User talk:Kt1502

Welcome

Hello, Kat4PR, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. To start creating a draft article, just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit that page as you would any other. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

The one firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. It is also worth noting that Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which specifically link them to one company or corporation. If your username does have such a name, it would be advisable for you to request a change of username.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! You can also just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Smugging

The article Smugging has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NEO with insufficient secondary reliable source coverage to warrant a wikipedia article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sofalising

The article Sofalising has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NEO with insufficient secondary reliable source coverage to warrant a wikipedia article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, celebrity or other well-known individual, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

Probably not. See WP:FAQ/Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

What can I do now?

You are still welcome to write about something other than your company, organization, or clients. If you do intend to make useful contributions on some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:

  • Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} on your user talk page.
  • Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers 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 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}} below but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Kinu t/c 18:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage philosophy

Kat; you say on your userpage that you feel that everyone is entitled to a space in wikipedia. This is WHOLLY untrue; wikipedic notability governs absolutely. Anyone who really wants a space in cyberspace can go to a social networking site.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock me and change my username

{{unblock-un on hold | 1=Kinu | 2= kt1502 | 3= I have never damaged any Wikipedia entry and I don’t believe I caused any disruption to Wikipedia either. I have never intended to do that and I never will. I apologize if you saw that I did something like that. On the other hand, I don’t understand why I acted in Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest. I spent time looking up the most reliable sources to make sure that the two entries in question very worthy being on Wikipedia. I honestly think that The New York Times, Daily Mail, Mirror.co.uk, Sunday_Times and The_Telegraph_(UK) are trustworthy sources. Both terms in question are now commonly used in everyday life and I feel they should stay up on Wikipedia. Even the BBC use the term [sofalising] in their recent article: (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2011/05/sofa-lising_with_newsnight.html)<< I know this is not properly referenced...sorry. In regards to best practice - some time ago, when I wanted to create a company page, I made a mistake by not consulting it with one of the editors in advance and the entry was taken down. I was contacted by the editor and I completely understood his reason – there were not enough good sources to support the article. I’ve now learned from my mistakes and since I always posted new entries on my ‘Talk’ – sadly, now the editor ConcernedVancouverite (talk) has taken the history of my talk down. I’m not quite sure why.Kat4PR (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC) | 4=[[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 16:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)}}

  • (Block admin comments): I don't see anything particularly problematic with your edits; however, given this comment by you, my assumption was that the "4PR" part of your username indicates that you would be using this account "for PR" purposes (i.e., as you state, to create an article "on behalf of my client"). If you wouldn't mind definitively asserting that this is not the case (seeing as how this was a while ago, you have now removed that statement from your user page, and you do indicate an understanding of COI and whatnot in your unblock request), I would definitely endorse an unblock. --Kinu t/c 02:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Kt1502 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Request reason:

Thank you for your response Kinu. I do work in PR but that doesn't mean that I only use Wikipedia to rewrite entries about my clients so that they sound super positive. As I said before, I always respect your rules and when I edit an entry (it doesn't matter if on behalf of my client or from my own initiative) I always focus on writing in from a neutral point of view and I always make my edits properly referenced. I'm not saying that I know how to do everything the right way but I am learning. I have never damaged any Wikipedia entry and I've never caused any disruption to Wikipedia either. I know what the rules for PRs are >> Wikipedia:FAQ/Article_subjects<< and I'll never go and delete a huge chunk of an article just because it says something controversial about my clients. If I am not comfortable making some specific edits because they'd breach your rules then I don't do them. Believe me, people do ask for some major changes but I always respect Wikipedia rules and say no to them. You’re right my username is rubbish and makes me look like someone who wants to use Wikipedia for PR purposes only. That’s simply not true. If you can, then please change it to the proposed kt1502 (only if it’s ok). Is there any chance you could remove the proposed deletion tags on smugging and sofalising Strangely, I am very proud of them as it took me a long time to research these terms and gather enough references... Please let me know. Thank you, Kat

Accept reason:

Unblocked to allow you to make a username change request. Please make a request for change of username immediately here: Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple -- Samir 14:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Kat4PR - It may be useful if you give some examples of any editing work you have done on Wikipedia that is not on an article for which you have a potential conflict of interest such as the article subject being a client of your firm. Can you provide some diffs of such? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't change my username - still blocked

Hi all, many thanks for your responses. I've tried to request a new username but I am still blocked by User:Kinu. He's blocked my internet address now... Guys, I've been honest with you from the very beginning. My userpage said what I do. Somebody else would be lying to you about their job just so that they can use Wikipedia and make a big mess. You know I respect the rules of Wikipedia. I'm trying to work with you on this but I don't think you're being fair... I don't know what else to do.

