User talk:DigitalWizardry

Welcome!

Hello, DigitalWizardry, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Jytdog (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)a[reply]

August 2012

Hello, Herbertrafael. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some further COI discussion

Hi DigitalWizardry. I am sorry that you have found the discussions about conflict of interest in Wikipedia difficult. I hope you will participate in some further discussion.

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid or editing about companies you own or work for, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. You edited here until very recently under your real name and the discussion at COIN started under your former username. Herbert Rafael is indeed the Founder and Managing Director of WardrobeTrendsFashion, per this. Me saying that is not a violation of WP:OUTING, which is very clear in saying that "However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums." Changing your username to escape a COI discussion is not a viable escape clause here.

So, we are where we are. You have a COI in WP with regard to WardrobeTrendsFashion and closely related topics. There are a few things we need you to do.

There are two things we need to deal with first.

First, in this note at COIN, you wrote "We are here to contribute knowledge (with reliable evidences to support the claim) for a better Wikipedian society." About that, would you please clarify if this account is being used by one person, or more than one person?

Secondly, in order to comply with the Terms of Use, to which you agree every time you signin to Wikipedia (just as users of WardrobeTrendsFashion agree to its Terms of Use every time they use your website), you must disclose your COI. Would you please add that disclosure to your userpage? You can say something simple like "I am connected to WardrobeTrendsFashion and have a conflict of interest in Wikipedia with regard to it".

Let me know about those two things, and then we can talk further.

Best regards -- Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog,

Thanks for moderating the discussion.

With regards to your questions:

1) "We" was used in the context referring to editors in general. "We" are all here to edit and make wikipedia better and more informative aren't we?

This account is used solely by one person, me.

2) Yes, I am connected to WardrobeTrendsFashion, as an avid reader of that magazine since they first started; and because of that, may have a conflict of interest for in that Wikipedia page. However, because of that conflict of interest, I would also have better expertise over the knowledge base of the subject matter, and have I have adhered to the guidelines of remaining neutral. WP:NPOV Other editors are free to edit and moderate the page should they think otherwise.

Example, a Business student from Harvard University, would be the best candidate to edit and talk about Harvard's teaching system and style, even though the student literally has a conflict of interest with the school. It would be the job of other editors to ensure that the page edited by that student is factual, well-referenced and unbiased (non-promotional).

Hope the above answers your queries. Thanks! DigitalWizardry (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all you are fairly new here, so instead of making claims about how we think about COI and advocacy in WP, you should be trying to learn. In any case..

So you seem to be claiming now that you are not actually Herbert Rafael. If so, it is very good that you changed the name of your account since we have policy against impersonating someone via your account name. See WP:IMPERSONATE. However, it appears that you do you have some sort of relationship with him, maybe a friend, an employee, or a PR person. The evidence for that is as follows:

You uploaded this image and in that posting, linked to Sim's facebook account, where he had posted it. You say there that you are the photographer, but Sim got hold of it such that he could post it to his Facebook account.
You are a WP:SPA (please read that) with regard to Sim and his website. Almost every edit you have made in Wikipedia is about him or his website. (and we will talk about the others later, if we deal with WTF/SIm)
You added unsourced content to articles, like this that someone who has personal experience knows about even without a source... someone close.
Many of your edits are promotional and you appear to be working in Wikipedia mainly to promote him and his website. (edits like the first line of the article you created for WTF which reads "WardrobeTrendsFashion is Asia's high fashion and luxury lifestyle online portal.", which is 100% marketing-speak, and this and this and many more) This kind of editing is a violation of the policy, WP:PROMO (please read that).

In my view you are highly likely to have a conflict of interest with regard with Sim and his website, and possibly also with some others but I will not go into that yet. What the community needs to understand is the nature of the relationship, which based on your behavior goes beyond simply being a fan. Will you please completely describe any relationships between you (or your employer if the relationship is at that level) and Sim or his company, and acknowledge that you a conflict of interest with regard to Sim and his website? Once you do that, we discuss how to proceed. I very much hope that you will agree, since we will otherwise need to re-escalate this and that will not be a happy outcome. As I said above, there is a place in Wikipedia for editors who want to edit subjects where they have a conflict of interest, but there are things you need to know and do, in order to make that work. Please let me know. Thanks again for talking. Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC) (finished a thought that I left unfinished, shown with underlined redaction per WP:REDACT Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply.

