User talk:Basgar Peverel

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this draft. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

[[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I am writing an article currently entitled Bruce Burdick, designer. It may evolve into an article called 'the Burdick Group.' My possible conflict of interest is that I worked for Bruce Burdick and the Burdick Group on several projects: the Creativity Exhibit, The Aramco Museum, a proposed Eames exhibit, the Philips evoluon, and very briefly on the Samsung headquarters exhibit. This connection ended more than 20 years ago, Burdick is dead and his firm folded in 2000. That closeup look is what convinced me that a Wikipedia article is in order: that his projects were serious, original, responsible and imaginative. I worked at another exhibit design firm later,and the contrast was striking. I am a partisan, but my own personal interests will not be affected one way or another if this article finally sees the light of day.

Welcome!

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

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. 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! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this 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!--Biografer (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bruce Burdick, designer (December 17)

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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:Bruce Burdick, designer and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Bruce Burdick, designer, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Basgar Peverel! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering 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! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:• uw dgn burdick.jpg.rendition.2880.1620.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:• uw dgn burdick.jpg.rendition.2880.1620.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Uw dgn burdick.jpg.rendition.2880.1620.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Uw dgn burdick.jpg.rendition.2880.1620.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bruce Burdick, designer (February 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by S0091 were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Need sources that are about Burdick. Many do not mention him. Also, needs to rewritten in an encyclopedic manner.

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:Bruce Burdick, designer and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Bruce Burdick, designer, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promising draft

Hi Basgar, I add the "promising draft" "tag" to the draft. This will extend the life of the draft if it happens to go unedited. Normally drafts are deleted if they go unedited for six month (clock starts ticking at the last edit). This will extend it for a year from the last edit so if you take a break it gives it more time. It also adds it to a category which may or may not gain attention from other editors. In worst case, if does get deleted any editor (you are an editor) can ask it to be undeleted but that is extra step so best to keep it around. Of course the goal is to get it accepted but I would rather that extra padding exist than not. S0091 (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bruce Burdick has been accepted

Bruce Burdick, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

CNMall41 (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your COI disclosure in the beginning. These types of things makes editors such as myself willing to help out as much as we can. Great topic by the way. I left some comments on the talk page for friendly advice. Cheers!!--CNMall41 (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

Hi Basgar, the article has passed the biggest hurdle and now is open the world! Thanks for obtaining the photos of the exhibits. I really do believe they help readers better understand his work. I noted your statement on the talk page about inviting "interested parties" to cut some of the article. A couple of considerations that may be helpful in those discussions/decisions. While the article is technically open for anyone to edit, those with a conflict of interest should not edit the article directly. Yours is distant enough I do not consider it a strong COI but someone else theoretically could raise it as an issue (unlikely, but could happen). In addition, content must abide by Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines and no one owns the article (see WP:Ownership of content). At the end of day, content decisions should focus on what is best for the encyclopedia. I think you understand this but others may not. As far as trimming the article, part of my thoughts is if the desk has enough in-depth sources it could be its own article then some of the content in the Burdick article could be moved there. Something to mull about anyway. Again, congratulations! Having an article accepted, as you now know, is not an easy feat. S0091 (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, S0091. Now I wish knew how to get rid of the ominous billboard. I cut about 5 sentences that seemed less informative. But the problem is a little like Zeno’s paradox. I could keep cutting forever without necessarily getting to CNMall41’s destination. I suspect he/she thinks there are too many quotations from Burdick, but I think his quotations are more interesting than my lists.

I personally don’t think the desk deserves an article. Only the “dining room table” is still on the market. And there is a problem of ambiguity: The Burdick Group is the desk and the design firm. Is it legitimate to ask CNMall41 whether my cuts made a difference?

Basgar Peverel (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Basgar Peverel[reply]

The "billboard"...I like I you how put that. In Wikipedia speak they are referred to as "tags" and actually exist all over Wikipedia (see MillerKnoll for somewhat relevant example). Mostly, they exist to call attention to editors or readers to help improve the article (along with the "tag", the article is listed in a category, which serves like a "to do" list). However, those categories are often so large with thousands of articles they are not always effective. I can say it needs to trimmed more which requires taking a dispassionate view and writing it for a general worldwide audience who will at most give a one minute read. This is where having a connection with the subject can be adisadvantage (thus also why Wikipedia has COI guidelines). The question to ask is "why is this important?". How you answer that question is by what published sources have said about it (not what he or anyone affiliated with him or the company said/thought about it). If very little, other than its existence, then it likely should not be included.

I am surprised you believe the desk does not warrant an article but maybe that is because we are standing in different places. What is still on the market matters not from an encyclopedic standpoint (and actually I think the desk still still selling on the secondary market at auctions). What matters is what has been written about it by independent reliable sources. I agree its quite confusing as to, first, what it is the actual name ("The Burdick Group", "Burick Group", "The Burdick Group desk", "Burdick Group system", etc.) along with the obvious overlap with his company's name. Good marketing technique though. So I have to ask, in your opinion which piece of work do you think is most deserving of an article? S0091 (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]