User talk:Griefie/sandbox

Question for administrator
Hi there,

the deletion of my ginlo article did hit me by a surprise. I feel a bit like a criminal now. I hope i have a chance to redeem myself though. The idea that i had with creating that page was to start an article about a really great messenger where me and other users of the app could slowly bring more knowledge and thus share it with the rest of the world. Therefore the initial version was let's say a bit thin on information. Would you please help me bring the page and this idea to live? It seems that others have managed to build pages for much more popular messengers, which clearly now hold a lot more information, I am sure that i will be able to do it as well. It would be really great and helpful, if You could tell me what to change in order for the page to not be understood as you deemed it to be. It is clearly not the goal.

Best

--~ Griefie (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has articles, not pages. Your draft article was blatant promotion and met the criteria for speedy deletion. Wikipedia is not a place to tell about something and what it does, only sourced to the app's website. A Wikipedia article must primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of notability. Please see Your First Article. Acceptable sources for this purpose do not include its own website, interviews, press releases, routine announcements, or other primary sources. What independent sources do you have?
 * If you are associated with this app, please read conflict of interest and paid editing. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply 331dot!

I really appreciate the pointers! This is indeed helpful and it shows me indeed the direction for much more preparation before I commit to writing a Wikipedia article! And I will do that, unfortunately then at a later time. But so be it.

I consider it indeed very helpful and am grateful for the provided direction!

Still I would like You to please read very carefully what I would like to give You as a feedback. Maybe this would help You foster much more efficient and professional collaborations in the future and also maybe even slightly increase the happiness in Your life and in the lives of your users.


 * Wikipedia very well has pages, on which it is presenting articles. Just as any other web application displaying articles. The relation between a page and an article is very much similar to a real newspaper or even a real encyclopaedia - "This newspaper has pages" is a correct statement as well as "This newspaper has articles" is. The page is the medium the article is the content or the art form. And I have never stated that Wikipedia does not have articles.
 * What the article was and what the article is convicted of being are two very different things. The article was not a blatant promotion as this was not the goal that it had. I wrote to You already what was the goal. Clearly the article did not follow the regulation/policies/etc. of Wikipedia and therefore it was meeting the criteria for speedy deletion and this is completely OK and I am sorry that I did not pay enough attention so this does not happen.
 * I am not associated with the company creating ginlo and by that also not paid to write this article. I provided the reason for creating the page and the article on it already, which I believe should not be a very surprising approach.
 * Taking these points into account I hope that it becomes evidently clear that quick judgement and prejudice is not a helpful and efficient way of communication and that education and basic personal touch generally help much more. I am grateful that Your response was a mixture of both and wish to You that You would be able to focus more on the latter in the future.

Final note, if the information from Your answer was already available as a comment on the nomination for speedy deletion, we would have saved some time altogether.

Thanks again! I hope to be able to return to writing the article soon enough and provide another draft for review!

Best Griefie (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I will just quickly say that we try to draw a distinction between articles and pages because people treat each differently, and it can alter mindsets. Many(especially COI editors) treat a page as something that they can put anything they wish on, when that's not what our articles are for. A page is any type of page on Wikipedia, while articles are the substance of the encyclopedia and serve to summarize independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In my years of experience most people whose first edit is a reasonably formatted drsft of a company have some sort of association with the company. They don't pick it at random to edit about. That's just how people behave. If you have no association, okay.
 * "Promotion" has a broader meaning on Wikipedia than elsewhere; Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something and what it does; you may not have intended to promote, but you did nevertheless. Articles should do as I described above. 331dot (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank You! I appreciate that You are taking the time! I believe I have more than enough information now to restart on the right foot, just need to find the time to do it :)!