User talk:Nunesdea

Please do not use the hangon tag--it automatically nominates it for deletion which is not your intent; As reviewing administrator, I added the proper tag., underconstruction.

However, the tone of the article is indeed like a PR release,. Do not use unsupported adjectives of praise, and do not take the opportunity to insert promotion for non-notable companies and organizations. On the basis of what I see in Google scholar, I think the normal term is collaborative working systems, and I have changed the title of the article accordingly. I hope the earlier title was not chosen because it matched the name of one of the companies. I very strongly suggest merging the page with Collaborative working environment, and I have so tagged it. I am not convinced there is any difference between them, although you repeat the same phrases many times, certainly not enough to support a separate article. C.w.e. seems to be by far the most used term in this field., so the merge should probably go in that direction--there would be a cross ref from the other, and you could try to explain the differences in he article. For fuerther information, please see our FAQ about businesses, organizations, and articles like this. DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the proper tag. The content of the article is based on the notion of a Collaborative Work Systems which is described in the literature as such. I have no objection to changing the name to Collaborative working system if that is within the Google scholar literature review however I did made two searches one for each proposed designation and indeed I notice the term "collaborative work" is much more consistent accross the literature so I propose to stick to the original name "collaborative work systems". As for the proposed merge with "Collaborative Working Environments" that is precisely the reason I have wrote this article in the first place: both notions are different. A "collaborative working environment" is a concept that emereges from a different research point of view, centered in the individual work of professionals that become e-professionals because they perform their work (e-work) within a networked environment, using not only collaborative software, but also videoconferencing systems which are not necessarily software-based. The concept of a collaborative work system on the other hand, is related to the organizational context of the work that occurs whenever two or more individuals collaborate for a given purpose. So the focus is not on the type of computer support to that work, but instead to the non-computer variables that affect that quality of work. It is important that one reads Beyond Teams, to see the difference on perspectives. Also, one needs to admit that a whole series of books dedicated to "Collaborative Work Systems" is sufficiently worth of having such a concept explained in wikipedia, independent of other related notions. Nunesdea (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than starting a new section, the proper way to reply to a statement in a Talk page (whether it is a User talk page or an Article discussion page) is to indent your reply within the same section. See Wikipedia:Talk page#Indentation for examples. — Wdfarmer (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Nunesdea (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good reason Soft systems methodology was full of buzzwords, unsupported statements, and lack of proper context: the entire contents of the article were blatantly copied from copyrighted sources, in conflict with Wikipedia policy. I've reverted the article to the last version that didn't obviously contain copyright-violating material - that of 24 March 2010. —Swpb^talk 14:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

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:Groupvision and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• 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 get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Prymshbmg (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Nunesdea, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about 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! Prymshbmg (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

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:Groupvision and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• 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 get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Groupvision, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. 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) 01:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nunesdea. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Groupvision".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation 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}} 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. JMHamo (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Manuel pais clemente, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 17:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

This submission appears to be taken from http://www.societaitalianarinologia.it/home/index.php/chi-siamo/membri-corrispondenti/prof-manuel-pais-clemente. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Manuel pais clemente may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]