Jump to content

User talk:AJ at Innovation Endeavors

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 2022

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "AJ Innovation Endeavors", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it does not represent you as an individual. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A better username would be "AJ at Innovation Endeavors" as currently your username seems to imply the company name is "AJ Innovation Endeavors" ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your account has been indefinitely blocked from editing because of the following problems: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or web site, which is against the username policy.

You may request a change of username and unblock if you intend to make useful contributions instead of promoting your business or organization. To do this, first search Special:CentralAuth for available usernames that comply with the username policy. Once you have found an acceptable username, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked. In your reasons, you must:

  • Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure requirement.
  • Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
  • Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.
Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

AJ at Innovation Endeavors (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Request reason:

Hi, sorry for the confusion here. I included the organization's name in an effort to be transparent, not promotional :) Upon creating my account, I immediately disclosed my COI on my Talk page, and on the Talk page of my draft as well, in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. I've now added "at" after my initials in my username- hope that clears things up. Thanks for your help! AJ Innovation Endeavors (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your username is only one aspect of the block, you must address your inappropriate edits. You did declare as a paid editor, but that is not a license to promote. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably request that your account be renamed to include the "at". However, that does not address the issue of your account being only for advertising/promotion. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AJ, the user-name you've chosen is acceptable. You haven't told us what edits you would want to make if you were to be unblocked. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Justlettersandnumbers, thank you. As stated on my userpage, I am working on a draft in my userspace for the firm. I intend to follow the COI guidelines closely and to work with the community here to ensure that my suggestions reflect Wikipedia's goals, as opposed to making my own edits. Thanks again for your help with this, AJ Innovation Endeavors (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Justlettersandnumbers, 331dot, Blaze Wolf, just checking that there is nothing else you need from me here to change the user name, unblock my account and reinstate my draft. I'm not sure which "inappropriate edits" you are referring to, as I have not edited anything by my own userpage and draft. As mentioned above, I have no intention to make edits to Wikipedia myself, but to work with the community according to the guidelines. Thanks again for your help with this, AJ Innovation Endeavors (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably read WP:N to see if the company you are attempting to create a draft for is actually notable. Otherwise they don't get an article. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In this situation we usually would like to see an editor tell us what other topic areas they want to edit in as a general contributor, so they can then build up an edit history that shows they understand relevant Wikipedia guidelines, along with an agreement to avoid COI related edits until they have that edit history. If your only interest here is to edit about your firm, I think it unlikely you will be unblocked. However, it is not up to me, and you are free to make a new unblock request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blaze Wolf, 331dot, thank you for your responses. I'll be honest- I'm confused. Prior to putting up my draft I consulted with an expert on Wikipedia policies, best practices and guidelines, and did look into WP:N, WP:NOT, and WP:PAID, among others. I believe the firm does meet WP:GNG and have worked to create an appropriate draft, and was told that the best, most honest way to approach the Wikipedia community was to disclose my COI up front, engage with other editors, and avoid editing any articles directly. I therefore created this account and put up my proposal in userspace with the intention of asking others to assess the topic, discuss any issues and edit the content as they saw fit.
There is no requirement that I make neutral edits elsewhere or become a seasoned editor, and, as stated above, I have no intention of breaching any of the policies. I am unclear as to whether anyone had the opportunity to look at my draft prior to its deletion, but would appreciate the opportunity to discuss specifics with multiple editors, as this platform was designed for. The responses here don't appear to assume good faith, which I understood to be a guiding principle for all of us.
I'm reopening the unblock request as you've suggested, as well:
This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

AJ at Innovation Endeavors (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Request reason:

Hello, I'm requesting a name change to comply with username policy as advised above. See above discussion for further information regarding my intended edits. Thank you, AJ Innovation Endeavors (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Block has been removed. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am curious as to the "expert" you consulted. I believe that you are here in good faith but that your goals are fundamentally different than those of Wikipedia and that you are too close to your organization to see otherwise. It is true that there is no requirement that one edit in a broad range of topic areas; as I said above, in this type of situation we want to see edits in other areas as a demonstration of one's ability to abide by relevant guidelines. If you can convince someone that you will do that without editing in other areas, they will unblock you. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor correction, if you can convince an admin. People like me can't unblock users (although I'm sure the meaning still got across). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I examined your draft again; it largely summarizes the routine business activities of the company, which does not establish notability. Coverage must go beyond the reporting of the activities of the company. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
331dot, she used to edit extensively, but is no longer active. I think that I understand where you are coming from, and appreciate the work you and other volunteer editors put in to curating an outstanding encyclopedia that we all benefit from. I didn't come here to argue or to place my personal goals ahead of yours - quite the contrary. I simply want to propose the addition of a firm that might be worthy of inclusion, and attempted to do so in a format that would make it easier for editors to include if they did deem it relevant.
I regret that this has become something much bigger, and appreciate the time you are putting into responding to me here. Thank you also for looking over the draft again, I find your feedback very interesting. When you say that it "largely summarizes the routine business activities", can you explain or give me an example of content that does not do so, so that I might improve the draft? As part of my research, I have looked at the articles of some other investment firms, and they seem to appear this way and that's the model that I used. Can you also elaborate on "must go beyond the reporting of the activities of the company"? I understood that the quality of the coverage is also significant, as opposed to only the topics being covered. I attempted to navigate the rather delicate line between demonstrating notability and avoiding any language or material that may be deemed promotional or "puffery", which may play a role here as well. Thanks again for taking the time to look into this, AJ Innovation Endeavors (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question, who is this "She" you are referring to? Do you know their username? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 21:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to discuss the draft more extensively once you are unblocked. 331dot (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blaze Wolf, I'm sorry, I don't. 331dot, thank you. Looking forward to that opportunity. AJ at Innovation Endeavors (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would be a tad wary of advice from someone who is not a current, active contributor, as policies and guidelines change frequently. Just my opinion. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

globally renamed AJ Innovation Endeavors to AJ at Innovation Endeavors

[edit]

