User talk:HumOutcomes

This is HumOutcomes'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.

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (June 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

This submission appears to be taken from https://aidworkersecurity.org/about. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

User:HumOutcomes/sandbox may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Whispering^(t) 23:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HumOutcomes! 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! Whispering^(t) 23:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Aid Worker Security Database, from its old location at User:HumOutcomes/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Jupitus Smart 18:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Aid Worker Security Database has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Aid Worker Security Database. Thanks! -- RoySmith (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aid Worker Security Database (October 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 Worldbruce 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 websites). 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:

The subject-specific guideline that applies is WP:NWEB. The draft's lead says that according to The New York Times, the database "is widely regarded as an authoritative reference for aid organisations and governments in assessing trends in security threats." Reliable sources frequently cite the database in its subject area, so I think the NYT is right. But my reading of WP:WEBCRIT is that web notability is not demonstrated by the database being cited frequently (unlike the guidelines for academics and for newspapers, magazines, and academic journals). Instead, the database itself needs to be the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial works.

Examples of databases with such coverage include: Astrophysics Data System, CODIS, and ContactPoint. Wikipedia articles about web databases should not only describe the nature of the data they contain, but should describe them in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on the database's achievements, impact or historical significance. The sort of coverage that would help would be an article about how an organization changed its behaviour because of the database, and thereby had some significant effect, perhaps improving aid worker security but worsening whatever woe the organization combats.

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:Aid Worker Security Database 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:Aid Worker Security Database, 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 do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Worldbruce (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Hello, HumOutcomes. 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 conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who is 'we'? An account may not be used by multiple people. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aid Worker Security Database (January 17)

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 draft is a request to spin out an article, a form of splitting. Proposals to spin out a topic from an article into another stand-alone article should be discussed at the talk page of the existing article. This does not mean that the draft should be spun out, and it does not mean that the draft should not be spun out. It does mean that discussion should be on the talk page of the existing article. (If this draft is resubmitted without discussion on the talk page of the existing article, it may be Rejected or nominated for deletion.) Discuss at Talk:Attacks on humanitarian workers. Spinning out an article should reflect a rough consensus at the parent article talk page.

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Attacks on humanitarian workers. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

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:Aid Worker Security Database 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:Aid Worker Security Database, 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 do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hi. Looking at the comment on this edit, where you refer to yourself as we, and this one where you talk about, our database, it's clear that you have some relationship to the subject. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. In particular, where it says, COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted. Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. Also note where it says, Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it. You should write something on your user page explaining how you are associated with the database project. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COI

In order to comply with the COI conditions of wikipedia, included below is my relation to the Aid Worker Security Database. I completely understand the restrictions wikipedia places on such relationships, but I feel in certain circumstances a large body of peer reviewed scholarly works, and reputable news outlets verifies information included in an article regardless of the authors connections. The Aid Worker Security Database is funded by USAID, and these grants are channeled through the humanitarian research consulting group, Humanitarian Outcomes. This team consists of 8-10 partners and researchers who work on a vast array of humanitarian topics from evaluations, aid financing reports, aid access/coverage etc. One small project of this large team is the AWSD. I've completed some research for the larger humanitarian outcomes team in the past, and not specifically the database team. After this relationship, I was surprised and confused to find some similar databases had wiki pages and the AWSD did not, so I set to add the AWSD article. The article draft lists as using the AWSD: 15 of the largest news outlets in the world, the US Congress/State department, the United Nations Secretary General/General Assembly, and 6 peer reviewed scholarly books and articles. The article remains very neutral and lets these sources speak for the significance of the database. By restricting my ability to contribute, I genuinely feel wikipedia is being left without a useful and important article. The Aid Worker Security Database believes in the same open internet policies as wikipedia, as all the AWSD data available is free for anyone to download from the website, leading me to believe it deserves its own article page on the worlds largest free encyclopedia.

Your thread has been archived

Hi HumOutcomes! You created a thread called What to do with inconsistent reviewer comments at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Aid Worker Security Database has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Aid Worker Security Database. Thanks! -- RoySmith (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aid Worker Security Database has been accepted

Aid Worker Security Database, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Primefac (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames which give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy or request a change of username.

You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose. Additionally, if your contributions to Wikipedia form all or part of work for which you are, or expect to be, paid, you must disclose who is paying you to edit.

If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of your talk page.

You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text

{{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}

at the bottom of your talk page. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names.

Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]