Should work now. Was not Kinu's fault, was mine for not removing the autoblock. Please request a change in username immediately. -- Samir 15:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should apologise to Kinu then- sorry! Thanks for the update Samir - I've now requested new username. Please let me know what the next step is. Thank you -- Kat4PR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.190.201 (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention needed at WP:CHU

Hello. A bureaucrat or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. WilliamH (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up - I've just submitted my request again... WilliamH

Canvassing warning

Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. This warning is based upon these edits you have made [1] and [2]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

It appears that many of the articles you have edited are all affiliated with the same PR agency called Citigate Dewe Rogerson, which was mentioned in this specific diff [3]. Searching for Citigate Dewe Rogerson and Yazino, Sofialising, Capital One (dubber of Smugging), Jet republic, and Henry Jackson all turn up connections. Should you also be affiliated with Citigate Dewe Rogerson or their affiliated entities you likely have a very strong conflict of interest, and I encourage you to re-read WP:COI. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have never deleted large chunks of text just so that the article looks super positive, I have never damaged any entry by adding large amount of bias information and I don't think I caused any disruption to Wikipedia either. I respect the rules for PRs Wikipedia:FAQ/Article_subjects and I always support any edits with reliable secondary sources. I understand the importance of editing articles from a neutral point of view. Yazino entry has been taken down by the editor and I fully understood his reasons for that action and haven't tried to put it up again. Sofalising and Smugging focus mainly on the term and the research behind it, my edits to Henry Jackson were taken down together with other text because it focused more on the company than on HJ himself, in Jet Republic I added "The". Yes I work in PR, but to the best of my knowledge I’ve always respected the Wikipedia rules.Kt1502 (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Smugging for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Smugging 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/Smugging 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sofalising for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sofalising 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/Sofalising 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trilantic Capital Partners, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Acquisition and Transatlantic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up. I have now corrected this. Thanks Kt1502 (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to see this...

I saw your plight, and so I took it to Jimbo. -- SimSaladBim (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SimSaladBim, many thanks for doing this for me. Much appreciated! I've always found the process of getting the go ahead from the Wikipedia community very frustrating. It's good to know that people like you who try to help are around. Thank you so much! Best Kt1502 (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, SimSaladBim used your "plight" to help push his own agenda on that page and used you because of that. While i'm sure it would be quite impossible to prove, i'm rather sure that they are an account controlled by one of the banned users over at Wikipediocracy, based on their inherent knowledge about Wikipedia's inner workings and the agenda they're pushing despite being a "new user". I'm sorry you were used like this. SilverserenC 07:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kat, I am terribly sorry that Silver seren seems to be using you to

push his own agenda of sorts. You see, Silver seren wants you to think that the Wikipediocracy website is full of "banned users" who are out to use you, but in actuality, many of Wikipediocracy's most prolific members are Wikipedia users in very good standing, and even Dr. Larry Sanger is a member and contributor at Wikipediocracy. (Sanger championed the concept of Wikipedia, gave the encyclopedia its name, and as its co-founder was first to introduce the project to the public in 2001.) Now, you may ask yourself, why does Silver seren want to make you think the Wikipediocracy web site is such a "bad place", if the co-creator of Wikipedia participates there? Perhaps it's because he doesn't want you to find out that Wikipediocracy knows of certain other "personas", shall we say? Silver seren makes it his mission on Wikipedia to dismiss, defame, and disrupt any critics of Wikipedia's governance practices. That, wouldn't you say, Kat, is a highly suspicious agenda in its own right? Maybe you should check out Wikipediocracy's blog and forum, to decide for yourself if it's such a bad place, or whether they've rather cracked the Wikipedia code. - SimSaladBim (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Freebirds Howdy! 05:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next step?