Yes to your answer, I am a PR person by profession and with academic study expertise on (advertising/public relations/digital). And yes, I've known Herbert Sim for years, and followed his website, as a fan too as well.

Back then, during the account sign up, it was not with the intent of impersonation, but rather, as a fan, e.g. Anyone can create an account name using a celeb's name on any forum/social media platforms right? If i created an account name "SteveJobs" and started editing iPhone/Apple page? In any case, I've changed the name to comply with wikipedia policies.

As for the edits i have made in the past, looking back now, especially those you brought up, I agree that it was promotional, and I have taken note and will proceed with caution with regards to the WP:PROMO policy in creating pages or any edits moving forward.

In any case, let's proceed forward with the notion that i have a conflict of interest with the media of Singapore, because I have knowledge and expertise on the subject matter of advertising/public relations/digital, especially in Singapore, to make edits. Issue here is, I have to ensure that the edits I make moving forward are strictly non-promotional, and meant to be educative in compliance with the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia.

Please advice on the next steps. Thanks! DigitalWizardry (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your kind reply. It was pretty clear from your edits that you think/write like a PR person by instinct and training; thanks for disclosing that you work in PR professionally. That makes sense. OK, so let me ask this a last time. Are any of the edits you have made so far, about companies or people that have paid you to do PR work for them, and if so, which companies or people? If the answer is "yes" please just be honest about it; it is not the end of the world and everybody makes mistakes when they are learning how this place works. The key things are disclosing what you have already done, being open to learning how you should do things going forward, and then actually doing things the right way going forward. I'll pause here to let you answer, and then let you know how you should do things going forward. I'll also leave with you a couple of links to read, if you like:

We'll talk more soon, I hope. Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply.

I teach PR professionally, and do not have any clients per se except my University that i am working for. That being said, I am not remunerated in any form for these edits I have made thus far on Wikipedia.

I'm not sure if you are familiar - Typically, PR companies/personnel are paid by clients (brands), and rarely, in fact are almost never paid from the media perse. PR works with the media to get coverage for the clients (brands).

In my case, the edits made have been for the media in Singapore. Hope this clarifies and justify that there are no monetary gains from my end for the edits made thus far.

That being said, should i lest be paid for my edits here on Wikipedia moving forward, i will put Wikipedia's best interests before those of my client/employer to the best of my ability.

DigitalWizardry (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, that last line was a big mis-step. Ouch.

I understand the various nuances of PR; I also know that lots of PR people and companies have come to WP and treated it like it was "social media" that they could and should use to promote their clients. Wikipedia is not social media - that is a fundamentally wrong conception. Anyway.

OK you have said you have not edited for pay. OK so you are not a WP:PAID editor. Based on what you have written here, you would be editing with a COI if you wrote about your university, and based on your personal relationship with Herbert Sin, whom you have said you have known for years, you edit with a COI if you work directly on content about him or his company, per WP:COISELF. In my view, you have no COI per se with regard to the digital media of Singapore (not sure about Hong Kong, which you have also edited about some...). Instead you are what we call an WP:EXPERT (please read that). You will have to use your judgement about whether or not you are too personally close to specific people/companies in that world, such that you have a COI with regard to them, and you will have to beware of the pitfalls that experts fall into here (the essay I linked to is very helpful in pointing out what those are).

So here is the way we manage COI in WIkipedia. It is much like how it is managed in academia.

First, declare your COI. Ideally on your userpage and on the Talk page of the relevant article so that whomever you are working with, is aware of it. On your User page you could write something like: "I teach PR at a university in Singapore and am very familiar with the digital media scene there. I personally know many of the players, and I acknowledge I have a conflict of interest in Wikipedia with regard to them. I do think in terms of public relations, and if you find any of my editing to be too PR-inflected please let me know." Something like that, which is friendly, simple, and lets people know that you are self-aware (which I am finding you delightfully to be!)

The second piece is to make use of the "peer review" processes here in WP, instead of directly editing or creating an article where you have a COI. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and viola there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and your change is published. No intermediary. What we ask editors to do, who want to work on a topic where they have a COI, is a) if you create an article, submit it through the WP:AFC process so it can be reviewed before it publishes. b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement, instead of doing it directly yourself. You can make the edit request easily - and provide notice to the community of your request - by using the "edit request" function as described in the conflict of interest guideline. Basically, you open a new section on the Talk page, place the {{request edit}} template there, and describe the concrete change you want to make. (Like "Please change X to Y." -- and make sure that Y is well sourced and written neutrally.)

