User talk:Hatter.glass

Welcome!

Hello, Hatter.glass, 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 Draft:Paywith.glass, 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! Java Hurricane 14:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Paywith.glass

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 Draft:Paywith.glass, 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. Java Hurricane 14:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Could you help me to edit this page so that it conforms to the Wikipedia requirements.

I do not understand the classification of rejection that has been placed on this draft. This is my first ever Wikipedia edit so I have based the structure of the page entirely on existing Wikipedia pages in my industry, deliberately to ensure we conformed to the Wikipedia guidelines. If our page is classified as unambiguous advertising, then why are the pages of Ripple, Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, Stellar_(payment_network), Ripple (payment protocol), [[Libra (cryptocurrency)], TransferWise and Stripe (company) upon which its structure is based, not considered to be the same.

As for the reason there is not much information in major publications about us: 1) We are a Dutch fintech startup which means that until we are large enough to be on the Silicon Valley VC radar, we will not be featured front-and-centre in many non-industry publications.

2) We are a fintech infrastructure startup doing something brand new in a specific space of an industry where the only other competitor is currently [[Libra (cryptocurrency)]. The space is not widely understood and it is notoriously expensive and difficult to start a company in. As a result, startups are a very rare entrant in this space and will usually only end up on the radar after they have made a significant dent in the market.

3) We have been in stealth mode until August of 2020. We have declined many of the publication opportunities before this time (through our startup community and network) but we are noted in publications that mention our Startupbootcamp selection and in publications of the Holland Fintech organization. Beyond these, we are not generally known to the public as yet.

4) We are doing something a bit unusual in our industry and attempting to rewrite the rules of money in a way that was not possible before. We mention a bit more of the approach here (under section 02. The Vision & the Mission and section 03. The State of the Industry) which I had left out of the wikipedia article because ironically, I thought that would sound like advertising.

So, I would like some help to solve this problem, please. Hatter.glass (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. That doesn't mean you can write what you like, you must follow the guidance below:

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
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:

significant coverage in
independent,
multiple,
reliable,
secondary sources.

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability.

You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.
There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
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.

Note that although your declared COI means that you have not yet been blocked indefinitely, what you have said above suggests that you intend to write on behalf of your company, rather than as an individual creating an encyclopaedic article. If you promote your company, you will be blocked. If your company doesn't meet the notability criteria I've linked above, it will not be accepted as an article in any case. Take your time on this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other articles have not been deleted doesn't help you, either they met the criteria or should be deleted as well. See What about article x?. Also note that many articles would have been accepted before the notability guidelines were made stricter.

If you want to reply, you can do so on my talk page. You can alternatively leave a message on this page, and I will know you have done so if you start it with my user name, User:Jimfbleak and sign it with four tildes ~~~~ when you post it. That will send me an alert.
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blockchains etc.

Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak

How can I take my time on this when you have just deleted it? It was meant to be published in 2021. I asked for your help to change the tone to be non-promotional. I haven't even figured out how to upload images as yet, that was the next thing I was going to ask for help on but instead you have deleted the whole thing.

Everything in that article was a verifiable fact but of course the citations and references were not yet put in place... it's a draft, no one does this until they have finished writing the article. I asked for your help with a draft as a first time contributor. I had not submitted it for publication or review, it was my very first Wikipedia article and I had not yet completed it. How do you get to decide my draft is ok to delete when it is neither published nor have I asked anyone to publish it or even review it for that matter... I am new to this and was expecting guidance, not heavy handed rejection at my first time up.

I realize this has been a frustrating experience for you but you misunderstand several things about Wikipedia. The community takes a strong stand that Wikipedia is not to be used for promotion and puts a lot of obstacles in the way of someone who is editing with that purpose.

When you submit a draft for review, one of the foremost considerations is whether the subject meets notability requirements, based on the references currently in the draft. Yes, a draft, to remain a draft, does not need to meet notability requirements right away. But when submitted for review, you bring your work under the scrutiny of reviewers. If you think it's ready to become an article, but they don't, they will decline it and give reasons. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} ...but this is just it, I only saved it, I didn't submit it for review. It wasn't ready. I literally just started it today. I was honestly very surprised to see someone passing judgment on my first scribbles, so maybe I clicked the wrong button. Is there any way I can get my text back please so I can save it in the correct (non-published for review) manner then?