So, what do you think should be the next step? I personally feel that a written out paragraph version of the company's investments with reliable sources attached would be the best way to go for now. SilverserenC 07:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Silver, thanks for getting in touch. I personally think the article has lost a lot of value now that the section with key investments has been removed. The list contained some notable companies. But I like the idea of summing everything up into a paragraph or two on notable investments (past and present) in the US and in Europe. What do you think? I'm happy to give it a go. It shouldn't be a problem to attach reliable sources covering each investment. I'll post it in Talk and let you know. In the meantime, did you get a chance to look at the additional info on the Fund IV Europe – 2007 – 574n Euro or the European side of business? The article doesn't seem to be balanced at the moment, it's still too focused on the US side of the business but actually, the company is very active in Europe.Kt1502 (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, i've made both of the changes. SilverserenC 07:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated SilverserenC. I'll look into the key investments section this week, hope I'll have something for you shortly. Will let you know. Best, Kt1502 (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Lindsay Levin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-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.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Freebirds Howdy! 00:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kt1502. You have new messages at Freebirds's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination of Lindsay Levin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lindsay Levin 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/Lindsay Levin (2nd nomination) 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 template from the top of the article. SmartSE (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Hi Kt1502. If you intend on doing PR on Wikipedia, it would be very sensible if you first read and understood WP:42. It is a very simple rule to follow and you're unlikely to get very far if you don't understand it. You might also want to read this article by someone who claims to be successful at being paid to write articles:

“The first thing I need to do is find out if they’re notable or not,” he says. “When I first started this job, I used to take every article that came my way. But it caused too many problems; articles were deleted and I had to give refunds.”

Cheers SmartSE (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Toddst1 (talk) 13:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Kt1502 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi there, I appreciate you're worried that some people could vandalise Wikipedia articles with spam or remove sections that they feel are inappropriate without previous consultation with you editors. But I really don’t understand why I was blocked. I'd drafted the page for Lindsay Levin and submitted it for approval/feedback. The first feedback I received was negative, fair enough. I went back in and made the requested amends. Upon my second submission, the editor agreed that Lindsay Levin was a notable person and should have her own page on Wikipedia - or at least that's what I thought because they made the page live. They even thanked me for improving Wikipedia so please forgive me if I feel a little confused. I know you're aware of the fact that I work in PR, I've been very transparent about it and I am aware that you guys are keeping your eyes on what I do. But can somebody please explain me the reason for this block? If Lindsay Levin wasn't a notable person, surely, the editor wouldn't allow this to happen. Many thanks, Kt1502 (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per the discussion below. SmartSE (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, almost all of your edits to date appear to be related to promoting your clients. That's why you're blocked. I have two questions for you related to your unblock request:

  1. What areas of Wikipedia beyond promoting your clients do you plan on working on?
  2. Do you plan to continue to promote your clients on Wikipedia?

