Markvonrosing
Welcome!
Hello, Markvonrosing, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Business Architecture - Building Blocks, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.
You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you.
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 {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Starting an article
- Your first article
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
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:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Acroterion (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Business Architecture - Building Blocks
edit
A tag has been placed on Business Architecture - Building Blocks, 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, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Acroterion (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- This was effectively advertising for the company to which it linked. There may be a neutrally-written, non-promotional encyclopedia article in there, but it will need to be re-written. Acroterion (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
edit
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Business Competency Framework.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk or via live help
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
edit
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Value Model.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk or via live help
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Advice
editI think I need to give you some very specific and also some more general advice about your articles. I recognize your subject expertise, but nonetheless, Wikipedia has its own conventions and methods, as expressed un our policies and guidelines and common practices. Of all the admins in Wikipedia, I am perhaps one of the most sympathetic to the need for articles on business processes. Like many here, I have some background of my own in information science, and feel a little more comfortable evaluating articles relating to business information systems than in business generally. I think that some of the articles you are working on are very far out from what we usually do here. I will defend articles on such topics--I have defended many,sometimes with success--but I will not defend articles written in the way you have been doing.
In the real world, this subject area had many overlapping concepts, but encyclopedia articles need to be distinct and to clarify them. It is not usually a good idea to write extensive articles on very closely related concepts of this sort, but to pick the most usual terminology, write a comprehensive article on it, and then make redirects from alternatives and near synonyms, explaining the use of the near synonyms in the article. If they really are distinct enough for separate articles, the articles must explain in the beginning the distinctions between the different terms. or they will be confusing. What most people do with confusing articles, if they cannot readily fix them, is nominate them for deletion, and who can blame them?
In the real world, this subject area uses extensive jargon. Some of it is necessary when there is no other exact way to write about something, but most of the time it is not. Jargon that is commonly used should be explained in an article, but it should be explained as much as possible in ordinary English. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia for general readers. We can & should cover specialized topics, but when we do so, we cover them in such a way as to actually explain them to the general reader. additionally, some people here really hate this sort of jargon, and are very apt to nominate articles written in it for deletion--and I do not blame them either!
In the real world, much discussion of these topics is somewhat didactic, explaining things many times over. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia , not a textbook. Encyclopedic writing is concise: the articles should be relative short and straightforward, saying what is necessary, not saying things many times over. Encyclopedic writing is also straight-forward, not using rhetoric. Sentences should be worded as simply as possible, without unnecessary introductory phrases and qualifiers.Almost half of our readers have other native languages than English, and Wikipedia is written to accommodate them also. (And the English Wikipedia articles are often used as the basis for translation into other languages, which requires exceptional clarity; rhetorical wording does not translate well.
Wikipedia is written in English, not in Powerpoint. We use diagrams when they clarify, not just when they decorate. The diagrams must be readable, including on low resolution and small size monitors. Using a diagram or a table to present text is almost never justified. a table should be used to present data, a diagram to show relationships that are hard to present clearly in words alone. Excessive diagrams are a hallmark of textbook style, not encyclopedias. Outline or list style is used only where necessary: normally prose is better, except when a mere list gives adequate information. An encyclopedia article is not a class presentation.
Four points of style: We make appropriate internal links within an article, and do this in preference to see alsos. Wikipedia is hypertext, and see also links are really needed only when they cannot be worked into the text of an article. We also avoid internal capitals. "Customer Relationship" should be written "customer relationship" or, at the beginning of a sentence, "Customer relationship". (We also avoid italics for concepts, unless it is essential for clarity.) We avoid unnecessary adjectives: " an enterprise can easily describe their business model" should not have the "easily". Terms that have multiple meanings need to be specified. " architecture" needs to be written "computer architecture" or whatever the specific meaning is. .
The article Business Model Canvas relies much too heavily on sources you yourself have written. If it is notable, others will have written on it also. Do not add references to your own papers or books. Let others add them if they think them relevant. At the very least, make certain you have excellent references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources. Otherwise, how can anyone tell if it is just you who think it's important? (for published papers, citation figures are helpful)
I moved the article Business Architecture – Building Blocks to Building blocks (enterprise architecture), which is I think your meaning. I do not think business architecture can be discriminated from enterprise architecture, and this is the usual way we qualify terms.
And there's one further point. Your user page is excessively promotional. It's appropriate to have biographic information in a user page, but not purely promotional puffery , such as "Mark von Rosing is a highly dedicated and passionate leading figure in the following research areas:" The best thing would be to give this page some careful editing yourself, or I will be faced with the choice between either editing it myself, or listing it for deletion.
I think the best course is for you to rewrite them more in accord with our expectations. Otherwise, I shall try to rewrite them myself, to prevent the otherwise very likely deletion of the articles, and I am sure you can do a better job than I. Please understand that I would not write in such detail except that we very much need articles on these subjects, and I appreciate the work you have put into them.
