User talk:LaurenLL

August 2023

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Woven fabric have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Woven fabric was changed by LaurenLL (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.855528 on 2023-08-30T22:40:05+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LaurenLL! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Indigo that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, noted! Thanks! LaurenLL (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: NeoCon (Trade Show) (May 10)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:NeoCon (Trade Show) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, LaurenLL! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thank you, I will improve this. 47.229.75.226 (talk) 03:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Hello LaurenLL. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, 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:LaurenLL. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=LaurenLL|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. MrOllie (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @MrOllie and thanks for your note. I wasn't asked to write this article but I believe this designer, who is my colleague, is worthy of one. I tried to follow Wikipedia guidelines by citing facts and using a neutral point of view. Please let me know how to improving this article. Or should it be an Article for Creation? Please let me know how to do that, thanks! LaurenLL (talk) 01:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writing about your colleagues is considered to be a conflict of interest here, you should read the links in the above message carefully and follow the best practices outlined therein from now on. I appreciate that you were trying to use a neutral point of view, but what you actually produced was a promotional article, typical of people who have a conflict of interest. MrOllie (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned Articles for Creation. Is that a better way forward? Please guide me on the appropriate path forward, thanks. LaurenLL (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no substitute for reading the above links, start with Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. If you have questions after you have done that reading, feel free to ask at WP:TEAHOUSE. MrOllie (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are Grosser's colleague, working in the same organisation, potentially for Grosser. Thus you are, broadly construed, receiving a reward for writing this. Please make the correct disclosure. I have said the same on the draft talk page

I am about to add the formal question which requires a formal answer 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cory Grosser (August 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Timtrent 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 people). 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.

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

You exhibit a basic misundersstanding of referencing. References must be about Grosser not pages showcasing his products. etc.

"Since then, he has gone on to complete projects for Agape,[11] Bentley Motors,[12] Bernhardt Design,[5] BuzziSpace,[13] Coalesse / Steelcase, [14], Cumberland,[1] Frighetto,[15] Johanson Design,[16] MDF Italia,[17] Mogg,[18] SupplyFrame Design Lab,[19] [20] SpHaus,[21] The Walt Disney Company,[6] the World Wildlife Fund[22] and more." is something we don't care about. This is not his resumé, this is meant to be an article about him. Material like this is faux notability. It's just a client list and causes WP:BOMBARD

Things like "His work was featured in " we also have no interest in. What did any of these organs say about him?

There is much rewriting and editing to do here. You need to rethink what a Wikipedia article is, please.

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cory Grosser and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is helpful @Timtrent thank you, I'll clean it up. I mistakenly thought more references would be better but thanks for explaining. LaurenLL (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More can be better, usually not. A reference is only useful if it either verifies a simple fact (no use to verify stability) or if it is as in the top sub-box, where it is useful to verify Notability. We need the latter.

Don't get diverted into writing everything you know about Grosser. Write in your own words only what is said about him in references that meet our needs. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks for your help! LaurenLL (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Hello LaurenLL. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:Cory Grosser, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, 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:LaurenLL. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=LaurenLL|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do or further recommendations. LaurenLL (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cory Grosser (September 27)

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

Of the sources cited, there is only one source (Interni) that covers the subject in any depth, and there is one Interior Design award. The rest are either not accessible, fail to mention the subject at all, provide only a trivial mention, mention the subject's works with no coverage of the subject, or are interviews - none of which contribute to notability. See Wikipedia:Golden Rule for an overview of the kinds of sources we need. There are many citations that apparently are included for no other purpose than to bloat the citation list to give the illusion of notability. These citations need to be trimmed down and more substantive things added. Finally, one source describes him as "trending". You cannot have a Wikipedia article if you're up-and-coming, you must have already arrived.

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cory Grosser and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, 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.

~Anachronist (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:NeoCon (Trade Show)

Hello, LaurenLL. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:NeoCon (Trade Show), 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) 07:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:NeoCon (Trade Show)

Hello, LaurenLL. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "NeoCon".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]