globally renamed AJ Innovation Endeavors to AJ at Innovation Endeavors --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, thanks for your help with this! I appear to still be blocked- is there something else you need from me before removing it? Would love to continue the above discussion about the draft, and to engage further with the community. Thanks again, AJ at Innovation Endeavors (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need to address the reasons for your block with a member of the unblock review team. I merely serve as a technician providing name changes. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra, ah I see, thank you. Is there a list of unblock review team members somewhere? Unless my friends 331dot or Justlettersandnumbers have a change of heart, I'll need to get additional eyes on this page in order to do that. :) I hope that the community will see the value in working with a COI editor who is transparent and willing to collaborate, and offer me the opportunity to discuss things openly with everyone moving forward. (Which reminds me, I'd like to ping Pbsouthwood here as well, because I haven't been able to respond to him on his Talk page, and the above conversation offers some context.) Thanks again, AJ at Innovation Endeavors (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have an open request on your talk page. Eventually someone will get to it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you contribute constructively to the encyclopedia in areas where there is no CoI, Wikipedians are more likely to consider your contributions a net gain. Single purpose contributors with a conflict of interests are generally looked upon as a burden to the editing community, and while not specifically forbidden, do not generate much sympathy. Your underlying motives are opaque to us, what we see and act upon is what you actually do. By the way, thanks for the courtesy ping, I was aware of you situation, and not expecting a reply, but is in your favour that you communicate as best you can. You are now in a bit of a "Catch 22 (logic)" situation, where you need to be unblocked so that you can demonstrate to us that you do not need to be blocked. One of the reasons we recommend that people do not start editing by trying to create a page is to reduce the risk of this situation occurring. Fortunately our rules are not intended to keep people from contributing, and if you can convince us that you will be a net gain, we will unblock you until you display activity that disproves such a claim. Getting unblocked a second time for a similar reason will probably be more difficult. Courtesy pinging blocking admin Justlettersandnumbers in case they wish to comment, Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pbsouthwood, thank you for your response, I appreciate it. It's interesting that you say that- my research has found many article Talk pages which feature COI editors working to improve the main article for accuracy, neutrality or updates alongside the Wikipedia community. My understanding is that this form of editing and transparency spares other editors from having to identify undisclosed COI edits, inaccuracies and promotional language which slips in under the radar. Many of these COI accounts are created by employees of companies or individuals for the sole purpose of improving their employers' pages, but in a manner that contributes to Wikipedia and remains balanced and checked by neutral editors who are interested in the topic or who choose to view edit requests. My situation here is no different, other than the fact that I accidentally created a promotional-seeming username. You, and the other editors here, can clearly see my intentions through the initial post I put up on your Talk page- if I had intended to sneak "spam" or promotional material into Wikipedia, I would not have immediately sought help and insight from an admin. Whether the topic meets the Notability requirements is a valid discussion, one which I anticipated, but I certainly did not expect to be told that my actions were "spamming" and be blocked from any form of collaboration. My intention is not to become a Wikipedia editor, and while I certainly understand that not all volunteer editors are interested in assisting paid editors, I would appreciate the opportunity to work alongside those who do. (Also, when you say "more difficult", I can't even begin to fathom what that might look like :')) AJ at Innovation Endeavors (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AJ at Innovation Endeavors, If I do not get a policy based reason not to unblock your account from the other involved parties within 48 hours, or further relevant discussion, I will unblock your account. If this happens, please provide sufficient references to establish notability for your topic before adding any detailed content to a draft, as that will facilitate the due diligence required to accept creation of an article on the topic. Please also note that as I am neither interested in articles on organisations, nor expert in judging their notability, that I will not personally be making that decision. I refer you to the WP:Teahouse, WP:Articles for creation and WP:WikiProject Companies where you may find someone with the appropriate expertise and interest. Pinging @Justlettersandnumbers, 331dot, and Deepfriedokra: for comment or objections. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 03:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbsouthwood: Just a renamer. No opinion on unblocking. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra Thank you for confirming that. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pbsouthwood: I don't usually like to stand in the way of unblocking- so if you see cause to do so, do not let me stop you- but as the user states "My intention is not to become a Wikipedia editor" I am concerned about unblocking them to become a SPA and apparently not contribute to any articles. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    331dot I sympathise with your viewpoint, but as the user states above, there is no rule against the improvement of only one article, and it behooves us to allow them that opportunity provided that they edit within the rules, and it appears that they are reasonably informed as to which rules apply and have been open about their CoI. The net gain may be small, but it can be real. Thank you for your response. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pbsouthwood, I seem to have missed an earlier ping here, my apologies! I share the concerns expressed by 331dot, and would not myself unblock this account; WP:PROMOTION is not tolerated anywhere in the project, and that seems to be the editor's only interest. That said, please do as you think best here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbsouthwood: I would clarify that I'm not concerned with any user only being interested in a single article- but I like to see edits in other areas so users like this can demonstrate their knowledge of relevant Wikipedia guidelines before they contribute in the area of their COI. I am concerned that this user is too close to their company to see the issues with what they wrote. Again, though, if you see cause to unblock, I will not stand in the way. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Justlettersandnumbers, 331dot, Thank you for you responses and explanations. While I agree that AJ at Innovation Endeavors is jumping in at the deep end by starting by trying to create a new article about their employer, it is not impossible that they will manage to do it within the policies and guidelines that apply. I feel they should be given the opportunity to try at least once, and their user-name block prevented that opportunity. I hope they will take our advice seriously, and proceed with due care. I will proceed to unblock. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Justlettersandnumbers and 331dot, I appreciate your honesty and concerns, and especially your willingness to discuss them with me here. 331dot, thank you for accepting the unblock request despite your misgivings. You had mentioned further discussion of my original draft- any feedback or concerns you may have are more than welcome.
Pbsouthwood, thank you very much for your help with this, I really appreciate the time and patience spent on my case. I hope that my actions moving forward do your faith justice. Just to clarify as I move ahead- am I allowed to keep a draft in my userspace to compile various ideas and sources that may demonstrate notability, in order to discuss with other editors? Perhaps the title should clarify my intent with a word such as "draft" or "suggestions"? Thanks again for your insight, AJ at Innovation Endeavors (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may create a draft using WP:AFC which will create it in Draft space, no need to add "draft" yourself. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, before you do that or anything else, you are required to make an appropriate paid-editor disclosure. Under our Terms of Use, you must disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post this mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:AJ at Innovation Endeavors. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g., in the form: {{paid|user=AJ at Innovation Endeavors|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. You are expected to make similar disclosure whenever you make any edit relating to your company, including any edit to any discussion of it. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Justlettersandnumbers: They've already done so, a few days before you suggested it as well. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Blaze Wolf! AJ at Innovation Endeavors, my apologies, please ignore the above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone. I will take some time to research further before I take my next steps. Perhaps we shall speak again under better circumstances :) AJ at Innovation Endeavors (talk)
Your account has been indefinitely blocked from editing because of the following problems: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or web site, which is against the username policy.

You may request a change of username and unblock if you intend to make useful contributions instead of promoting your business or organization. To do this, first search Special:CentralAuth for available usernames that comply with the username policy. Once you have found an acceptable username, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked. In your reasons, you must:

  • Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure requirement.
  • Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
  • Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.
Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

AJ at Innovation Endeavors (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi. I was recently unblocked following an extensive discussion on my Talk page. Once the block was lifted, I created a draft as advised by several admins who were familiar with the situation. Please see above for detailed discussion. Thanks for your help with this.