Please reply below so that we may consider your request. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Toddst1, thank you for getting back to me. Yes, I've reached out to the Wikipedia editors on behalf of my clients recently. I've been very transparent about it. If you see the amends I've made since November or so, you'll get an idea of what I've done and how, and the conversations I've been having with a number of editors. There's no rule that forbids PRs from editing Wikipedia, it's just about how you do it...even Jimbo Wales admits this to the editor who tried to help me. It's just really difficult and time consuming...the "bright-line rule" is often overlooked and that I can tell you is really frustrating. If you're having any doubts - please see this for an example of how I reached out to you guys. I understand the reason why you blocked me, honestly, you don't know me or how I work. Fair enough. I'd like to work with you guys on improving Wikipedia articles but you have to trust me. I already have two editors who are watching my every step - Silver and SmartSE. They are very strict but fair, well, in my eyes anyway. No favours, that's for sure. I'd love to stay part of Wikipedia and help improve articles but right now I honestly don't know what to do. Kt1502 (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo's own words in the recent past were that people with COI should not edit the articles, only the talkpages in order to propose amendments. Sure, we'd like editors who follow the rules ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you (✉→BWilkins←✎), 100%! Jimbo Wales actually mentioned that in his response to the comment on his talk page posted by SimSaladBim. But he also said that the "bright-line rule", which is the only ethical way forward that works for both PRs/clients and for Wikipedia, has not been communicated well to the editors - as a result of this, editors with CIO are often ignored. Suppose it's hard to say how long editors with COI should wait until they make edits to the article. Because when that happens, editors do respond. I would very much appreciate if I could be unblocked. Please let me know what to do. Many thanks, Kt1502 (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the WP:AFC process, unfortunately if articles are moved from there to the mainspace, it is by no means an assertion that the subject is notable. In my experience, people who work at AFC seem to considerably more inclusionist than the community at large and there is no way of knowing whether reviewers understand our policies and guidelines.As you've found, this is a controversial area and there are varying opinions within the community. Toddst1 presumably sees you as a promotion-only account and therefore was justified in blocking you. I'm not sure your only aim is to promote your clients, but some things such as falsy referencing FT articles at TCP and creating articles about someone who is clearly not notable and including information about their new book, suggests that we have more to lose than to gain from you editing here. There is a difference to writing neutral articles about your clients and including promotional material in them. If you can show that you understand our notability guidelines and that the majority of information in articles requires high-quality secondary sources then I might be willing to unblock you. I would also ask that you edit some articles where you have no COI to get a better understanding of how to write articles neutrally before doing anything related to your clients. How does that sound?
Hi there, Smartse what do you mean by "falsy referencing FT articles"?? If I made a mistake then it wasn't intentional... And yes, I understood and accepted your reasons why Lindsay Levin wasn't notable. Do you really think you've got more to lose than to gain? That's a little harsh... But ok, will look for some articles I can edit. Kt1502 (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here you added two references, but none of the information in the text preceding them could be found in the articles cited. I mentioned it here before. You need to find good articles, read them and then write. Not write and then find a reference to kind of support what you've already written. I am glad that you now see the problem with Lindsay Levin. Toddst1 obviously thinks we have more to lose than to gain or else you wouldn't be blocked, but as I thought I had implied, I am undecided. As for articles, how about improving Qorvis#History or Edelman_(firm)#History? They should hopefully be of interest to you. SmartSE (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm in. Will update the history section on both of these companies. I honestly didn't realise that these FT articles weren't relevant. Will have to read things twice from now on. Thanks Smartse. Is it ok to edit directly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kt1502 (talk • contribs)
Great. I will unblock you in a moment. The FT articles look like good references for the TCP article, but you need to summarise what they say in the article. And yes, you have no COI with them so edit directly. You'll find this useful for Qorvis. I can help you find more references if you struggle, but google news archive should be your first port of call. Try to keep it short and sweet - one reference for every couple of sentences and only include the most salient information in the articles. Good luck! SmartSE (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback: Wikiproject Cooperation

Hello, Kt1502. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cooperation/Paid_editor_help#New_article_creation_.26_Redirection_of_an_existing_article.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SilverserenC 03:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on New Articles

I haven't had a chance to properly look at your articles, but I will later. I thought I'd let you know that if you want to claim "The term ‘regulatory incubator’ was coined by Sturgeon Ventures" then you'll need to have at least one impartial and reliable source that agrees with you. The source you currently have doesn't even mention the phrase "regulatory incubator". I'll give you some more detailed feedback once I've properly looked at the articles. --teb00007 Talk • Contributions 13:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my feedback on the articles:
  • References in the Sturgeon Ventures article seem like overkill. For example, rather than a separate reference for each of the key people perhaps one reference which mentions all three people would suffice (this can usually be found on the company website). "n/a" should be removed from the references. If information is unavailable or not applicable, omit it.
  • The registration number with the Financial Conduct Agency is not necessary. It does not add to the reader's understanding of the topic.
  • "The 'wellness' sector" is ambiguous. "Wellness" could refer to medicine, spirituality, homoeopathy, etc., or possibly a sector of the financial industry I'm unaware of. You should replace this with the exact sector.
I'm still new at this, so I can't provide a much feedback as I'd like yet but I hope this is useful. --teb00007 Talk • Contributions 23:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, dates should be in the format dd Mmmmm yyyy (e.g. 30 July 2013). Multiple dates in the same month should be represented as dd-dd Mmmmm yyyy and dates in separate months in the same year should be written as dd Mmmmm - dd Mmmmm yyyy. E.g. 30-31 July 2013 and 30 July - 1 August 2013. For dates in separate years, just write the two dates in full, e.g. 30 July 2013 - 1 January 2014. --teb00007 Talk • Contributions 18:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Teb and thanks for your feedback. Please check the articles again - I've made quite a few tweaks. e.g. format of the dates, removed 'n/a' from references, updated the links, etc. There is just one thing I couldn't do - I've checked the company website but there's no single page that mentions all three people. It's a little disappointing but do you think the links I've found will do? Also, I've decided to remove the info on the 'wellness' sector - couldn't find any sources to back it up. Let me know your thought. Many thanks, Kt1502 (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed articles

