User talk:Colinrhammond

March 2018[edit]

Hello, I'm Rhododendrites. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Cost estimation in software engineering have been undone because they 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. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Hulmem. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Software development effort estimation, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. hulmem (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019[edit]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. [1] MrOllie (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Colinrhammond. 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, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must 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 WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019[edit]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Test automation does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest[edit]

What is it about the conflict of interest guidelines that you three do not understand? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019[edit]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Requirements analysis. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Software requirements. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. DVdm (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The activity of requirements analysis has now been significantly automated by our tool ScopeMaster, yes I have a COI, so I am not permitted to contribute myself. But this page is out of date and lacks credibility, I'd be grateful if someone would contribute or sanction a contribution that the world has moved on from whiteboards. ScopeMaster analyses software requirements for 10 different category of attribute (five types of ambiguity, duplication, completeness, measurability, consistency, user-orientedness and traceability to business value. It would be a shame if Wikipedia does not move with the times.

Your submission at Articles for creation: ScopeMaster (November 22)[edit]

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 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:ScopeMaster 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) 16:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Theroadislong for reviewing my article on ScopeMaster. I have attempted to neutralise the language, do you have any specific suggestions or recommendations? Colinrhammond (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Colinrhammond: Please find something else to write about, beyond subjects you have a vested interest in. If indeed ScopeMaster is an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia, someone else will write about it given time. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Curb Safe Charmer. Whilst I do have a vested interest, at least my contributed content is accurate. Is it worthy of an encyclopaedia entry, well, it is the world's first commercial requirements analyser. It's also the world's first product that automates software sizing (a hitherto unsolved problem) so we think it is noteworthy, important and academically scrutinised. Colinrhammond (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Colinrhammond! 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! Theroadislong (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:ScopeMaster has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:ScopeMaster. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: ScopeMaster (November 22)[edit]

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

voorts (talk/contributions) 18:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing my Draft @Voorts I made many changes to neutralise the article since the previous review. The person on the help chat encourage me to focus on reviews and citations, which I did. I am starting to run out of ideas to "neutralise" it further. Do you have any specific suggestions that I can follow to make it more acceptable? Colinrhammond (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per my comment on your draft, the your content is what we might expect to see on your own website, Wikipedia however is not interested in that, we need to see what reliable, independent sources have chosen to say about the topic NOT what you want to say. Theroadislong (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit was chastized at Teahouse for submitting your draft. David notMD (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: ScopeMaster (November 23)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Curb Safe Charmer were:

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.

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:ScopeMaster 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.

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback and guidance. I will continue to collect and insert more in-depth, authoratative, secondary sources and resubmit. I appreciate the guidance. Colinrhammond (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: ScopeMaster (December 25)[edit]

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

Lewcm Talk to me! 00:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]