User talk:Angelswithwings

This is Angelswithwings's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: OneFriends (August 8)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of websites). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

WP:PRSOURCEs are not reliable.

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:OneFriends 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.

Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 12:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Angelswithwings! 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! Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 12:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Angelswithwings. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page OneFriends, 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 {{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. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 12:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

Hello Angelswithwings. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Angelswithwings. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Angelswithwings|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot, no paid editing. I support the company though, having researched it, but have tried to be as objective as possible in writing for an encyclopaedia. I think I might just delete the article if this is how Wikipedia works behind the scenes. I've read countless article which have sources that literally use the company's own website or have little referencing at all. The company that is the subject of the article to me can satisfy the criteria set out in: Wikipedia:Notability Especially since as quoting below, "notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame...":

Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.

I won't resubmit if this is not accepted, have already spent too much time for something like this. Angelswithwings (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd like to point out that simply because something has a positive intonation, does not mean it is biased, it could still be completely factually true and objective. For example, if I was to write "Rolls Royce is a high-end car company" or that "Norway ranks top 10 in the world for GDP per capita" those are sentences with a positive intonation/meaning, but they are completely factual and true; and thus can't just be deemed to be "advertising" so simply and with immediate prejudice. Similarly here the OneFriends article was factual and true. Angelswithwings (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's insufficient for an article to be "factual and true". Wikipedia must have a neutral point of view and summarize what independent reliable sources state. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about something and what it does. It's neutral to say "Norway is in the top 10 of GDP per capita" if that's what sources say, it isn't neutral to make that claim if independent sources do not.

As I said below, other problematic articles existing does not justify more problematic articles. Each is considered on their own merits. Please identify any articles you see that do not meet guidelines. 331dot (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I agree with the neutral point of view need, all that was written in the article summarizes what the independent sources state - many of them explicitly mentioned how the company's app has a "high-end" design; many of them explicitly stated that the app had ranked/trended top 3 on the app store charts; many of them state in much stronger supportive voice how the app improves friendships. The article I had written simply summarized those points of view and even dialed down the positive undertones - you can read the articles yourself. There are also now numerous writers publishing about OneFriends (in addition to their growing users worldwide), which is why I think the notability criteria is satisfied, plus friendship is an important human sociological endeavor so relevant to an encyclopaedia. Angelswithwings (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see other stuff exists. The existence of other articles is not relevant- it could be that these other articles are inappropriate and simply not addressed yet. If you would like to help us, you are welcome to identify any articles you feel do not meet our guidelines so action can be taken. We need the help. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:OneFriends

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 Draft:OneFriends, 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, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. VViking_TalkEdits 13:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: OneFriends (August 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 CNMall41 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

References fail WP:ORGCRIT.

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:OneFriends 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.

CNMall41 (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: OneFriends (October 19)

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

––– GMH MELBOURNE 08:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: OneFriends (November 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiOriginal-9 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Very very close but not quite enough independent, significant coverage

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:OneFriends 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.

WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: OneFriends has been accepted

OneFriends, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of OneFriends for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article OneFriends 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/OneFriends 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 until the discussion has finished.

CNMall41 (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF

As you are new here, I wanted to give you the opportunity to continue editing and not report your actions at the deletion discussion and on the page for OneFriends. First and foremost, you cast quite a few WP:ASPERSIONS. If you believe that I have done something in violation of community guidelines, please report those actions at WP:ANI where it can be viewed by the community and sanctions issued if necessary. Everyone here is subject to sanctions and I am no exception. I would ask that you redact your accusations in the deletion discussion and stick to only policy reasons why the page should be kept. Specifically, point out the references that meet WP:ORGCRIT so that an admin reviewing the discussion can weigh your argument against others. Finally, do not move or remove deletion discussion notices. These will be done by the administrator who closes the discussion. CNMall41 (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the reply already given in the discussions page, copied below also. Have a nice day.

Yes, the points above are focused on policy - that a review of the article in its current form (less the edits you made) had been satisfied and approved by a very experienced Master Editor less than 24 hours ago. The notability of the subject of the article had been established in multiple sources (as mentioned above, Bloomberg, Yahoo Finance, many news publications which all speak in depth with significant coverage on the specific topic of the article, and not just passing mentions). The article is written with neutral tone and rigorously referenced to improve its quality. The rationale for the use of a larger number of sources has also been patiently explained above, please refer to paragraph 3. The initial catalyst it seems for your actions related to the Vents site has also been explained in some detail - that it is not conclusive that that source is not reliable, and that it could still be reliable, yet nonetheless it was only used to reference a almost self-evident minor point in the article anyway. I'm happy to accept your deletion of that particular reference if you so insist (good faith), but definitely oppose any attempt to delete the article.

Thank you for understanding the frustration felt - since quite a lot of effort has gone into researching and making this a good quality Wikipedia article that covers a worthwhile topic (one that's probably going to be even more so over time). If you have time I'd suggest simply clicking "news" or "Google" at the top of the page in the Find Sources section and having a thorough read of those many sources which appear in addition to those already cited in the article that have been found. Please respect the work of others and refrain from actions which irreversibly and immoderately erase that, especially without having first become very well informed - this should prevent acting with prejudice and achieving a fair outcome :)

I am new to making edits but have read Wikipedia for decades and have also supported the project when requested to. Thank you.

Angelswithwings (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand a lot but it is what it is. Being approved by a "very experienced Master Editor" does not mean that someone cannot recommend it for deletion. I am not going to go through the WP:WALLOFTEXT you previously posted so if you can point out the SPECIFIC REFERENCES that establish notability I would be happy to review them. As far as Vents, you say it is not conclusion that the source is not reliable. That is also a misunderstanding as there have been three noticeboard discussions about it and approximately 500 of the references from Vents were recently removed from Wikipedia as a result. As far as your comment - "should prevent acting with prejudice" - that is yet another ASPERSION despite my talk page message to you. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read and better familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia notability guidelines I'd say: Wikipedia:Notability. And then learn how to apply the guidelines when looking at sources - this will help your work. Angelswithwings (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning on your lack of WP:CIVILity. I wanted to allow you to continue so you could participate in the deletion discussion, but if you keep on in the manner I will have no choice but to report your contact to administrators. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Greetings of the day, we have made a page by getting notability websites , since the organization was formed in 2007, there are many offline news, still page was created, unfortunately it as marked for afd could you review once smiley children society — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAJaganaddamRJY (talk • contribs) 11:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]