even the ship in Australia the James Craig is a Barque (exists in Wiki) And yes I've visited that one and the Cuauhtémoc (Mexican tallship Ship) as well not to mention the Cuauhtémoc also already exists in wiki. I think with the very limited number of tall ships in the world, lets not classify another floating restaurant as an attraction and document the one that really makes a difference? Lets focus on experiences we can all enjoy yes? Apologies on the award drops it was my first article and i was abit more excited to fill it up so i went to their website for information wanted it to be comprehensive. Razorzedge (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies If my earlier reply was abit uncalled by questioning your knowledge in an area you probably not interested in and I understand you are trying to regulate wiki. I just really feel it's a whole difference asking someone to make a declaration on something and forcing one on another even if you have doubts. Look as part of my research i think something you should be more concerned about is that if you look at the records of after i created the article that the owner himself is starting to post on his own page and editing it. I feel that's something that's really worth looking into instead of badgering me to make false declarations. Razorzedge (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: ISDN Holdings (July 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 Theroadislong were:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:ISDN Holdings 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]