User talk:Designpaper

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

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

AfC notification: Draft:Universal Design Education Charter has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Universal Design Education Charter. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Universal Design Education Charter (November 2)

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Universal Design Education Charter, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft has no independent references. This draft does not establish notability of the charter or of the concepts advanced in the charter. Please do not create multiple copies of drafts or articles. Creating multiple copies of drafts does not increase the likelihood of acceptance. It wastes the time of the reviewers, and appears to be an effort to game the system. Please do not create an article both in draft space and in article space. The draft wastes the time of the reviewers, but it also increases the strictness of the review of the article, which may be nominated for deletion.

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 User:Designpaper/sandbox/Universal Design Education Charter and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Designpaper/sandbox/Universal Design Education Charter, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Designpaper! Having an article 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) 02:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Globally We Design (GloW-DESIGN) (November 2)

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

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). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The lede paragraph says: "Globally We Design (GloW-DESIGN) is a global, independent thought leadership platform generating and disseminating new design thinking, practice and processes to tackle the ever more pressing and contemporary problems facing humanity at large. Its mission is to systematically challenge, conceptualize and realize outcomes to empower and equip next generations of designers to best address the futures they will face." That is marketing buzzspeak. It sounds enthusiastic, but what does it say other than a lot of words?

It is not necessary to bold-face the name of the subject. What is a "thought leadership platform", anyway?

Fix reference error.

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:Globally We Design (GloW-DESIGN) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Globally We Design (GloW-DESIGN), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Globally We Design (GloW-DESIGN) (November 2)

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Needs independent review of the organization. Perhaps this should go to Shashi Caan's article as a section?

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:Globally We Design (GloW-DESIGN) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Globally We Design (GloW-DESIGN), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Globally We Design (GloW-DESIGN) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Globally We Design (GloW-DESIGN). Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Globally We Design (GloW-DESIGN)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Globally We Design (GloW-DESIGN), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI

You have an obvious conflict of interest and you must declare it. If you work directly or indirectly for an organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. If you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, 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:Designpaper. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Designpaper|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.

Also read the following regarding writing an article

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, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the 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
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:

significant coverage in
independent,
multiple,
reliable,
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.
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.

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. You must also reply to the COI request above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:52, 2 November 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I participate on the creation of the Universal Design Education Charter last week. As a designer professional I think is important to share the discussions that surrounded the creation of the charter and the charter itself. To do so I was trying to create a page of the organization that made this possible and its founders, unfortunately I published the page about the charter mistakenly when it wasn't ready yet, this is why I got blocked. From my point of view an International Charter is an important contribution for an encyclopedia, there's no "undeclared paid editor" behind this attempt so I'm asking to be unblocked.Designpaper (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You didn't "publish" the page per se, insofar as "publish" means formally placed in the encyclopedia, but all pages are publicly visible, even drafts, and appear in the Recent Changes feed. Maybe you aren't paid, but you still have a conflict of interest that you need to declare. Your drafts were promotional in nature as they only told about the Charter. It may be important, but you shouldn't be the one to write about it, at least directly. As you seem to only be here to tell about the work you were involved in, I am declining your request. If you want to write about subjects that aren't within the area of your COI, you may make a new request. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2018 (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.

I would add that Wikipedia is not merely a forum to tell the world about things or merely share information. Wikipedia is interested in what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about article subjects that are notable as Wikipedia defines it. Wikipedia has no interest in what an article subject wants to say about itself. If you have independent sources, it may be possible for their to be an article about it. However, ideally you shouldn't be the one to write it. In order for you to be successful, you would need to forget everything you know about your work and only write based on what the independent sources state. That is usually difficult(though not impossible) for people in your position to do. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]