Hi there. I saw your feedback request in WikiProject Cooperation and I've took the initiative and moved the proposed articles (Sturgeon Ventures LLP and Regulatory incubator) to your user sub-page and marked with {{User sandbox}}. They can be accessed through User:Kt1502/sandbox. I think it will be easier to review this way. Hope you don't mind, and let me know if you have any questions. Cheers. Alex ShihTalk 04:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I noticed just now that you are trying to do pr work for multiple clients. I would recommend seeking a mentor at wiki project cooperation. I am also available to provide free advice as a fellow pr guy. It took several years for me to really learn to contribute in a pr role well. Btw do you have any sources on their investment strategy? CorporateM (Talk) 16:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your feedback CorporateM, much appreciated. I had a mentor, unofficially, but he's now been inactive for some time - busy in real life. He helped me understand how to contribute to Wikipedia articles but there's still so much I need to learn. It would be great if I could come to you. I'm going to look into the investment strategy a bit further and let you know. Have other two/three projects I have to work on now. Many thanks Kt1502 (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Cooperation Reply

Hello, Kt1502. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cooperation/Paid_editor_help#Two_new_articles:_Sturgeon_Ventures_LLP_and_Regulatory_Incubator_.28Saved_in_my_talk_section.29.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SilverserenC 01:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Regulatory incubator (September 29)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Zach Vega (talk to me) 23:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello! Kt1502, 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!

Your submission at Articles for creation: Baring Asset Management Limited (October 30)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. The submission has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

The existing submission may be deleted at any time. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! —Anne Delong (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baring Asset Management Limited

I've seen your message, but I won't be able to look at the article until tomorrow. I'll be able to see the history, if that is relevant Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jimfbleak, I've had a chat with the editor who flagged the article for copyright issue and I'm going to rewrite the history section, probably remove a good chunk of irrelevant stuff. Is there any chance you could dig the text out of the archives and send me a copy? Please let me know Kt1502 (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm back.
  • I don't know if you saw this comment before the deletion Bearings Asset Management appears to be related to Barings Bank, being one and the same up until the latter half of the 20th century. A good chunk of this article duplicates the history contained in that article, without either acknowledging the fact that part of the original company failed, or adequately explaining how Bearings Asset Management came to exist as a separate entity. This article needs to be written to more closely tie-in with the Bearings Bank article. Rankersbo (talk)
  • The general thrust of the article is promotional. For example, you have no financial data (it's a bank!) numbers of employees or similar boring stuff, but you find space for "Services" and "Notable events", which along with "awards" tend to make admin's fingers reach for the delete tab. No mention of any criticisms or competitors either.
  • Not a reason for deletion, but headings should not be capitalised on every word, normal rules
  • I'll post the deleted history section here shortly. Please remove it as soon as you see it, since its status is dubious.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jimfbleak - I've started amending the history section. Should be done by the end of the day. As per your bullet points above:
  • Yes - Following the first feedback from Rankersbo I've amended the introduction and changed the history section so it gives a clear idea how Baring Asset Management was established.
  • Thanks - will add financial data. Can't find any info on the number of employees. Criticism is there - the whole Nick Leeson situation that led to the collapse of Barings Bank in 1995. << The financial data should go under the introduction/lead paragraph rather than the history. Will wait until I get access to this section. Kt1502 (talk) 11:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issue with headings - cool will fix that once the project page is up again.

