User talk:Ottomunaiz

Welcome!

Hello, Ottomunaiz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! MelanieN (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a message at User talk:Peridon. --MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declara draft

OK, thanks for the link to the draft. Let's not worry about the logo yet. First we need to figure out if the article is going to make it - that is, if the subject qualifies for an article here. Second, we need to do some rewriting to make it an encyclopedia article instead of a PR piece. Once we get past those two issues we can see about the logo.

So the first question is, does it meet the notability requirements for a business, as spelled out at WP:CORP? You have done an excellent job with the references, including several that do qualify as Independent Reliable Sources, so I think it has a good chance of being accepted as an article. Some people might quibble that the coverage is more about the co-founder rather than the company, and I don't promise that everyone at Wikipedia would agree with me, but I think it is likely to be accepted.

Second is the writing style. That needs work. It doesn't read like an encyclopedia article, but like a corporate handout. That's going to attract the attention of the deletionists, so let's make it more straightforward. For starters, the lead sentence for a business should read "(company name) is a (type of company) based in (location)." The description of what the company does is very jargon-y and rather vague - I have read it several times and I still don't understand exactly what this software (it is software, right?) does. Is its primary market individuals or businesses?

I made a few minor edits, to show the references and insert some section headings. See if you can make the lead and first section more encyclopedic and then I'll look again. --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declara draft Pt. II

Your input is much appreciated. I think I see some other areas where I can also make it sound more encyclopedic, which I will do. I a m traveling this week, but will indeed make the changes and revisions you've suggested to see if we can make this work. Thanks, Ottomunaiz Ottomunaiz (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing: I think I read online that the company has a much bigger presence in Latin America than it does in the U.S. That might be worth mentioning, if a reliable source can be found. Also, the ownership type might be worth mentioning, perhaps in the infobox; I'm guessing it is privately held? --MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declara draft Pt. III

Hi Melanie, I made your suggested revisions. Please let me know if these answer your concerns.

A couple of points: 1) Much has been made about the way the company's platform was designed to help people learn in a way that mirrors how the founder had to relearn after her accident, so this is not incidental and has been reported in BusinessWeek, among other reputable media outlets. That said, if you recommend we shorten that portion, we can do so. 2) I understand your concern about the jargon-y aspects. This is always a challenge in explaining exactly what the company does. Let me know if the revisions addresses this. 3) re: Latin America, we can certainly mention this, but in listing Declara working in Australia, Latin American and Asia, are we not essentially saying as much? If you think we should add the Latin America portion higher up, I can do so. Thanks, Ottomunaiz Ottomunaiz (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good work. A couple of minor things and then I think you may be ready to launch the article. 1) The opening sentence "Declara is a company..." usually says what kind of company. Would it be correct to say it is a software company? 2) All the stuff describing the horrible damage to her body from the accident makes me squirm. Can we tone that down? 3) Latin America isn't important if it isn't that big a deal to the company. I just thought I read somewhere that it was their major focus. If it isn't, forget it.

The article will need to be added to some categories and some Wikiprojects, but we usually do that after the article goes live. I can help with that. --MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

stupid question

Hi Melanie, Sorry to bother you with something so elementary, but I can't find the latest version. How do I gain access to this so I can make the changes you suggested? Ottomunaiz Ottomunaiz (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As one of my mentor teachers used to say: there are no stupid questions. "A person who asks a question is a fool for five minutes. A person who does not ask a question is a fool forever." I see you figured it out: the version you see when you click on the link IS the latest version. --MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it out

I got it. Will message you when I am done revising. Ottomunaiz Ottomunaiz (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it out

Great old quote.

Wikipedia can be inscrutable at times.

Anyhow, I saved the Declara page with your suggested edits and created a user page disclosing my background.

Please review. And also, let me know what it would entail to get the Declara company logo in the info box, too.

Thanks again for all of your help, Melanie. You've made this a painless process! Ottomunaiz (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on my way out for the evening, but you might see if you can make any sense out of this guideline: Wikipedia:Logos. --MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declara logo

Hi Melanie,

I have filled out the form and am ready to upload the logo. Let me know if or when the article is ready to be posted and what the next steps are to have the logo added to the info box with the article.

Ottomunaiz (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll move it to mainspace. I may not be able to help you with uploading the logo, I haven't done that process myself. As for making the process "painless": I'm not promising that it will stay painless after it moves into mainspace. I'm sure you understand that you or the company will not own the article. Anyone can edit it, add to it (with proper sources), remove things from it (with a valid reason). You can put it on your watchlist and keep an eye on it, but you can't control its content. --MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good, you got the logo up! One thing I should mention, about editing here: When you are making an edit to a mainspace article, you should say something in the "edit summary", a line below the edit window. Something like "adding logo," "adding a reference", "copyedit", etc. That's not as necessary for a talk page like this one, or for a draft, but it does help other editors if you describe what you are doing when you edit an article. It's just a good habit to get into.

