User talk:Maggie JL

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Your submission at Articles for creation: CSOP Asset Management (June 1)

[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 Gheus 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.
Gheus (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Maggie JL! 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! Gheus (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gheus,
Thanks for the detailed review for my article. I was noticed that the references chosen are not qualified, but I tried my best to source the independent and professional and renowned financial media and Stock Exchange press release. May I know which reference is inappropriate? Your early reply will be highly appreciated. Thanks! Maggie JL (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: CSOP Asset Management (June 3)

[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 ClaudineChionh 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:
Resubmitted with no improvement or evidence of notability.
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.
ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:02, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The draft cites mostly independent and renowned business reporting sources and official exchange press releases. I wonder what kinds of sources could be verified as notability apart from these. I am grateful if you could give me some specific advice and examples. Thanks! Maggie JL (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maggie JL: citing reliable sources is a necessary but not sufficient step in demonstrating notability. Apart from the company's own website, all the sources provide only trivial or routine coverage. Do you have any sources (not the ones you have already used) that provide substantial coverage of the company's background or activities, not merely the fact that the company exists and offers financial products? — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 07:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for swift response.
For the company`s background, it was quite clear and sufficient that the source elaborate the foundation background of CSOP. Indeed the foundation is quite simple and do not change in these years
For the company`s activities, the main business of CSOP is to issue listed ETF products on the stock exchange, which is why I choose the press release from stock exchange.
Do you think I should edit the article and add something other than the existing facts? Or I should add more references to verified the article? If so, would you mind specifying the sentences or paragraphs that still need substantial coverage? Thank you very much!! Maggie JL (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a business directory – it's not enough to say that a company exists and sells products or services. What significance or impact has it had in the industry or its economic or social environment? If there is nothing that can be said about the company that I can't already find on its own website or in routine news reports and press releases, then it may not meet the general notability guideline or notability criteria for companies. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 10:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reference of foundation of company: Mainland fund manager first in overseas foray | South China Morning Post Maggie JL (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

[edit]
Information icon

Hello Maggie JL. 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:Maggie JL. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Maggie JL|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) 08:26, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing(reviewer),
Thank you for your message and for bringing these concerns to my attention. I would like to clarify that I am not receiving any compensation, nor do I have any financial stake or affiliation with the subjects of my edits, including CSOP Asset Management Limited. My contributions are purely voluntary and motivated by a personal interest in expanding and improving content related to financial topics on Wikipedia for informational and educational purposes.
I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines regarding conflict of interest and neutrality, and I am committed to ensuring that all my edits comply with these principles. My intention is to provide accurate and neutral information that benefits the Wikipedia community and its readers.
If there are any specific issues with the content I have contributed, I am open to feedback and willing to make necessary adjustments to align with Wikipedia’s standards. Please let me know if there are particular areas you believe require revision or improvement.
Thank you for your understanding and guidance. Maggie JL (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not use AI to generate your input. I am not interested in what some algorithm has to say, I would like to hear from you.
Are you working (in employment, contract, or some other capacity) for CSOP or any associated organisation? (If you are, you only need to confirm that, not reveal any identifying details.) Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DoubleGrazing
I am writing to confirm that I am not working for CSOP or its affiliated organizations. Thanks! Maggie JL (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that your entire edit history – here, on the Chinese Wikipedia, and on Commons – has to do with this organisation. I assume there's a reason for that, you didn't just pick this subject at random? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: CSOP Asset Management (June 7)

[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 CanonNi 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 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.
'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear reviewer
Thanks for your review. I added more references as reminded by the last reviewer. May I know specifically which reference not qualified? So that I can substitute with others.
The reference I chose are all from independent and professional financial media/channel, stock exchanges, definitely not produced by the subject discussed.
Your advice to my references will be highly appreciated. Thanks！ Maggie JL (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: CSOP Asset Management (June 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 Chetsford 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.
Chetsford (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: CSOP Asset Management (June 10)

[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 Bonadea 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 show that they exist and that they have been carrying out activities, but that is not sufficient to show notability. Too much reliance on non-independent sources.
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.
bonadea contributions talk 09:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear reviewer I have seen your comment left on my draft "CSOP Asset Management". Could you kindly name which references are not sufficient to show notability and non-independent. I have tried many times looking for comprehensive and independent sources and got no direction right now. Your direct and specific advice will be highly appreciated. Thanks! Maggie JL (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: CSOP Asset Management (June 12)

[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 Gheus 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.
Gheus (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your comment again about the source. Would you kindly point out which source unqualified and any other problem? Thanks so much! Maggie JL (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]