User talk:Anna.j.davis

This is Anna.j.davis'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.

Welcome!

Hi Anna.j.davis! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Oxford Sigma (August 25)

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

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.

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:

Plus the very promotional nature of this draft, I don’t see it passing WP:ORGCRIT yet.

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:Oxford Sigma 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.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anna.j.davis! 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! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Oxford Sigma (August 27)

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

Needs more sources with significant coverage.

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:Oxford Sigma 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.

'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hello Anna.j.davis. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:Oxford Sigma, 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 employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. 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 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 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:Anna.j.davis. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Anna.j.davis|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) 06:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @DoubleGrazing thank you for your reply and patience. I have provided a disclosure on my user page User:Anna.j.davis. Regarding submitting the article through the articles for creation process, I thought I had done this. At the top of this page, it says 'Your submission at Articles for creation: Oxford Sigma (August 25)'. Can you please advise? Anna.j.davis (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making the disclosure so promptly, this is appreciated.

Yes indeed, you have submitted your draft to AfC review. The above message is just a canned template, and may include superfluous information such as this.

Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying, @DoubleGrazing. It appears on my end that the article is still under review. Is it possible for you to please confirm if this is correct, or if the article review has been paused since our conversation here?

Many thanks Anna.j.davis (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, it is awaiting review. It has been declined twice, and resubmitted most recently yesterday.

I would rather not review this myself, but informally I can tell you that a quick scan of the sources suggests that they may still not amount to evidence of notability. Per WP:NCORP (the notability guideline for companies), we need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject, in multiple (3+) secondary sources (newspapers, magazines, TV and radio programmes, books, etc.) that are reliable and entirely independent (of the subject, and of each other).

Note that this excludes routine business reporting (appointments, new locations or markets, product launches, partnerships, financial results, investment raised, M&A, etc.), anything based on press releases or other publicity materials, anything where a representative of the business is being interviewed or commenting on matters, as well as any sort of paid or sponsored coverage or 'churnalism'.

If you wish, you may highlight the 3-5 sources that you feel are the strongest in terms of establishing notability, and I can take a look at them to see if they match the above specs. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is some of the most helpful guidance I have received thus far. Thank you. I will take a look and update soon. Anna.j.davis (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]