User talk:Curious curious7

This is Curious curious7'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: FS Group (September 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nagol0929 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:FS Group 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.

Nagol0929 (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Curious curious7! 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! Nagol0929 (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for the consideration.

I respectfully request you re-check the page that has removed links with company's articles.

Please re-check and advice whether current format is suitable, if so please approve it.

Thank you. Curious curious7 (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. 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:FS Group 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.

Curious curious7 (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: FS Group (September 14)

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

-- NotCharizard ^🗨 15:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for consideration.

I have changed the article maintaining a neutral tone.

Please review it again.

Thank you. Curious curious7 (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. 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:FS Group 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.

Curious curious7 (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Hello Curious curious7. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:FS Group, 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:Curious curious7. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Curious curious7|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. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I appreciate your detailed explanation, and I have thoroughly reviewed the Wikipedia guidelines referring to mandatory disclosure. Given that I am a paid editor, I would like to understand the subsequent steps required for compliance. Specifically, I am interested in learning how to incorporate this necessary information into my profile and whether doing so will enhance my chances of gaining approval for the existing draft. It's important to note that I have refrained from including any content related to sales, advertising products, or similar promotional materials in the draft. Instead, I have focused solely on our collaborations with government or private entities, providing a list of products without detailed descriptions, and offering general information about the establishment, including its founding date and origin city.

However, I find myself struggling to navigate Wikipedia's content filters effectively, and I would greatly appreciate your guidance on what specific elements I should consider removing from the current draft to ensure its successful publication.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Curious curious7 (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The next step, by which I mean quite literally your next edit, should be to place on your user page a paid-editing disclosure using the {{paid}} template, as explained in the last paragraph of the above message.

This does not, as such, increase your chances of getting your drafts accepted, as the draft will be held to the same standard regardless of who has written it. But if you do not disclose something that you should, that will count against you and may get you blocked, even, as the community takes a very dim view of undisclosed paid editing. And that would then probably decrease the chances of getting the draft accepted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: FS Group (October 6)

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:FS Group 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) 18:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please review the article again.

I have refrained from including any content related to sales, advertising products, or similar promotional materials in the draft. Instead, I have focused solely on our collaborations with government or private entities, providing a list of services without detailed descriptions, and offering general information about the establishment, including its founding date and origin city.

However, I find myself struggling to navigate Wikipedia's content filters effectively, and I would greatly appreciate your guidance on what specific elements I should consider removing from the current draft to ensure its successful publication.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Curious curious7 (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curious curious7 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 the submission 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.

Curious curious7 (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:FS Group has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:FS Group. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: FS Group (October 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:

Many of these are 404 links.

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:FS Group 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) 19:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have made significant revisions, including fixing non-working links and adding more references to substantiate the existing information. I kindly request you to review the updated content and provide specific feedback in case there are any lingering concerns that may lead to a rejection of my submission.

This marks my fifth resubmission, and I must admit that I am somewhat frustrated by the moderation process. I was informed that my article resembled an advertisement. However, I have diligently strived to maintain a neutral tone throughout my content, even going so far as to compare it to articles from other companies, such as the one on SoftServe - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoftServe. In my view, my submission is less promotional in nature compared to the example provided.

Waiting for your reply. Curious curious7 (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to comprehend how to substantiate the clients we collaborate with when the sole sources of such information are limited to LinkedIn or Upwork. Should I present you with contractual agreements? There exists no alternative corroborating evidence. Nevertheless, I have temporarily excluded such references from our sources. In regard to the term "blog," I seek clarification. Many articles originate from reputable sources such as Forbes and news magazines, which, in my perspective, do not qualify as blogs. Furthermore, I have conducted a thorough examination of the sources for the article on SoftServe and observed that you did not express concern regarding their inclusion of Forbes articles as references (such as this link: http://forbes.net.ua/opinions/1341801-ukraina-imeet-vse-shansy-prevratitsya-iz-it-kolonii-v-metropoliyu, which, incidentally, returns a 404 error). Additionally, I noticed references to news in technology blogs, such as this one: https://technews.bg/article-74099.html#.VMk_sC70eXc. Consequently, I seek clarification on your objections. It appears that you are creating impediments to the approval of my article by citing numerous reasons for rejection, while allowing similar practices for other contributors in your community. Curious curious7 (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:FS Group has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:FS Group. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to comprehend how to substantiate the clients we collaborate with when the sole sources of such information are limited to LinkedIn or Upwork. Should I present you with contractual agreements? There exists no alternative corroborating evidence. Nevertheless, I have temporarily excluded such references from our sources. In regard to the term "blog," I seek clarification. Many articles originate from reputable sources such as Forbes and news magazines, which, in my perspective, do not qualify as blogs. Furthermore, I have conducted a thorough examination of the sources for the article on SoftServe and observed that you did not express concern regarding their inclusion of Forbes articles as references (such as this link: http://forbes.net.ua/opinions/1341801-ukraina-imeet-vse-shansy-prevratitsya-iz-it-kolonii-v-metropoliyu, which, incidentally, returns a 404 error). Additionally, I noticed references to news in technology blogs, such as this one: https://technews.bg/article-74099.html#.VMk_sC70eXc. Consequently, I seek clarification on your objections. It appears that you are creating impediments to the approval of my article by citing numerous reasons for rejection, while allowing similar practices for other contributors in your community. Curious curious7 (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If independent reliable sources don't mention your clients, then Wikipedia has no interest in them. Articles are based on what reliable independent sources have reported. You are just trying to promote your business here and you will NOT succeed. Theroadislong (talk) 08:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And see other poor quality articles exist, Just because SoftServe uses poor sources, is not an excuse for you to do the same, that article probably needs improvement. Theroadislong (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must consult additional articles to understand the reasons behind my article's failure to meet the standards. A comprehensive comparison is necessary. I have completely eliminated any mention of our partnerships because I am unsure how to articulate them without appearing promotional. However, it's important to note that as a company, we obviously engage in collaborations with individuals and partners whom we serve. This is a commonplace piece of information, as is presented on Wikipedia pages of other companies like Ciklum, GlobalLogic, and EPAM Systems:

