Jump to content

User talk:JSInDepth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, JSInDepth, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: VuWall (December 4)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic 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:
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.
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.
KylieTastic (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, JSInDepth! 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! KylieTastic (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: VuWall (December 6)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by OnlyNano 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:
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.
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.
OnlyNanotalk 03:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: VuWall (February 17)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe 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:
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:
Trivial sources doesn't help in determining notablility.
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.
Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: VuWall (April 18)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by BuySomeApples were:
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:
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.
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
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.
BuySomeApples (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

[edit]

Information icon Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! 🌊 oceanloop 22:39, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the feedback! Sorry about that. I'll make sure to include summaries going forward. JSInDepth (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WorkJam (software company) moved to draftspace

[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to WorkJam (software company). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and you may have a possible Conflict of Interest. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Gheus (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for letting me know. I thought the reference from Time Magazine was notable. But if I go back to that contribution I'll look for other sources. I can't seem to find the draft though. It looks like someone else deleted it. Can you help? JSInDepth (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: WorkJam (software company) (September 8)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by GGOTCC was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Several sentences do not have citations at the end, and appear to be personal analysis of the information. It is fine to cite an entire paragraph with one reference, but stand-alone sentences need references as well.
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.
GGOTCC 16:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: WorkJam (software company) (September 8)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 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:
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:
Sources showing notability must meet WP:ORGCRIT. Everything here is routine.
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.
CNMall41 (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: WorkJam (software company) (September 9)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Stuartyeates 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:
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:
Not seeing the in depth coverage in independent sources that we require.
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.
Stuartyeates (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the comments. I added more sources with proper formatting (I think) from Yahoo Finance, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune (magazine), Time (magazine), Forbes, and Newsweek among others. Is that enough or do you recommend additional sources? I'm just not sure what else to include here. I'd appreciate any guidance. Thanks JSInDepth (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: WorkJam (software company) (October 27)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AllWeKnowOfHeaven was:
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.
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.
AllWeKnowOfHeaven (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of WorkJam (software company) for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WorkJam (software company) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WorkJam (software company) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

MediaKyle (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 2025

[edit]
Information icon

Hello JSInDepth. The nature of your edits 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:JSInDepth. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=JSInDepth|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. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please disclose, in general terms, any connection you have to WorkJam. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one is paying me to write that article and I already regret the amount of time I invested in it. JSInDepth (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a connection to WorkJam? If you are employed by them, you are considered a paid editor even if you were not specifically paid to write the article. This isn't too relevant now, considering the article is likely to be deleted, but keep this in mind for the future. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
JSInDepth, I've noticed you've contributed to the AfD since this message, but haven't answered this query yet. What is your affiliation with WorkJam? MediaKyle (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found out about it because I have a friend who uses the app in their job. It just makes their work experience way less stressful and they had a lot of positive things to say about it. I was bored and felt like drafting something original. It seemed like every topic I could think of already had a page.
When I started writing it I wasn't sure if I should make the article about the company or the app. At one point I tried to re-write it to be about both at the same time but that didn't make sense. I tried asking for help and no one responded, then the only feedback I got were these big rejection messages that looked automated. So I thought: OK I guess no one cares, I'll just move it to the mainspace. Then this happened and I've been trying to fix it.
What you're witnessing is just the sunk cost fallacy in action. If you guys want to delete it, go for it. I'm really tired of debating this. JSInDepth (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:VuWall

[edit]

Information icon Hello, JSInDepth. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:VuWall, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:VuWall

[edit]

Hello JSInDepth, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:VuWall, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Author has not requested deletion, or other users have added substantial content. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. CoconutOctopus talk 19:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CoconutOctopus! I'm the original author. I thought the request I posted was the equivalent to requesting deletion. I figured since the article has still been declined for not being notable, it wasn't worth continuing to try and fix it. JSInDepth (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @JSInDepth, as it was a draft and thus opening to editing by others, another user has edited it extensively and as such it is not eligible for deletion under G7. In 6 months from today if it is not edited it will be deleted under WP:G13. CoconutOctopus talk 19:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JSInDepth&oldid=1323278374"