User talk:Vanhoosear

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Northeast Arc concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Northeast Arc, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. 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) 19:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article submission Northeast Arc

Hello Vanhoosear. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Northeast Arc.

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/Northeast Arc}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creaform logo on Creaform page

Hello Vanhoosear, I want to improve this following page [[1]] but I not able to change the logo you have uploaded, maybe it because I could not overwrite your content. Could you replace the old logo by the new one? I will send it to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creaform (talk • contribs) 16:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of RedPoint Global

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Creaform (3D)

The article Creaform (3D) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Creaform.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Creaform.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia: WP:PAID policy

hi Todd. By way of introduction, I work on conflict of interest issues in Wikipedia along with my regular editing.

You have apparently been around a long while! I am not sure you aware that in Jun 2014, the Terms of Use for all Wikimedia Foundation properties, including Wikipedia, was changed.

If you edit for pay, you must disclose your employer and the client, for each such edit you make. This is described in WP:PAID which is Wikipedia policy.

We also ask people who have a conflict of interest for a given topic, including people paid to edit that topic, not to edit directly, but rather propose changes on the article Talk page; and instead of creating articles directly, to submit them through the articles for creation process. This provides peer review, which is a standard way to manage conflict of interest.

These two steps, disclosure and peer review, are essential for protecting the integrity of Wikipedia and the public's trust in it.

Would you please add a disclosure to your user page of the articles you have edited on behalf of clients, and in the future, would you please follow the peer review process? You can reply here, just below this. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Jytdog. I do have a disclosure on my user page at vanhoosear that states that I may "from time to time be asked by an active client to make edits to Wikipedia entries about or relevant to" their business. The history page traces all of my edits, but they're a mixed of paid and unpaid. I would be happy to be more specific about the pages I edit on behalf of clients on my user page.

I have also employed talk pages and article suggestion pages, as well as other remedies for requesting edits to certain pages, but the topics I write about are apparently not terribly closely tracked and I rarely get input. It's not a BIG surprise, as I have rather obscure tastes it seems. It's perfect perhaps for the long tail of internet content, but it can make for (infinitely?) long waits for edits and page creations. I just posted a new article request a few moments ago and will continue to follow the proscribed process. Thanks for stopping by and chatting. I believe like you do that Wikipedia is stronger because of the attention people give to the content on it. Let me know if you have any other thoughts or feedback, please! Best, Vanhoosear (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog Please see my updated User page for a specific list of pages I was in some form or another compensated for. Best, Vanhoosear (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Almost there. I don't mean to be pedantic, but PAID calls for you to name your employer and the client. It is pretty obvious who the client is for most of those (I'm not sure on the 3D scanner client one), so you could please include in parentheses (employer, client) after each of them? Might as well do this right. If you were freelancing then you can just list the client. Once that is done I can put the {{connected contributor (paid)}} on the relevant talk pages, and the disclosure piece will be done.

I know that waiting on the peer review piece can be ungodly long and is bad for business, but please do that, and please submit paid articles through WP:AFC. The peer review step is really essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia. If you want you can ping me if something is lingering - I would be glad to help. And I am curious to check out your WP editing chops anyway! :) There are a couple of paid editors I have been working with pretty regularly and through the repeated interaction things get more and more efficient: I don't mind working with paid editors who really understand our content policies; I like it actually. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog I don't think Wikipedia editors need to apologize for being pedantic -- it's part of our job! :-) I would love for the paid contributor recommendations/requirements to be a little more explicit. Right now the requirements are pretty vague and only mention the places where you should disclose. Being this explicit makes sense -- but let's get everyone on the same page! And again, thanks! Best, Vanhoosear (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on that, slow and steady, as are others. Change takes time here. Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bob Hitchcock for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bob Hitchcock 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/Bob Hitchcock 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 notice from the top of the article. Cavarrone 16:35, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of RedPoint Global for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article RedPoint Global 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/RedPoint Global 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 notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Creaform REVscan.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Creaform REVscan.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]