Ciklum - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciklum

GlobalLogic - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlobalLogic

EPAM Systems - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPAM_Systems

Nonetheless, I have removed all references to our clients. Does this rectify the issue? Curious curious7 (talk) 08:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, did you have a chance to read my last comment, any updates here?

Thank you. Curious curious7 (talk) 06:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you " must consult additional articles" please consult good ones, the three you mention above all have tagged problems including undisclosed paid editing and conflicts of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment, "Wikipedia exhibits no interest in routine recent events." - I'm getting the impression Wikipedia is not interested in anything. Events such as TechExpo do not qualify as routine occurrences. Furthermore, concerning your statement about good and bad articles wishing me to refer to good ones, one question - how is it possible that bad are posted at all?

I examined the Apple article (good one) and observed that it contains an abundance of information concerning marketing, conferences, and what could be considered "routine events." Does this imply that the Apple article falls under the category of "bad"?

Examples of adhering to a "neutral point of view," "devoid of advertising and marketing bias", include:

"From the introduction of the Macintosh in 1984, with the 1984 Super Bowl advertisement to the more modern Get a Mac adverts, Apple has been recognized for its efforts towards effective advertising and marketing for its products."

"Apple has a notable pro-privacy stance, actively making privacy-conscious features and settings part of its conferences, promotional campaigns, and public image"

"Apple also offers a broad line of services that it earns revenue on, including advertising in the App Store and Apple News app, the AppleCare+ extended warranty plan, the iCloud+ cloud-based data storage service, payment services through the Apple Card credit card and the Apple Pay processing platform, a digital content services including Apple Books, Apple Fitness+, Apple Music, Apple News+, Apple TV+, and the iTunes Store.

As of the end of 2021, services comprise about 19% of the company's revenue. Many of the services have been launched as of 2019 when Apple announced it would be making a concerted effort to expand its service revenues."

Nevertheless, I would still like to clarify, what is the problem with adding info about participating conferences? Curious curious7 (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you used for the recent events were primary, we have no interest in those, they merely verify the attendance, for the content to be included it would need to be supported by independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: FS Group (October 17)

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

The sources cited are primary, passing mentions, WP:FORBESCON pieces, and a few things where representatives of the company are commenting on something. Not only do these not demonstrate notability per WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT, there is also nothing of encyclopaedic value here, and no obvious assertion of noteworthiness, meaning this would be a prime candidate for A7 speedy deletion if published.

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:FS Group 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I have have removed articles sourced from Forbes and blogs, subsequently substituting them with more reliable, independent sources such as Cisco, worldwide conference pages, and similar reputable references. I kindly request a thorough review of these modifications to ascertain their compliance with Wikipedia's stringent content standards.

Thank you. Curious curious7 (talk) 08:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: FS Group (October 18)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: The sources seem to be getting worse, not better (events are primary sources and completely useless in establishing notability per WP:GNG), and there is still no sign of notability or noteworthiness. In light of this, and the previous five declines, I can only conclude that better sources are not available, and that the subject is therefore inherently non-notable. To avoid further reviewer time being expended on this, I am rejecting the draft at this time.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:FS Group

Hello, Curious curious7. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "FS Group".

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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 03:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]