User talk:Stemrv

Your submission at Articles for creation: Requisite complexity (April 23)

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

CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Stemrv! 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! CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Requisite complexity

Hello, Stemrv. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Requisite complexity, 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) 13:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Requisite complexity

Hello, Stemrv. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Requisite complexity".

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. If 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!} 21:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Engineering cycle for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Engineering cycle 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/Engineering cycle 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.

MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

i added my comments on the talk page. I hope that was the right point.

Thanks for your attention. And thanks in advance for your suggestions on how to make relevant contributions to wikipedia. Stemrv (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Rough start

Hi Stemrv, I'm the administrator who just closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engineering cycle as consensus to delete/redirect to engineering design process (but I come in peace!). I just wanted to pop by to say that I'm very very sorry to see that it looks like your positive energies here have hit a wall of Wikipedia bureaucracy, rules, and norms. Sadly, that's not uncommon for newer users. Wikipedia is a massive operation, and under the hood is a labyrinthine set of rules and norms that takes a while to settle in to. It can seem a bit chilly at first, but if you can momentarily accept it as it is (rather than as it seems it should be) I hope you'll eventually come to appreciate them -- If not, at least you'll develop the credibility with your fellow editors to advocate for changing things around here!

If you'll accept some unsolicited advice, it looks like you're struggling to find a place to help out without stepping on unknown toes. I'd suggest you try one of a couple things:

1. Find your people - editors with particular interests are organized into WikiProjects, which coordinate efforts to improve articles in a given topic. Your userpage suggests you may find interest in the WikiProjects on Engineering, History, Business, Robotics, Sailing, Music, or more. There are many more. A somewhat out-of-date set of directories by topic are linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. Be aware that many projects have fallen quiet over the years, so don't be too discouraged if you post at one offering to help and no one replies.
2. Find small problems to solve - You may have seen little templated messages posted all around the encyclopdia complaining of various maintenance issues (e.g. at the top of Engineering design process). Think of each of these as a call for help that has yet to be answered. There are hundreds of thousands of these calls to choose from; perhaps one interests you? For many WikiProjects, a robot collects all maintenance issues on relevant articles which you can then peruse by issue (e.g. for WikiProject Engineering, or see here for a list of all participating projects). The bot runs once per week on Tuesdays, so don't expect the lists to update immediately. Perhaps a topic or a particular type of maintenance template interests you? If you need a hand getting started, just let me know, ask at the relevant WikiProject, or ask at WP:TEAHOUSE where folks are usually available for a quick response.

Pardon the lengthy message. Again, I'm sorry you've hit some bumps so early in your time here, but I truly hope you decide to stick around and contribute to the project. Many of us long timers here experienced early frustrations, stayed, and are glad we did. I hope to see you around. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Hello, Stemrv. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Sam Kuru (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• hermix.eu: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://spam.hermix.eu

Dear Sam,

Can you please help me understand why you considered my additions to the business-to-government page as copyright violation?

I cannot see the text anymore (you removed everything), but as far as I can remember, I added definitions and descriptions, and I cited correctly the sources, including public documents, including the Cambridge dictionary, and a few research papers.

I consider the topic very interesting and I've been actively working on the topic for more than a year. The article is currently a stub, and there are obvious updates and additions that I considered necessary to be done.

I understand that you didn't like my reference to one of my own articles. I would appreciate if we could discuss why it might be wrong to cite my own work?

But especially I don't understand how my notifications can be considered as a copyright violation. I was pretty sure that I didn't plagiarize or copy text that I wasn't allowed too. I have a PhD myself and I am always doing my best to follow strictly the correct academic citation practices. And, of course, I would have preferred to have a discussion on the content itself, rather than have the entire content removed.

Thank you in advance for your support, Stefan Stemrv (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The material you added to the section "The B2G market is characterized by" was copied verbatim from the source, which does not indicate any compatible license. If you'd like to donate material, you will need to follow the instructions at WP:DCP so that your authority to change the license and your intent can be reviewed privately.

As for the rest of your additions, I have no problem with edits that source reliable sources. I would ask that you please stop adding links to a niche consulting firm that you appear to have a very strong COI with. I'm sure there are other sources you can use that are not self-published. Thank you. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. This makes sense.

I think indeed there was at least one paragraph pretty much copied from the source. Since I cited the source, and it was only a paragraph, I thought it would be fine.

Is there any way to recover my edits that were removed? Some of these edits were original texts, and I havent saved them anywhere else. Stemrv (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I cannot reproduce the copied parts; here is the novel material:

B2G is a fundamental market, alongside Business-to-Consumer (B2C) and Business-to-Business (B2B).

It is a relevant marketing and sales area, distinct from B2B or B2C.

Other terms used are B2PA Business-to-Public-Administration; B2PS - Business-to-Public-Sector; PS public sector; PP public procurement.

More than 60% of Fortune 1000 companies are active on the B2G market, with government customers generally having a positive impact on a firm’s value.

The B2G domain is relevant: public sector represents 54% of EU GDP , and 47% of US GDP. Public sector procurement amounts to 14-20% of GDP.

You may want to use the original sources instead of the redirects (statista). Sam Kuru (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing back the text with me.

I added it back, with the external links, as you suggested.

When I will have some more time, I will try to rewrite the rest of the article that I wrote initially, because it is a stub, and I really have a lot to add to this topic. Maybe I will add my original article to the public domain, or I will take some time to publish it in a journal or something.

Again, thanks for your support.

Wikipedia is super frustrating for me - since it is incredibly difficult to contribute, when rules are so complex and fluid. But I can imagine how frustrating it must be for you, who are navigating it daily. Stemrv (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)