User talk:AlexGamr1994

Paid editing?

Hello AlexGamr1994. 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 compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. 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 very 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 extremely 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:AlexGamr1994. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=AlexGamr1994|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. Theroadislong (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Therodislong: Hi! thank you for your message, I am rather interested in my topic, and HOLODECK architects' way of constructing spatial arrangements. My article is fully based on information I have collected from articles and projects descriptions - naturally some of the choice of words is referencing their way of self description. Their projects are not visible besides on their website and architecture magazines, that's a shame! The article is structured as are other articles on architectural practices. What about Foster and Partners wikipedia article, for example? Is that also made by what you call Paid Editing? how come someone could successfully write an article on Fosters, what is the difference between those large scale corporate architectural firms and small scale studios that actually try to improve on our spatial surroundings. How come this small scale firm cannot have someone write an article about them? Is it the money? Is it political? I look forward to your answer! AlexGamr1994

AlexGamr1994, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi AlexGamr1994! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like TheAafi (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of HOLODECK architects

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on HOLODECK architects, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Reply

@Theroadislong: so they see your message above. Your ping won't work because it was mispelt, unsigned and lacked the double curly brackets.

You have an obvious conflict of interest and you must declare it. If you work directly or indirectly for an organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. If you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, 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 Jimfbleak. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=AlexGamr1994|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message. Also read the following regarding writing an article:

• you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, logs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company or organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls. Most of your text was unreferenced
• The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:

1. significant coverage in
2. independent,
3. multiple,
4. reliable,
5. secondary sources.

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability. I note that none of your company's awards are actually linked to Wikipedia articles, which suggest they are not notable

• You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews. What you have written, apart form theinterminable lists of awards and projects so typical of company spam is just fact-free promo. Here are some examples of unsourced opinions presented as if they were facts With a strong focus on concept driven holistic architecture, the studio works thoroughly based on analytical processes. Designs are followed through with systematic research and applied methods, revealing hidden spatial potentials and resulting in creative and innovative statements... have built numerous projects across different typologies, which are highlighted and honoured on social networks and in the architecture world.and that's just the lead!
• There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections. And the Eternal link should just be their own main site.

• I notice that all your images were removed from Commons because they were unlicensed for use here, and that your text was largely created with no wikilinks at all in a single edit, suggesting that may be copyright too. You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. You must also reply to the COI request above. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for email. as Yamla has pointed out, the fact that you are actively discussing this with the company suugests that you hav eno intention of writing an encyclopaedic article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for further email. You should not be writing articles in conjunction with the company. Although you say correctly that COI editing is permitted if declared, the fact is that you didn't declare your COI when you wrote the article, which is why you are blocked. If you want to write about something else, other than that company, you can request an unblock to do so, but you seem intent on just ploughing the same furrow. Unless I've made an obvious mistake, I leave it to other admins to consider unblock requests anyway. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

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).

AlexGamr1994 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like to request, to be unblocked from Wikipedia. Regardless of what my next articles are going to be, in my opinion the way this case has been handled is not correct. I am just trying to understand the process here, I’d love to write about other topics. To summarise the case: In March 2021 I have created my account in order to contribute towards the encyclopaedia/Wikipedia. My first proposed article was about the architectural studio HOLODECK architects. I have drafted a source-based article, including all links, references to external articles and other sources, in the user platform SANDBOX. After waiting for four days, I moved the article to the official live section for the public to gain access and to allow further contributions and editing. On the 2nd of April my account was blocked and the source-based article was removed from the live section by Theroadislong. His/her argument was the article was a promotion for the studio. In order to clarify, it is not, I have sent him a backstory on why I am drafting this article, as well as included his suggestions for it to be improved. “I am rather interested in my topic, and HOLODECK architects' way of constructing spatial arrangements. My article is fully based on information I have collected from articles and projects descriptions - naturally some of the choice of words is referencing their way of self-description. Their projects are not visible besides on their website and architecture magazines, that's a shame! The article is structured as are other articles on architectural practices. What about Foster and Partners wikipedia article, for example? Is that also made by what you call Paid Editing? how come someone could successfully write an article on Fosters, what is the difference between this large scale corporate architectural firm and s small-scale studio, that actually try to improve on our spatial surroundings?” He accepted my explanation; my account has been unblocked: and the article was live again.

On the 30th of April my account was blocked, the article was removed by Jimfbleak, even though the administrator Theroadislong has accepted the article as valid and non-promotional (as it is source- based).

Following his argument, I have declared my position. My account continued to be blocked, the article wasn't live, even though the first administrator Theroadislong accepted it. And after declaring what I was advised to do: “editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared.” even though I am not being compensated for the article in any form. Yet, my account continued to be blocked for another week or so. Even though this was the suggestion by the administrator Jimfbleak, and the way forward to publish the article. Yet nothing changed and this is now being used as argument against my account and the publication of the article.

Therefore, I have then officially request to be unblocked by the community. A third party Yamla has subjectively stated my arguments are not convincing enough and valid to open the account again.

Wikipedia is supposed to be an open source and encyclopaedia. However, if the articles are laid on and off as some administrators wish, how is it supposed to be an open source of knowledge, where people can contribute to articles?

Many thanks! AG.

AlexGamr1994 (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Taking a look at the deleted article HOLODECK architects, I'm pretty amazed. Almost every sentence is puffery. "Strong focus", "works thoroughly", "designs are followed through", "creative and innovative", "honoured", "high-quality", "serves human needs", "innovative and experimental", "astonishing qualities", "innovative, affordable, and holistic". You'll need to find something else to edit about. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

---

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.