User talk:Creativepartnership

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (May 1)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by BenLinus1214 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.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Creativepartnership/sandbox 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 get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

BenLinus 1214^talk 01:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group (July 6)[edit]

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

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:History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group 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 get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 14:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Creativepartnership, 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! — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 14:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your Articles for Creation Help Desk question[edit]

Hello, Creativepartnership! I'm Timtrent. I have replied to your question about a submission at the WikiProject Articles for Creation Help Desk. Fiddle Faddle 20:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC) Hi Tim[reply]

Would it help in this particular instance if I removed the references where the reference is minor or tangential - as I get the idea of substantial, and see the point of this. I was trying as this is my first major article to provide as many references as I could at the time, possibly a mistake? is there any guidelines on the number of references needed?

It is not so much the number as the quality and the relevance. Broadly speaking, every fact that you assert that is unlikely to be susceptible to challenge is best handled with a reference. If this is a biography then it requires a citation. Citations are always better anyway. Fiddle Faddle 16:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Creativepartnership", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it appears to represent a corporation rather than an individual person. Shared accounts are not permitted, and neither are advertising or promotional editing. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. --Diannaa (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Creative Partnerships was a term I came up with over a decade ago as most of my work actually involves partnerships though I actually am a freelancer working on my own behalf, and so I see no conflict with the wikipedia policy. If you still feel there is I am happy to change it, but I do like it.

I see no issue with this. There may be an issue, though, if you are retained by clients to edit Wikipedia. We have rules that paid editors must disclose their status, and log any conflict of interest any payment creates. Pinging Diannaa to ensure that the statement (unsigned) by you above has been seen. They are an expert here and their view may vary from mine with regard to usernames.

Please try to remember to sign posts on talk pages and similar pages, but never in articles. Using ~~~~ at the end is translated automagically into your signature. Fiddle Faddle 16:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creativepartnership, can you please confirm whether or not you are doing paid editing on behalf of clients? Our terms of use require that paid editors must disclose their status, and not edit articles where they have a conflict of interest. More information on this topic can be found at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Financial conflict of interest and foundation:Terms of Use#4. Refraining from Certain Activities -- Diannaa (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DiannaaI am collaborating with the archive at the moment on a project but this wiki entry has nothing to do with this, other than in the course of the collaboration I realised there was no entry, which I thought was a shame given the uniqueness of the archive. However, as a freelancer I work and have worked with over 3000 individuals and companies in a paid capacity. What is the advice on writing anything on wiki about any of these past(upto 25 years ago) or present?Creativepartnership (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, the issue that you face is regarding the period when you wrote about any of these three classes of client:

Current client
Immediately past or recent client (the jury is out on how far in the past they need to be in order to make it ok
Future client to whom you are proposing your services

Clients deep in your history are probably exempt form accusations of WP:COI. Even so, it makes sense to declare anything you feel doubtful about. One excellent way of doing this is to use your user page (not your talk page) to make the declaration (perhaps as a list of clients), and to deploy {{Connected contributor}} complete with all its parameters filled out on the talk page of the article or draft concerned.

I am not answering to pre-empt Diannaa's advice, which may differ from my own Fiddle Faddle 12:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The advice is good. Please list any paid clients on your user page, and please don't edit articles where you have a conflict of interest. Instead you should post edit requests on the article talk page. Please see Wikipedia:Edit requests for more information on that topic. -- Diannaa (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All clear but rather than list all the clients I have ever worked for on the user page - which would eb a wiki entry in itself, I will follow the protocal of listing any I am working for linked to any particular article/edit, as this seems more efficient.Creativepartnership (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 20 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Draft:History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group (July 24)[edit]

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

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:History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group 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 get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Flat Out (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose.

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 ~~~~}} below this notice.

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 ~~~~}} below this notice. Thank you. Missvain (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

As far as I can see from all the notes on user names creativepartenerships is fine. It may appear to imply a company or group usage but as I explained in the correspondence with previous wiki editors this is not the case and the matter was resolved as far as everyone was concerned. So I wish to now why all of sudden this account has been blocked given the previous agreement. Creativepartnership (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Whatever anyone may have said to you, I don't see how anyone could see the username "Creativepartnership" as not suggesting that the account represents a group, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. if, in fact, the account does not represent a group, then it is also a misleading username, which is another violation of Wikipedia policy. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Draft:History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group, 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, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group[edit]

Hello, Creativepartnership. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group".

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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]