User talk:Kansas19

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Kansas19, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as PrintForest, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at the our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

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 ask me on my talk page or you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Barkeep49 (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of PrintForest[edit]

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 PrintForest, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks for doing this yesterday. Appreciate your time and attention to this. Cheers!

PrintForest moved to draftspace[edit]

I have moved this article to draftspace for you to work on per your request. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of PrintReleaf[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG - only coverage is either brief mentions and/or promotional sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 18:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bob. Realistically, there's not going to be much you can do with this one. At the moment there isn't enough coverage of PrintReleaf that isn't just regurgitated press releases. Unless and until PrintReleaf start getting their own real coverage in news media, I'm afraid they're not going to meet our notability guideline for organisation and companies. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 19:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ninetyone. So, I deleted the proposed/deleted files. I hope I did this correctly (doesn't feel like I did). I spent some time sourcing references which I've added. And did more research on the company. Aside for the additional references which I think/hope improved this, I think this company should be on Wikipedia due to its high impact on the environment. To be able to partner with some of the largest office printing companies worldwide and then partner with entities that certifiably plant trees globally is an important achievement. It's a small company making a big impact, and doing it in a certifiable, open way, and modestly which probably accounts for the limited press coverage. Thanks for your patience and any help with this as I get the hang of all this. Kansas19 (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you've put time and effort into this but I'm afraid my view remains as it was previously. On Wikipedia, no organisation is inherently notable purely because of the work it does (WP:ORGSIG). As I said before, there still just isn't enough coverage of this organisation to meets our requirements to justify an article, namely "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Of the new sources you've added, the "Denver Business Journal" one is clearly promotional and fails the test set out at WP:ORGIND, and one literally says that it's a press release at the top. If and when PrintReleaf start to gather some genuine, organic and non-promotional coverage in the media, then an article can be reconsidered, but I'm afraid at the moment the requirements for inclusion are not met. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 12:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of PrintReleaf for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article PrintReleaf 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/PrintReleaf until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article.

ninety:one (reply on my talk) 12:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020[edit]

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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. MER-C 14:36, 26 December 2020 (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).

Kansas19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. So sorry about this article. I first posted it by mistake thinking I was setting up a draft, and an admin had kindly put it as a draft. I had planned to rewrite this knowing its glaring promotional nature. But I just hadn't gotten to it yet - working on another article and Christmas events took precedence.

Also, I thought if in draft mode, this wouldn't be an issue, since it's still a work in progress. Otherwise I would have gotten right on it. Again my apologies. Won't happen again.

Could you kindly reinstate my editing privileges? As a newbie I really am still learning the ropes and trying to absorb the ins and outs of Wikipedia. Just FYI, my background is as an educator and see any small contribution I can make in this light. Also, I have a strong interest in environmental issues and various organizations and would like to contribute along these lines where appropriate.

Thanks for your consideration and your help. All the best.

Kansas19 (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

While some leeway is given for drafts, they are not completely immune to deletion processes, and things like blatant advertising are deleted when detected. You will need to describe your connection to the subjects of your edits which seems to be a conflict of interest, and tell how things will be different going forward. I am declining your request at this time. Someone else will review any other request you make. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2021 (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.

Thanks for taking time to write and pass along this information. Happy 2021. And all the best with your work on Wikipedia. Cheers! Kansas19 (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]