User talk:Paul Handri

Your submission at Articles for creation: Vibease (May 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 Sulfurboy was:

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:Vibease and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Vibease, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Vibease Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sulfurboy&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Vibease reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 09:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
Hello Paul Handri. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:Vibease, 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

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:Paul Handri. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. 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. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for disclosing your paid editing status. On your user page, you claimed "I worked for Vibease since August 2018" are you sure you weren't hired through Upwork? GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 06:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi user:GSS, I work for the company. I can provide my company email address (@vibease.com) if it's required.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Vibease (May 11)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by GSS was:

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:Vibease and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Vibease, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Vibease Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GSS&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Vibease reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 11:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Do not resubmit unless you can add reliable-source references. This may just be WP:TOOSOON. You can leave the draft unsubmitted for up to six months while waiting to see if more write-ups occur. Or decide to give up, and ask that draft be deleted. There is also a possibility that an editor may be of the opinion that the draft as it exists is primarily promotional in nature and nominate it for Speedy deletion, in which case an administrator will look at it and decide. A small suggestion: delete the list of vibrator models. If the article is about the company there can be a description of the types of smart vibrators being produced without brand names. The description would need to be referenced to an independent, i.e., not company, not press-release derived, publication. David notMD (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Vibease


A tag has been placed on Draft:Vibease, 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 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. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 05:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You set me up. At first you said, "they do not show significant coverage". After I added other coverage. You said I'm doing advertising.

I demand a review from other admins. I feel you have have a personal issue with a vibrator. My pages has more coverage from top media compare to other vibrator company in the Wikipedia.


 * : : guys please help me here. I'm trying to fix my article. But GSS is being unreasonable. I believe Vibease deserved a page in Wikipedia because VIbease is the first company to produce smart vibrator. Please check all the references.


 * Of course the draft is unambiguously promotional and you are only here to promote the product plus its not clear whether you are creating a page for the company or the product. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 07:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Most company pages in Wikipedia can be categorized as promotional. Show me the company pages that is not promotional. It's very subjective.

If you disagree the way I write it, ok, I can accept your comments. I'm new, this is my first time write a page. But you are being unreasonable. I currently getting help from Wikipedia livechat, making edit based on their suggestions And suddenly you want to delete my page? You don't even give a me suggestion on how to fix it. The company name and the product name is the same. If this is your problem, you should not delete the whole page. That is unprofessional.

May 2020
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Draft:Vibease. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 06:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Draft talk:Vivease, you may be blocked from editing. Understand something. Wikimedia is a 501c3 charity. Wikipedia editors are volunteering to be here. All of us. Even the administrators. The only one behaving unprofessionally is you, as you are EXPECTING we should DONATE our time to make you money. At best, that's ignorant. At worst, it's immoral and akin to theft. John from Idegon (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I apologized for my unprofessional act. I'm new. I don't intend to make money out of wiki and take advantage from the voluenter. I just want to state the facts.

I'm being reasonable in the beginning, but after intention to delete my hard work page without a reasonable explanation made me frustrated.

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png located above the edit window.

Thank you. David Biddulph (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Thank you. Understood. Paul Handri (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2020

Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. That doesn't mean you can write what you like, you must follow the guidance below:


 * you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, logs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company or organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls
 * The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:
 * significant coverage in
 * independent,
 * multiple,
 * reliable,
 * secondary sources.
 * Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability.


 * You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.
 * There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
 * You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  10:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know who deleted my page. I think it's unfair since we are still talking about it. If you deleted my page please let me know.

Hi Before creating the page, I have done some research. I was referring to startup pages, which turned out to contain "promotional" content. I learned my lesson. I removed it based on the suggestion. All the references included in the page from independent top media. I'm confused when I was told that said my references are not from an independent third party. There is no specific pointer for page except if I make a mistake. I will be deleted.