Kt1502 (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimfbleak, I've updated the history section. As you can tell, it hasn't been easy. It's taking me a while. Could you please review it and let me know if I could get the project page back up? I'd very much appreciate it. Many thanks Kt1502 (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen your message on my talk page, I'll reply tomorrow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you refer to other related articles, and don't want to use just a Wikilink, use the template {{Main|name of article}} immediately below the heading, rather than a "more at" or "also see" in the text. Otherwise, post it and see what happens Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sturgeon Ventures LLP (November 16)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Regulatory incubator (November 19)

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! LukeSurl t c 23:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Barings Asset Management was accepted

Barings Asset Management, 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.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Jinkinson talk to me 00:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback on my page

Hello, Kt1502. You have new messages at Silver seren's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your submission at AfC Regulatory incubator was accepted

Regulatory incubator, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-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.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Article: David Morgan (businessman) - Quick question response

Done. I've uploaded a picture of David. I do not have copyright for the photo, but have claimed fair use as it is an old picture from Westpac that they would have no commercial reason to use anymore. it will be up to the moderators as to whether it can stay. btw, no articles are anyone's "space"... anyone can edit or add to the article (as I suspect David may have himself, as there's some stuff there I'm pretty sure only he and his mum would know... ;-) Grey.Label (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sturgeon Ventures LLP

Hello Kt1502. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Sturgeon Ventures LLP".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sturgeon Ventures LLP}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Unauthorized access in online social networks" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Unauthorized access in online social networks and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 12 § Unauthorized access in online social networks until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 

Index: pl ar de en es fr it arz nl ja pt ceb sv uk vi war zh ru af ast az bg zh-min-nan bn be ca cs cy da et el eo eu fa gl ko hi hr id he ka la lv lt hu mk ms min no nn ce uz kk ro simple sk sl sr sh fi ta tt th tg azb tr ur zh-yue hy my ace als am an hyw ban bjn map-bms ba be-tarask bcl bpy bar bs br cv nv eml hif fo fy ga gd gu hak ha hsb io ig ilo ia ie os is jv kn ht ku ckb ky mrj lb lij li lmo mai mg ml zh-classical mr xmf mzn cdo mn nap new ne frr oc mhr or as pa pnb ps pms nds crh qu sa sah sco sq scn si sd szl su sw tl shn te bug vec vo wa wuu yi yo diq bat-smg zu lad kbd ang smn ab roa-rup frp arc gn av ay bh bi bo bxr cbk-zam co za dag ary se pdc dv dsb myv ext fur gv gag inh ki glk gan guw xal haw rw kbp pam csb kw km kv koi kg gom ks gcr lo lbe ltg lez nia ln jbo lg mt mi tw mwl mdf mnw nqo fj nah na nds-nl nrm nov om pi pag pap pfl pcd krc kaa ksh rm rue sm sat sc trv stq nso sn cu so srn kab roa-tara tet tpi to chr tum tk tyv udm ug vep fiu-vro vls wo xh zea ty ak bm ch ny ee ff got iu ik kl mad cr pih ami pwn pnt dz rmy rn sg st tn ss ti din chy ts kcg ve
Prefix: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia

Portal : Agama
Agama
Portal : Bahasa
Bahasa
Portal : Biografi
Biografi
Portal : Budaya
Budaya
Portal : Ekonomi
Ekonomi
Portal : Elektronika
Elektronika
Portal : Film
Film
Portal : Filsafat
Filsafat
Portal : Geografi
Geografi
Portal : Indonesia
Indonesia
Portal : Ilmu
Ilmu
Portal : Lingkungan
Lingkungan
Portal : Masyarakat
Masyarakat
Portal : Matematika
Matematika
Portal : Militer
Militer
Portal : Mitologi
Mitologi
Portal : Musik
Musik
Portal : Olahraga
Olahraga
Portal : Pendidikan
Pendidikan
Portal : Politik
Politik
Portal : Sastra
Sastra
Portal : Sejarah
Sejarah
Portal : Seni
Seni
Portal : Teknologi
Teknologi