User talk:Brandstrategy

Your submission at AfC Jérémie Pauzié was accepted

Jérémie Pauzié, 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. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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!

Fiddle Faddle 10:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Great Imperial Crown of Russia.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Great Imperial Crown of Russia.jpeg, which you've attributed to A VRT notice was applied over 60 day(s) ago, but no message at VRTS has been found since this tag was applied.. 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

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 on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 16:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Buckle Jeremie Pauzie.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Buckle Jeremie Pauzie.jpg, which you've attributed to A VRT notice was applied over 60 day(s) ago, but no message at VRTS has been found since this tag was applied.. 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

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 on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 16:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Bouquet of flowers Jérémie Pauzié, 2009, Hermitage.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bouquet of flowers Jérémie Pauzié, 2009, Hermitage.jpg, which you've attributed to A VRT notice was applied over 60 day(s) ago, but no message at VRTS has been found since this tag was applied.. 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

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 on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 16:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:The Imperial Crown of Russia.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:The Imperial Crown of Russia.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at File:The Imperial Crown of Russia.jpg. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Hi, sorry, no harm intended. Lack of experience, thank you for pointing things out. Will not happen again, all taken onboard (Brandstrategy (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Partners (brand consultancy) (December 13)

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

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Partners (brand consultancy) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Vrac (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Vrac: Hi, thank you for really helpful guidance, all noted, and fixed evidence of subject's notability all referenced, with external reputable sources. Hope that works. Thanks again for great help.Brandstrategy (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Partners (brand consultancy) (February 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by BenLinus1214 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Partners (brand consultancy) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

BenLinus 1214^talk 23:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Brandstrategy, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! BenLinus 1214^talk 23:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A Smile in the Mind, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Michael Johnson, Alan Fletcher and John Gorham. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hi. I'm sorry - lack of experience. all noted, will not happen again. If I be allowed to make corrections, I will make it right Brandstrategy (talk) 09:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of A Smile in the Mind for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A Smile in the Mind 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/A Smile in the Mind 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. DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG| talk hi thank you for making edits to A Smile in the Mind article. As admitted in discussion, the book is influential in design world, therefore it will be good to have an article on it, especially that as admitted over 18 contributors has own wikipedia articles already. Please note in current edited version the country of origin stated is US, which is incorrect - should be UK. ISBN number is 978-0714838120. thank you. Brandstrategy (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Unfortunately, there have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to Wikipedia's content policy, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, 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 a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

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.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might be unblocked, but you need to be able to show that you understand the following:

That Wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself or your clients?
That any WP:COI must be disclosed on your userpage or somewhere on Wikipedia.
That promotional articles can be speedy deleted as unambiguous promotion.
That it's highly, highly discouraged for COI editors to directly edit or create articles on their clients and themselves.

I'd like to make it a requirement that you only create articles at WP:AfC, if you are unblocked. The articles you created were incredibly promotional and have serious issues with sourcing, so I don't think that you're at the point where you can really create neutral, well sourced articles in the mainspace at this point in time. This might be in part because you're used to writing in a promotional tone for a living - it's extremely difficult for marketing people to write in the encyclopedia tone required of Wikipedia and to be able to really discern sources. This is why it's so heavily discouraged for paid editors to make direct edits prior to proving themselves on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Brandstrategy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi all! thank you for a very constructive and helpful feedback. I understand wikipedia policies and must assure you that none of my submissions were made on a paid basis. I would like to learn from your experience to make it better, and assure you it will not happen again

Decline reason:

Please follow the instructions in the block message and request a new username. Also, I've checked some of your contributions and, as Tokyogirl79 suggests, they were written in a very promotional "marketing speak" style - you will not be allowed to continue writing in that style. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Tokyogirl79 Hey thank you for your comments. Hugely disappointed - must assure you none of my submissions were made on a paid basis. I would like to learn from your experience to make it better.

Jeremie Pauzie is not self-promotion, The designer lived in XVIII Century and his works are in museums, including V&A and The Kremlin, and none for sale. The article was also linked to his works - The Great Imperial Crown of Russia that has own Wikipedia page. I understand you reference sources available on Highbeam, - please check the others listed on the page - I did my outmost to be verifiable.
The Partners (brand consultancy) I believe has more integrity than articles still live on Wikipedia for similar organisations - many graphic design and brand agencies, US and UK based, have own articles that has very few sources listed. The Partners have been around for over 30 years, and have high regards in design community in the UK.
I'm sorry again - this will not happen again, please unblock me, I will do my outmost to do better. Promise. thank you Brandstrategy (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The articles you wrote were very, very promotional, to the point where I kind of find it a little difficult to believe that you aren't a paid editor, especially since your name is the exact same as that of a PR marketing company - several of them actually, since it's a common PR, business, and marketing term - and your writing style falls in line with the typical prose written by marketing and PR people, which is considered to be extremely inappropriate on Wikipedia. You need to understand that from my perspective it really looks like you're a paid editor and one that is not being honest about this. If there's enough evidence to suggest that you aren't being truthful it's very unlikely that you will be unblocked. So far I'm leaning towards not unblocking you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also notice that you hadn't really asked for a different username, nor have you addressed any of my issues about sourcing or tone - or my requirement that you only create articles at AfC if you are unblocked. This also doesn't really reflect well on you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Brandstrategy. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm including this to emphasize that paid editing must be disclosed. I just find it extremely hard to believe that, given the evidence, that you are not a paid editor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]