If I'm not allowed to create a page due to high requirements and I'm not allowed to hire someone else. Who can create a page then? Paul Handri (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Vibease
Hi Paul. I can't offer much help, but I thought I'd try and work through the situation. The previous Vibease articles were created by banned editors - it is one of the problems of working through Upwork, as many (and probably most) of those who take those jobs have been banned from Wikipedia, and I find it frustrating that they continue to edit Wikipedia for clients seemingly without explaining this. Under policy, we are expected to remove contributions by banned editors. That tends to poison the well and makes things difficult for later editors to create the same article, as we can't be sure if it is the banned editor trying to finish the job, another paid editor who is - in all liklihood - banned, or a genuine third party. I understand that this isn't the case with you, and that you are not being directly paid for your edits, but it might give some context.

Over time, Wikipedia's expectations for articles has been refined. It is necessary to prevent the project from being overwhelmed with fluff pieces pushing people and products. As a result, what we're looking for now is something "encyclopedic". I kind-of hate that term, as I'm always at a bit of a loss as to what that means, but in essence it requires that we add more than just a product or company description, and that there are sources that we can pull on that offer the information we need to create that article. Vibease, I think, gets close to having enough, but the question for the community is whether or not there is enough to reach the bar. I'll look around and see if I can find anything, but so far what I'm finding is what I would expect from a good company like Vibease: positive mentions in online news and a couple of reviews, and one brief negative pice regarding security. Not enough in itself, especially as a lot of the sites I'm seeing are known for accepting paid-for content (I'm not saying that it ever happened, but those sites tend to be considered insufficient to support an article on those grounds). What you need is solid coverage - the Indepenent and Wired articles are a start along those lines, so I'm hoping that there is more. However, even if tehre is, it will take a fair bit to get to a point where an article becomes viable. - Bilby (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi someone has deleted my page. All the references included in the page from independent top media. I'm confused when I was told that said my references are not from an independent third party. It's very subjective when you said the sites accepting paid-for content. These reputable media required to put an "advertorial" label if the write a paid content. In general, a startup won't be able to get coverage from the New York Times. Plus our adult nature products, we faced discriminations newspaper to even open a bank account. We are very lucky to be able to get so many coverages. Yet it didn't meet wiki requirements. I put all the old coverage because we want to claim that we are the first to create such technology.

If I'm not allowed to create a page due to high requirements and I'm not allowed to hire someone else. Who can create a page then? Can I re-submit the page?

Paul Handri (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks first to for comments below. Although it's discouraged, you can write about your company since you have declared your COI, although if a satisfactory version emerges, you should not move it to article space yourself. There is a pattern to company-written articles bit of history... what we sell... awards and achievements (although never any criticism). Some of your sources may be a bit too reliant on company spokespeople, but more to the point you tell us nothing about the company itself. It appears to have no employees, sales, turnover or profits, and even its headquarters aren't mentioned in the main text. Under increasingly strict guidelines, to have a chance of this getting accepted, you must have a more rounded article than what amounts to "we sell vibrators" Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  12:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

so with that additional information I can create the page? We do have some coverage on the sales, but isn't that more self-promoting? I started with the most important info about the company. So I find all the information required is subjective. And the requirement for me is getting harder.

Do you know who deleted my page?

I know not supposed to compare, but most of the competitor pages on Wikipedia are created by upwork freelancers. With little information and references. To be fair, can I ask for deletion?

Paul Handri (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm working my way through the page. I think straight deletion while still in discussion is very harsh. Given that the requirements are so high.

These are additional references. Good Vibrations: This S'pore Company Has Made Over US$2M Worldwide Selling Adult Toys https://vulcanpost.com/663937/vibease-adult-toys-singapore/ This is neutral coverage of about patent troll https://www.fastcompany.com/3049036/how-a-sex-toy-vs-patent-troll-war-could-affect-your-kickstarter Paul Handri (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Deleted draft content Paul Handri (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You can use the company website for uncontroversial material like its location and number of employees, and you can use the company's published annual reports or similar as a source for financial data and sales, if they aren't reported elsewhere. You asked above if you can nominate other articles for deletion, any editor can do that, but don't go berserk or it might look as if you're trying to take out your competitors. Jimfbleak - talk to me?  15:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Stripped out text restored Jimfbleak - talk to me?  10:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the draft. I will get more feedback before submitting for a review. Paul Handri (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)