User talk:Onlytop

Welcome!

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Onlytop (talk · contribs) has been paid by Onlytop.in.

Hello, Onlytop, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Draft:OnlyTop. 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 complete 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! \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 00:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

disclosure placement

Thanks for disclosing your status as a PAID editor. Ideally, that template you placed here on your user talk page should have been on your user page, but I think we've put you through enough steps.

I'm going to take a look at reviewing your draft. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: OnlyTop (July 15)

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), 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:

I did some editing of the draft to remove some of the problems, but I'll still comment here on those problems.

----

First of all, the draft does nothing to claim or demonstrate that its subject meets WP's standards of notability for companies. In order to do this, there must be references to in-depth coverage published in independent reliable sources.

----

Second, the draft originally read (and to some extent still reads) like a business directory listing. Wikipedia is not a host for business directory listings. The overall language of the submission was promotional. I had to reduce the case of a lot of words which were not proper nouns - almost as if the intent was to write newspaper headlines instead of an encyclopedia article.

----

Those two problems alone are the reason the article must be declined at this point. There are other problems that I'll mention, but they would not necessarily resulted in a decline.

----

The contributor has used the template infobox vcard rather than one of the expected infobox templates for a business of this sort: infobox company, infobox website, or something similar. The images used in the draft were copyrighted, but loaded to Commons. Once an article is accepted, it will then be possible to attach non-free content like the company's logo. I doubt that the OnlyTop certificate will qualify. Non-free images are not allowed in drafts.

----

I've placed the list of similar websites under the more conventional "See also" section. I moved the reference to the company's website to "External links". I would like to see your references expanded with more complete bibliographical information using more of the parameters of {{cite web}}.

----

Once you have, let's say three, notability references, I suggest you have a discussion about them at the articles for creation help desk. Only after you have agreement from a reviewer that notability has been established would it make sense to submit your improved draft for another review. The discussion at AFCHD becomes a permanent record you can refer back to.

---

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:OnlyTop 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:OnlyTop, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
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.

— jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Onlytop! Having an article 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! — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Alexf^(talk) 09:57, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]