I don't know if I mentioned the article history, earlier when you were asking about whether something was the "latest draft" or not. The version you see when you click on the link is always the latest version, but all previous versions can be seen by clicking on the "view history" button at the top of the page. It shows every edit that has been made, who made it and when, and their edit summary explaining what they did. By clicking on the date of that entry you can see the old version as it looked at that time. (Never try to edit that old version, though.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article done - now for Wikipedia!

OK, you have gotten your first article into mainspace, and you have learned some of the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia. At this point you are still what we call a "single purpose account". Could I suggest that you start to make yourself into a Wikipedian? Wikipedia is an enormous project and it is of great value to the world (yes, really!). It needs thousands of volunteers to keep it accurate and honest. Browsing articles about subjects that interest you, and making corrections as you find the need - this takes no more time than you want to invest. Warning, though, it can be ~~habit forming~~ an increasingly enjoyable hobby. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Melanie. Thanks again for all your assistance.

I was actually curious about your role at Wikipedia. Do you do this purely as a volunteer? If so, how much time to do you put into this per week? I am indeed curious about contributing more. I was a reporter at daily newspapers for 20 years, and have strong feelings (both positive and sometimes no so much) about how it works. My biggest concern is that the average user is not super interested in delving into finding a more authoritative voice on a subject, so they routinely turn to Google, Wikipedia or whatever source for answers. There's a real societal danger in not going more deeply. Perhaps one remedy to help improve this is to keep improving on what Wikipedia does.

This is particularly frustrating as I teach journalism (as a volunteer for 826 Valencia) to middle school students in San Francisco. Helping them develop critical thinking is something I always aim for.

How did you get involved in Wikipedia? Ottomunaiz (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit of a "recovering journalist" myself, although I never did it full time. My main legacy from news reporting is that I now evaluate everything I read by asking "who says so and how do they know?" (That wouldn't be a bad approach to teach your middle school kids. I wish more people thought that way. I'm somewhat involved in community issues here in San Diego, and you wouldn't believe the rumors that fly around; the latest one is about an imaginary 5,000 unit housing development that is supposedly going to be built in an area where I am on the planning board, so I KNOW it isn't true; but no matter how I respond with facts they reply "Yes, but what I heard...") Forgive the rant. Wikipedia feels the same way about "authoritative voices," which is why we are so strict about needing Independent Reliable Sources for our articles. There is probably still some nonsense here, but there are a lot of people trying to keep the material accurate.

Yes, I am a volunteer, as we all are. The Wikimedia Foundation (which runs all the projects including the encyclopedias, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, etc.) has some paid employees, but absolutely everything that is done here at the actual encyclopedia (and all the other-language encyclopedias) is done by volunteers. That includes the administrators (sysops). (Peridon, on whose talk page we met, is an admin. I am not an admin, I am just one of Peridon's "talk page stalkers," which is why I replied to your question there.) Decisions are made by consensus; discussions take place on talk pages and at sounding boards like WP:Village pump. Sounds impossible, doesn't it? but it works.

As for how I got involved in Wikipedia, see my user page. I didn't really make a hobby of it until several years after I registered my username. I have always enjoyed writing, now I feel like I am "adding to the sum of human knowledge" as another Wikipedian puts it. Nowadays I probably spend several hours a day here, if I'm not traveling or something. It's surprising how big an audience you can reach by doing stuff here. Take the article I have worked on the most, San Diego; that page gets looked at thousands of times a day. That makes you feel like you are really making an impact. (Under the "view history" tab there is a place to see page view statistics [1]. There is all kinds of "behind the scenes" stuff here at Wikipedia that most people never realize is there.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just Googled 826 Valencia. What a great project that sounds like! I thought, "Gee, I ought to create an article about that," but I discovered there are already articles here, at 826 Valencia and 826 National. That might be your next project - to improve the writing and sourcing at those two pages. Remember your additions have to be sourced to third parties; you can't put in anything from your own experience, that would be WP:Original research which is a no-no. --MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool

That's great that you do this for the reasons you mentioned above. And yes, people will always believe what they want to believe.

The 826 pages are in pretty good shape, but I'd be happy to spruce them up. There are some cool bits of trivia re: 826 that might be worth adding.

Thanks for the encouragement.

Ottomunaiz (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

need some assistance on new article for Passage AI

We just submitted a draft of a possible page on Passage AI. This is a company that works with AI. Full disclosure: I do PR for them, and we have substantiated everything in the article, which we have made in the most straight-forward, non-promotional language possible. These guys have been written up in the Wall Street Journal and other Tier One media outlets, because of the work they have done. Please let us know if there is anything here that is not up to the Wikipedia standards or if there is anything we can do to ensure that this meets with all of your guidelines. Eager to have this live before the end of the year.

Thanks!

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (December 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Kostas20142 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 User:Ottomunaiz/sandbox 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 User:Ottomunaiz/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Kostas20142 (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Ottomunaiz, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Kostas20142 (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Passage AI (January 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KJP1 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Blatant advertising. And full of embedded links.

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:Passage AI 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:Passage AI, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KJP1 (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Passage AI

Hello, Ottomunaiz. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Passage AI".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. Dolotta (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]