User talk:Bwg21

February 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your account has been blocked from editing because your username gives the impression that the account represents a group, club, organization, company, or website. Your username is the principal reason for the block. You are welcome to continue editing after you have chosen a new username that complies with Wikipedia's username policy, which is summarized here.

It also appears that your account is intended to be used for the purpose of telling the world about an organization, person or cause that you consider worthwhile. Unfortunately, many good causes are not sufficiently notable for their own Wikipedia article, and all users are discouraged from editing in any area where they have an inherent conflict of interest. You may wish to consider one of these alternative outlets. Additionally, if your contributions to Wikipedia form all or part of work for which you are, or expect to be, paid or compensated in any way, you must disclose who is paying you to edit here. You may also read our FAQ for article subjects

Please take a moment to either create a new account, or request a username change of your current account here. The new username that you choose must represent you as an individual person, and it must comply with Wikipedia's username policy.

To create a new account with a different username, simply log out of this account and then click here to make a new one.
If you prefer to change the username on this account, you may do so by adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page (this page): {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Please note that the new username you choose cannot already be taken or in use by another account. You can go here to search and see if the username you'd like to choose is available. If the search returns that no global account with that username exists, that means it is available to be taken.

Please also note that you are permitted to use a username that contains the name of a company or organization if it also identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87", but not "SEO Manager at XYZ Company".

Appeals: If your username does not represent a group, organization, website, or other entity described above, and if you believe that this block was incorrect or made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Thank you. – robertsky (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Bwg21 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

bwg21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Changing username to avoid representation of any organization

Accept reason:

I have renamed and unblocked your account. You should read and follow WP:COI and WP:PAID. Welcome back. PhilKnight (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Ternera. I wanted to let you know that one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Draft:Open Process Automation™ Forum—has been undone because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thank you. Ternera (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ternera, thanks for the feedback. I appreciate the need to avoid advertising, avoid soapboxing, and always write from a neutral perspective to maintain Wikipedia's standards for articles and content.

The draft edit does not have any links to or mentions of commercial products or services, nor are there any links with paywalls. The edit in question is essentially an aggregated list of publications that are available to the public (free of charge) for download.

I'm okay with removing the external links if that would help to restore the content from this edit. I'm also open to removing the list and summarizing the publications in paragraph form as well. Would either of those be acceptable? Bwg21 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: O-PAS™ Standard (February 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 S0091 was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:O-PAS™ Standard and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit 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.

S0091 (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bwg21! Having an article draft 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! S0091 (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Open Process Automation™ Forum (February 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 Relativity was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Open Process Automation™ Forum and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit 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.

‍ Relativity 23:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Open Process Automation™ Forum (March 9)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Open Process Automation™ Forum and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Open Process Automation Standard (March 11)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Open Process Automation Standard and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Open Process Automation™ Forum has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Open Process Automation™ Forum. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Open Process Automation Forum

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 Open Process Automation Forum, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 14:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Bwg21. 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 article subjects 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 {{edit COI}} 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. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 15:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Bwg21! Your additions to Draft:Open Process Automation Forum have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Open Process Automation Forum (September 11)

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 draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Much of this is sourced to their website, press releases or otherwise what they say about themselves. Other sources are trade publications which cannot be used to establish 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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Open Process Automation Forum and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit 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.

S0091 (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Open Process Automation Standard (September 11)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Open Process Automation Standard and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit 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.

S0091 (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091 thanks for the feedback on the Draft:Open Process Automation Standard article, and many thanks for your nearly 100K edits to wikipedia.org. This response aims to revisit the test for notability (WP:N) with examples that satisfy the General Notability Guidelines (WP:GNG).

Wikipedia's notability guidelines for Technology are encompassed within the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG). In testing for notability (WP:GNG) it is duly noted that a topic must have significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in “reliable sources that are independent of the subject”. Out of the forty (40) references, three (3) examples of such coverage for the proposed article are below.

Reference 1 is a technical paper published through IEEE, a global professional organization that appears to be a registered 501(c)(3) entity (non-profit) in the United States. The paper has six (6) authors, three of whom have PhDs from various academic institutions. All of the authors appear to be technologists and two of the authors appear to be academic researchers. This paper is noted as having been cited by 20+ co-authors across 10 other papers.

Reference 2 is a paper published through Pforzheim University in Germany. The paper is authored by five (5) academic researchers. This paper is noted as having been cited by 15+ co-authors across 6 other papers.

Reference 3 is a technical paper published in Control Engineering Practice, a journal that appears to be peer-reviewed by industrial experts and researchers. The peer-reviewed paper has nine (9) authors and is noted as having been cited by 12 other papers.

The three sources mentioned above do present as non-trivial mentions of the proposed article topic, which clears the threshold of significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV), whereby “no original research is needed to extract the content” (WP:NOR).

While a topic “does not need to have ongoing coverage” (WP:NTEMP), it is worth noting that “sustained coverage is an indicator of notability” (WP:SUSTAINED). In the case of the proposed topic, the information sources referenced within the article range from 2019 through 2025 and include primary, secondary and tertiary sources (WP:INDY).

While only 3 out of 40 references are covered in this response, they would seem to suggest that the proposed article has received significant coverage for a sustained period of time through in-depth, reliable, secondary, and independent criteria sources. The proposed article's reference list contains first-party, second-party, and third-party information sources.

@S0091 if it is still believed the references "do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article", this is a kind request to provide more detail on the rationale with specific examples if possible Bwg21 (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Open Process Automation™ Forum

Hello, Bwg21. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Open Process Automation™ Forum, 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) 19:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Open Process Automation™ Forum

Hello, Bwg21. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Open Process Automation™ Forum".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about FieldComm Group

Hello Bwg21, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, FieldComm Group, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FieldComm Group.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|TheTechie}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Open Process Automation Standard

Hello, Bwg21. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Open Process Automation Standard, 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) 15:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]