User talk:TooBlueSkies

Promotional content found
Hello TooBlueSkies! i'm Banuja. I viewed you draft Draft:Angelsense and it contains promotional contain. Please read WP:NOT and WP:your first article before you create pages. thank you! B. N .D |  ✉  14:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC) Deletion of a draft can be done if it contains the symptons on WP:NOT. So please try creating it again without using any of the advertising content... that would be alot of help. Because this can be a great article. keep on trying! B. N .D |  ✉  17:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello . Drafts are not to be deleted under any circumstance if they haven't been submitted for review. Also, the page meets WP:GNG and any other relevant rules. I advise you read Wikipedia policy better before stalking and deleting people's drafts. TooBlueSkies (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Angelsense


A tag has been placed on Draft:Angelsense, 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. B. N .D |  ✉  15:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

COI
If you have a conflict of interest, you must declare it. If you work directly or indirectly for an organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. If you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, 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:. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:   . If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message.

Also read the following regarding writing an article
 * 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, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the 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.
 * 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.

For a new editor, if you really are, you seem to be quite confident about how to edit Wikipedia and what you think our policies are, but your reply to is incorrect in every respect.
 *  Drafts are not to be deleted under any circumstance if they haven't been submitted for review. is wrong. Spam and copyright violations can be deleted on sight
 *  Also, the page meets WP:GNG and any other relevant rules.. These notability guidelines are the relevant notability test, but in any case notability doesn't imply that that promotion is accepted
 * I advise you read Wikipedia policy better you have a handful of edits, heed your own warning
 *  before stalking and deleting people's drafts. Please be civil. tagging your articles is not stalking, and that editor has not and cannot delete your draft. I can.

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. You must also reply to the COI request above Jimfbleak - talk to me?  15:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, Jimfbleak From what I can see, what I said was correct. The post was not a copyright violation, nor was it spam (the last time it was posted was 2015!) so the draft would not meet Speedy deletion criteria. Secondly, it's an article about a company with sufficient sources to be deemed notable. The page is not meant to be promotional, and if the draft wasn't deleted straight out, I would have been able to add more informative information, such as controversy. I have no connection whatsoever to the company, so what do I stand to gain from promoting it? The language I used in the article was purposefully vague and didn't involve any descriptive adjectives, so as to avoid being "promotional". I want to know why this is considered "spam", why my draft was deleted before I could finish it, and why my sources aren't notable. Thank you. TooBlueSkies (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * To respond to the COI accusation, I am not, will not, and have not edited or created Wikipedia pages for monetary gain or for an outside source. All edits I make are for and by myself. TooBlueSkies (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Although you pinged me above, it didn't register on my alerts, I don't know why. Thank you for your COI comment, you will appreciate that many company/product articles are paid edits, so it's a question that has to be asked. Because I hadn't seen your posting to me when I wrote the above, it was just standard guidance rather than a direct response to your query, I wasn't suggesting that the text you posted was copyright.
 * The article was supposed to be about the company, but effectively you chose to write exclusively about what it sells. What you tell us about the company other than that is as follows: "AngelSense is an American technology company...". We don't know where it is in the US, how many employees it has, when it was founded, or what its profits or turnover are. For all you tell us it could be two men in a shed who started up last week.
 * I checked your references. The second (WKYC) gave an "access denied", and the NY Daily News also refused access. Of the rest, Autism Speaks gave some background to the wandering problem, which is fine, but the other refs seem to be reviews of the product rather than sources of information about the company. We aren't interested in reviewers' opinions of what they sell, just verifiable facts about the company. You also use sales speak The company offers..., when you presumably mean The company sells.... Since the draft told us nothing about the company but a lot about what they sell, complete with reviews, it seemed to be purely promotional, whether or not that was your intention.
 * There is nothing to stop you trying again, but a quick search suggests that it may be easier said than done to find meaningful inof about this company. Even its own website and company postings like Bloomberg give away little, let alone independent third-party sources Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey Jimfbleak, thanks for your response. I totally understand your point about paid editors in Wikipedia, especially in company pages. I'm relatively new to this and don't really know a lot about which words to avoid. However, I would also appreciate it if my page wasn't deleted while I'm in the middle of revising it. I hope that doesn't happen again. I also hope to add a section dedicated to "Controversy", addressing the privacy concerns of the tech. Hopefully, that will help to make it less advertise-y.

Again, thanks for your help! TooBlueSkies (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * While adding a "controversy" section might add a bit of balance, it doesn't really address the basic problem. As I've said, you haven't really written anything at all about the company that is supposedly the subject of the article, just about what it sells, with reviews of the product rather than proper refs supporting facts about the company. Without those, we can't see even see if it's actually notable enough for an article Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)