Hatter.glass (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that aspect. It does seem to have been hastily judged. But drafts still go through new page review and if deemed too promotional may be subjected to this sort of speedy deletion.

Perhaps getting up a draft on Everybody Wiki, which has different criteria, would be more satisfactory to start with. If you get an article in good shape there, the licenses allow for it to be copied over (with attribution) to Wikipedia for consideration as an article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blockchains etc.

Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case, then Wikipedia shouldn't expect to have any new entries related to internet technologies going forward. First note, blockchain technology is decidedly separate and distinct from cryptocurrency. Secondly, we are using blockchain technology and AI and our own cloud. This really feels quite biased against the newcomers especially when so many of the existing major players that are actually cryptocurrency projects are heavily promoted and in some cases feature 'protected' pages on Wikipedia.

I really was not expecting this sort of hostile environment here, wow!

Hatter.glass (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Radio silence now.

O...k... so this is Wikipedia, got it!

Hatter.glass (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hatter.glass, Hi there. Firstly, if you want to notify somebody that you have replied, tag them by placing {{user|Username}} (like I've done at the start of this comment). This will give them a notification. Not everybody monitors Wikipedia 24/7 so even if you do this, expect there might be a delay in somebody responding to you. A couple of days is normally the maximum, but clearly every editor is different.

Our notability criteria is in place to ensure that the articles we have are the ones that people will be interested in reading. We determine this by showing that the article subject has already had significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. This also ensures that we don't have articles on 'fad' topics that have a burst of activity but no longer term impact.

I can see your draft was deleted for being overly promotional. The purpose of Wikipedia is to educate and share knowledge, not to promote. If we think an article (or a draft) is intended solely to advertise the topic it is written about, then it is likely to be deleted.

I hope this helps explain what has happened so far, but if you have any other questions, feel free to respond. Best, Darren-M talk 19:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darren-M, jmcgnh, thank you for your assistance and responses here. As I have said before, I am brand new at this and have literally written the first thing on Wikipedia this afternoon. Having the draft flagged while it was still WIP and then after asking for help and just having it deleted was a bit of shock. I really, really did not expect that.

That said, if you do not mind too much, I would like some assistance in writing this wikipedia page since I really do not know what the criteria for promotion vs encyclopaedic is.... there is clearly a thin line given the types of pages allowed so I would like some guidance on how not to cross it. I had initially believed it would be a safe bet to base the page structure on that of other prominent players in my industry but clearly, that wasn't a good place to start since they are still there and my draft has been deleted. Secondly, I do not expect to publish this page before 2021, hence there are items there mentioned that have not happened as yet. Like I said, this is a draft and I am new to this.

Incidentally Darren-M, thank you for the pointer on the user tag syntax, I was also struggling with that before.

Hatter.glass (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paywith.glass (February 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 Liance was:

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 organizations and companies). 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

None of the cited sources appear to demonstrate significant, independent coverage of the subject. Please select the WP:THREE best sources which demonstrate notability.

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:Paywith.glass 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:Paywith.glass, 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.

-Liance^{talk/contribs} 05:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hatter.glass! 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! -Liance^{talk/contribs} 05:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Hatter.glass! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, How to demonstrate the WP:THREE best sources which demonstrate notability, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paywith.glass (August 2)

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

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Paywith.glass and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 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.

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Paywith.glass has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Paywith.glass. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing

Hello Hatter.glass. 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:Hatter.glass. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Hatter.glass|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) 13:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a paid edit.

I am one of the founders who was there for the entire journey and I have declared my affiliation already here on Wikipedia.

I wish to document this as a wikipedia entry since little is know about the behind the scenes of the project, technology and how it has ended up here. I thought this was what Wikipedia was for... documenting historical facts and bringing clarity and factual answers on little known topics as they grow in reach and as they shape or influence history. Hatter.glass (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Paywith.glass has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Paywith.glass. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

re: the use of Solution... I did not know this was frowned upon. In my industry it is a commonly used word to the point we don't even think about it. Thanks for this, it is the type of help I am asking for because I really do not know. Hatter.glass (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Hatter.glass! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Not sure what I am doing wrong and how to get this entry correctly written..., has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Paywith.glass

Hello, Hatter.glass. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Paywith.glass, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Paywith.glass

Hello, Hatter.glass. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Paywith.glass".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Paywith.glass

If this was the first article that you 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.

The page Paywith.glass has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seemed to be unambiguous advertising which only promoted a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to have been fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. David Gerard (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]