Accept reason:

No block currently in place per below discussion, it seems, so this is moot. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Jimfbleak, Pbsouthwood. Yesterday I put up the draft as instructed here, and was immediately blocked for advertising. My understanding is that this was a result of an automated filter that flagged the draft because of my username. I haven't made any edits beyond the one following your above advice, and I'd appreciate the opportunity to get feedback on the draft itself and to work to make it suitable for inclusion alongside neutral editors. Can it be reinstated, please? I'm not sure how I can address notability or neutrality without involvement from the community. Thanks for your help. AJ at Innovation Endeavors (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. That doesn't mean you can write what you like, you must follow the guidance below:

  • you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, logs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company or organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls
  • Although you have provided refs much of your text, including the supposed investments is unsourced. Many of your refs appear to be company press releases or interviews or quotes from your management, rather than independent third-party sources. For example, you say of 2018, managed $1 billion.[4]. If that's registered with US financial authorities, why are they not given as the source? Also the source says $333 million, not the billion you claim.
  • You concentrate on telling us what the company does, but not much about the company itself, other than it is in Palo Alto. It appears to have no employees or profits.
  • Your article makes much of ecosystems and transformative technology, but again it's all sourced to your people, and is basically company-speak, rather than a real thing, and sounds promotional.
  • Your consortium of companies, Pepsice, Starbucks etc is sourced to Harpinder Singh rather than the companies concerned.
  • The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:
  1. significant coverage in
  2. independent,
  3. multiple,
  4. reliable,
  5. secondary sources.
Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability.
  • You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.
  • There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
  • You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

While I appreciate that you have written text that mostly referenced, the sources leave much to be desired, and makes the overall impression seem promotional

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak, According to their contributions log, user AJ at Innovation Endeavors has not made any edits outside of their talk page since the original block on their previous user name. See the discussion from the top of this page down. Maybe I am missing something, but could you link us to the offending material for the current block please? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Southwood, I'm not quite sure what my reasoning was there, but it's clearly wrong, I'll unblock Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jimfbleak, These things happen. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pbsouthwood and Jimfbleak, so sorry for the delay, I've been away. Thank you both so much for your help with this!
Jim, if I may address your above points:
  • Regarding the $333 million vs $1 billion- one number refers to the size of the fund, and the other to assets. The filings for funds III and IV can be found here- https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001720215/000172021518000001/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml, here- https://www.sec.gov/edgar/browse/?CIK=1827229 and here- https://reports.adviserinfo.sec.gov/reports/ADV/288679/PDF/288679.pdf. The $1bn is confirmed in the third link as well, on page 2 clause O.
  • I'd be happy to include details about the company such as employees, but had two concerns, the first being that it may seem promotional and the second being that sources for information like this would likely be primary, which I was hoping to avoid. I understand from the guidelines that that may be acceptable in certain situations, though? Would that be applicable here, and/or for the list of investments? I included those because I noted that many similar articles include such a list and I was simply following the format.
  • The ecosystems and "transformative technology" are indeed what make the firm unique, and it's hard to balance the case for notability with non-promotional content. I did try to separate the "company-speak" from fact, for example: "...a phenomenon they call the “Super Evolution”[6] which combines the areas of data, computing and engineering to support swift innovation.[8] The theory also proposes that..." If the language I used fails to make this clear, I'm very open to suggestions on how to improve it.
  • Re the companies Pepsi Co, Starbucks etc- It's true that the article includes quotes from Harpinder Singh, but the information I included in the draft was not taken from anything he said. I believe Fast Company is a reliable publication, and thought this would be one to help establish notability. For example these quotes from the article- "That's why, together with Sidewalk Infrastructure Partners, Innovation Endeavors has launched a new effort called Link to convene big global companies and startups focused on solving the problems of the decentralized supply chain system," and "Other participating companies include paper company Georgia Pacific, Estée Lauder, and Starbucks. Two or three times a year, they will meet with startups in Innovation Endeavors’ portfolio to discuss common problems and seek out potential solutions." There is a quote from DHL, too, if that helps- "For a large company like DHL, getting involved in LINK is a way of helping fresh ideas make their way into the company, according to Nabil Malouli, who leads global e-commerce for DHL’s Supply Chain division..." The article appears to do a good job separating quotes from the rest of the content. Please do correct me if I'm wrong, I'd very much like to understand.
  • I don't believe I included any url links in the article itself, or any copyrighted text.
  • Here are the sources I thought would lend towards notability. I realize that some of them include quotes or interviews, and that that material can't be included as fact, but did think that coverage in publications such as Inc.com, Fast Company and The Wired would help establish notability. Would appreciate any specific feedback you can give so that I can take a better approach in the future:
https://www.fastcompany.com/90536448/starbucks-pepsico-and-bmw-partner-to-fix-a-global-problem-worth-trillions
https://www.inc.com/jeremy-quittner/farm-2050-cropx-aim-to-make-digital-technology-for-farms-ubiquitous.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-07-28/eric-schmidt-s-newest-vc-fund
https://www.wired.com/story/plaintext-eric-schmidt-funding-super-evolution/
https://techonomy.com/how-super-evolution-can-upend-any-industry/
Thank you so much for taking the time to look at the draft and to write up such detailed feedback, I really appreciate it. Looking forward to your thoughts, AJ at Innovation Endeavors (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Establishing notability