Your submission at Articles for creation
edit
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Competitive Forces.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk or via live help
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
October 2012
edit
Hello, Markvonrosing. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Building blocks (enterprise architecture) for deletion
edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Building blocks (enterprise architecture) 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/Building blocks (enterprise architecture) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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 template from the top of the article. MrOllie (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Blocked
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. It has become evident that your account is only being used to promote your own works and those of Mr. Von Scheel. Please see also the report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hscheel. De728631 (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Markvonrosing (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I can't understand why this article Building blocks (enterprise architecture) has been deleted. Last year did we rework it from Business Architecture Building blocks. There is absolutely no advertising or promotion in it. What is it you would want me to change? As to Mr. Von Scheel, I do not promote or advertise for him in any way, we have worked on 2 book projects together and that is it. That book is a best seller, but 3 other authors were part of that book as well. Markvonrosing (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It looks like you've been using multiple accounts to add information about a specific person to Wikipedia. Your unblock request doesn't indicate that, if unblocked, you would do anything different than you've done in the past, so an unblock wouldn't be appropriate- someone will notice this pattern and block you again, even if I unblock you. Consider the possibility that, even if you write in the most neutral way possible, if your main interest in Wikipedia is to make sure that your own work and that of Mr. Von Scheel is in it, then you are probably not following the conflict of interest guidelines. If you decide to request unblock again, be sure to address the multiple accounts and what you will do differently if unblocked. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
As a university lecturer and researcher, I am not interested in promoting or advertise anything, besides the knowledge of the research, and I have already re-written and agreed on this subject with another Wiki editor in the past. Obviously, I will quote the right references (which there are much more in the meantime), however, I will make sure to not even mention or refer at all to Mr. von Scheel (even though I don't know why there seems to be an issue here). But I can guarantee that I will re-work the subjects that I've written about and also make sure to add more references.
Could you perhaps write a small, more easily-accessible bullet list of things that I need to pay attention to when re-writing the subjects? Anything that can help me better understand the procedures and guidelines for effective encyclopedia writing, thank you.
Also, one question for you. It has been interpreted as my work seems very self-promoting and advertising, which makes me wonder why an article such as Business Model Canvas also appears to be heavily promoting Mr. Osterwalder's person. I find it very difficult to see the difference between that article being encyclopedia correct, but mine is not?
Also, with regards to multiple accounts, its because I have one for myself as well (besides the one used as a representative for Mr. von Rosing. I can delete my own personal account, though, as I never really use it. Markvonrosing (talk) 09:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Markvonrosing (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As a university lecturer and researcher, I am not interested in promoting or advertise anything, besides the knowledge of the research, and I have already re-written and agreed on this subject with another Wiki editor in the past. Obviously, I will quote the right references (of which there are more at this point in time), however, I will make sure to not even mention or refer at all to Mr. von Scheel (even though I don't know why there seems to be an issue here).
But I can guarantee that I will re-work the subjects that I've written about and also make sure to add more references. Could you perhaps write a small, more easily-accessible bullet list of things that I need to pay attention to when re-writing the subjects? Anything that can help me better understand the procedures and guidelines for effective encyclopedia writing, thank you.
Also, one question for you. It has been interpreted as my work seems very self-promoting and advertising, which makes me wonder why an article such as Business Model Canvas also appears to be heavily promoting Mr. Osterwalder's person. I find it very difficult to see the difference between that article being encyclopedia correct, but mine is not?
Lastly, with regards to multiple accounts, its because I have one for myself as well (besides the one used as a representative for Mr. von Rosing). If you wish, we could perhaps delete my own personal account as I never really use it. I have tried looking around for a way to disable/delete my account, but haven't found a way around this yet.
In any way, if there's anything else you would like me to change, then I'll happily do so to comply with the Wikipedia ruleset and guidelines.
Thank you.
PS: It seems that using the unblock request feature is the only way of getting in touch with a moderator, so that's why I'm using it. I was unable to put this text unto FisherQueen's talk page.Markvonrosing (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You have your own personal account. Use it. If it's blocked, request an unblock there. There is no way this one will ever be unblocked now that you have essentially admitted that it impersonates another individual. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
First, why would you need to contact a moderator directly? As I am most certain you have researched how to request an unblock, you'll know that there's no need: your unblock is in the hands of the community at the moment. As a university lecturer, I'm certain also that you have taken the time to research Wikipedia before choosing to edit. Policies such as conflict of interest, the fact that promotion means more than promoting a product - it can mean promoting a person or their "concept", and the fact that the existence of a possibly similar article cannot justify other articles (most lecturers I know studied logic to some degree, so that fallacy should already be known to you). A few others include WP:SPA and WP:FIRSTARTICLE. Most importantly right now is WP:SOCK. You knew from when you first started using Wikipedia that you were not permitted to operate more than one account; period. Promising to close one of them (when there are multiple) now is pretty hollow: the creation of the first one was enough for you to lose the trust of the community (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Business Competency Framework, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Competitive Forces, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Value Model, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 05:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Your article submission Business Competency Framework
edit
Hello Markvonrosing. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Business Competency Framework.
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Business Competency Framework}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Your article submission Competitive Forces
edit Hello Markvonrosing. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Competitive Forces.
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Competitive Forces}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Your article submission Value Model
edit Hello Markvonrosing. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Value Model.
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Value Model}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:Markvonrosing
editUser:Markvonrosing, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Markvonrosing and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Markvonrosing during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
The file File:Why Who How.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Orphaned image, no context to determine possible future encyclopedic use.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