That's it! Where you have a COI, declare, and use the peer review processes.

Otherwise, please keep in mind that the genre of Wikipedia is "encyclopedia" and that our goal is to communicate "accepted knowledge" to readers everywhere. If you haven't read the excellent policy/pillar, WP:NOT, please do so - it defines what Wikipedia is, mostly by explaining what Wikipedia is not! I ask you to do that, so you are oriented to the mission of this place. Then, please do make sure to base content you want to create on great sources (see WP:RS for guidance about what the community considers reliable sources); strive to avoid puffery or marketing-speak in the actual content you write, and strive to create or improve articles so that the overall article has a neutral point of view - which does not mean that there is "balance" or that we only say nice things, but rather, it means more than anything, that no aspect of a subject is exaggerated or downplayed, but rather that all the relevant aspects have appropriate "weight" as we call it, so that the reader walks away with an accurate perception of the topic. And above all, talk with other editors nicely. This whole place is based on a notion of consensus - when editors disagree, they work out their differences, basing their arguments on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (not just on what they want). One of the hardest things for new editors to understand is that there is a kind of "rule of law" here - about content and about behavior - via the policies and guidelines that the community has built up over the years. They are what make this place beautiful sometimes, and save it from being an ugly, Mad Max kind of world.

That is enough (maybe too much) for now. I hope that all makes sense. Again I appreciate your graciousness and patience in talking with me. I'll be happy to talk more or answer any questions you have. Jytdog (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jytdog! You've been very helpful and a delight to converse with! :) (DigitalWizardry (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

My pleasure. Thanks again for being gracious with me. I should note here, that I am just a volunteer. I have been working COI stuff for a while so I think everything we have done is good and solid and ~should~ be accepted by others, but please don't consider this the final word. Others may have different things to say. I am going to post a note at the COIN thread about where we ended up here... let's see how that is accepted. Jytdog (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note

I just closed the COIN discussion. A user there suggested that if you want to create new articles, that you put them through WP:AFC -- I think that is a good idea - for sure where you have a COI, but in general until you get the hang of what we look for in an article with regard to notability etc (see WP:NOTABILITY which is nicely boiled down in WP:Golden rule). Again, good luck to you here. Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, will follow your advice. Thanks again Jytdog. :) (DigitalWizardry (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Zalora

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 Zalora requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: PropertyGuru (November 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 SwisterTwister was:

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Simply nothing but a commercial corporate advertisement and nothing at all for acceptance, the sources themselves are in fact PR and PR-founded contents, regardless of that publication's name or its information, because none of this is notable or suggesting anything close to it. Especially since Wikipedia is not a business listing or a company PR webhost.

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:PropertyGuru 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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Luxe Nomad (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 SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

These subjects are quite rarely ever notable because of the obvious PR involved, either by publishing or republishing, and it's clear that (regardless of anything or anyone) the current sources are still PR, and that's natural since that's what the company's field is, involving itself with PR and advertising. None of this establishes any genuine notability in Wikipedia policy.

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 Luxe Nomad 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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mothership.SG (December 26)

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

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:Mothership.SG 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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

-- Dane ^talk 03:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! DigitalWizardry, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! -- Dane ^talk 03:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:PropertyGuru

Hello, DigitalWizardry. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "PropertyGuru".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. —MRD2014 talk contribs 00:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Luxe Nomad concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:The Luxe Nomad, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mothership.SG concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Mothership.SG, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Mothership.SG

Hello, DigitalWizardry. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Mothership.SG".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. » Shadowowl Marcos Rodriguez | t | SPI | AIV | Sandbox | Helpdesk » 13:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:The Luxe Nomad

Hello, DigitalWizardry. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "The Luxe Nomad".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. » Shadowowl Marcos Rodriguez | t | SPI | AIV | Sandbox | Helpdesk » 14:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of SgCarMart

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 SgCarMart, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Zalora

Hello, DigitalWizardry. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Zalora, 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) 16:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Zalora

Hello, DigitalWizardry. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Zalora".

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. When 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!} 16:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]