[edit]

I repeat my advice from earlier in this discussion: Please also note that as I am neither interested in articles on organisations, nor expert in judging their notability, that I will not personally be making that decision. I refer you to the WP:Teahouse, WP:Articles for creation and WP:WikiProject Companies where you may find someone with the appropriate expertise and interest. I don't know whether Jimfbleak has any interest or expertise in the topic, but it would be unreasonable to assume that they do, based on a quick look at their user page. My guess is that your best chance for finding a sympathetic ear would be at the Teahouse, and an expert at Wikiproject Companies. I suggest trying the Teahouse first. Ask for advice and refer to this discussion for context. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that the Techonomy interview with Harpinder Singh is not independent of the topic. The content of the source is basically the opinions of a person deeply involved in the company, and therefore cannot be used to establish notability. I have not checked the others. Each of the sources used to establish notability will be checked against all of the criteria. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Peter Southwood, I've nothing to add to your advice above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pbsouthwood, Jimfbleak, thank you both. I will certainly do as you advise. One last question- earlier in this process I was told to create a new draft in order to discuss with other editors and did so, but it was erased when the second block was implemented. Is there some way for that to be reinstated, so that I may point others to this discussion as well as the (rough) draft and sources for additional context? Thanks again. AJ at Innovation Endeavors (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will undelete the draft page and remove everything that is not directly connected with establishing notability to reduce the risk of attracting further sanctions for promotional content. I recommend that you wait until the article has been accepted as notable and moved to mainspace before attempting to add detail that could possibly be construed as promotional in any way. After it is in mainspace, propose additions on the talk page before adding them to the article. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy pinging Jimfbleak. When I pinged you about the block I had not noticed the deleted draft in Special:DeletedContributions/AJ_at_Innovation_Endeavors. My bad. Nevertheless I still think that unblocking was the way to go in view of the negotiations on this talk page. I will undelete that draft as mentioned above and cut it down to basics pending discussion on notability. If you have any objections to the content of the draft after I have edited it, please let me know. Regards, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Southwood, thanks, I'm happy to leave it with you Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AJ at Innovation Endeavors, I have undeleted the draft and trimmed it to what I consider a suitable state at this point based on existing conent and sources. I have also expanded the references to include identifying the authors, which is good practice. Please proceed with your plans to get advice on establishing notability. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pbsouthwood, this is incredible, thank you for taking the time to work on the draft and for posting it on the WP:COMPANIES Talk page. I look forward to discussing with the rest of the community as well. Thanks again, AJ at Innovation Endeavors (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you posted at the WP:Teahouse yet? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pbsouthwood, yes, I just did. Thanks again, AJ at Innovation Endeavors (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi AJ at Innovation Endeavors! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Establishing notability, 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 Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Innovation Endeavors (May 10)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and 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:
This draft is written from the viewpoint of the company, focusing on what the company says about itself. Corporate notability is based on what independent reliable sources have written about the subject. Not every business corporation is notable, and this draft does not establish corporate notability. You may ask for advice about corporate notability at the Teahouse.
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.
Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, AJ at Innovation Endeavors! 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Innovation Endeavors

[edit]

Information icon Hello, AJ at Innovation Endeavors. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Innovation Endeavors, 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) 01:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Innovation Endeavors

[edit]

Hello, AJ at Innovation Endeavors. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Innovation Endeavors".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 16:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AJ_at_Innovation_Endeavors&oldid=1164043251"