User talk:Jackylovato

Welcome!

Hello, Jackylovato, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Blythwood (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbs article

Hello, thank you for writing this article! I have a few concerns about it and wanted to discuss them with you:

I’m a bit concerned that this company might not be notable enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article. That link goes to a guide, but basically any coverage of a company on here is supposed to be based on being covered in reliable sources, like newspapers, in the form of full articles and not just things like business listings.
A lot of it reads like a press release or promotional copy, not a factual encyclopaedia article.

Are there any extra citations you can add from reliable sources like news articles about this company demonstrating that it's notable? (Those are links to guides explaining this in more detail.) I'm concerned since the article may get deleted otherwise.

Also, since the article reads like you might be marketing the company, you might want to look at this, an automated text on editing if you have a conflict of interest. All the best, any questions just let me know and I'll try to help. Blythwood (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jackylovato. 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 COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Hello, Jacky. I can see that you have made an effort to improve the content of the Hobbs article since it was first deleted. However, you have not declared your conflict of interest, despite the previous warning. Please take another look at our policies and try to avoid editing this article in future. Deb (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Jacky. I don't know how much clearer I need to be about this. Please declare your interest on your user page and take great care before you even think about editing this particular article again.Deb (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for the feedback - I'm trying to figure out how to add my COI status but am struggling to be honest. Will figure it out. Jackylovato (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look here: WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE. Deb (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Daisy London (June 30)

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

The comment the reviewer left was:

Way too promotional. Remove all of the WEASEL words and FLOWERY language; words like "prominent," "big celebrity," etc. The references are decent, but the History section (and a few other paragraphs) are unreferenced.

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:Daisy London 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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Primefac (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Daisy London (July 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Delta13C was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Citations to not establish notability for an encyclopedia. Article reads like a promotional piece meant to drive sales rather than convey neutral information.

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:Daisy London 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 use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Delta13C (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Jackylovato, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Delta13C (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]