Talk:HelloGiggles

conflict of interest

with "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" this is not the owner for the website making this article, i am not affiliated with hellogiggles, also what makes it seem like an advert?— Preceding unsigned comment added by WeThreeHG (talk • contribs) — WeThreeHG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Everything from the username to the use of second-person ("doing your taxes") to the girl-talk tone of the article, which is grossly inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. (I removed the worst offender of all, the giggly "no dirty Boys allowed" sentence.) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

are the changes made now any better?--WeThreeHG (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

as of this version, yes it is "better", but that is just relative to where it started from. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

thanks, can be left as is without being deleted? --WeThreeHG (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I fixed up the referencing. It is currently a very undeveloped stub so deletion is still a possibility - the article needs to grow some more substantive (properly sourced) content. Your username implies that you are a group of people using a single account and it also implies a connection with the subject - I'd advise you to rather get separate individual usernames with no obvious connection to the subject. Roger (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

the Forbes and Mashable coverage appear to me to meet the minimum threshold established in WP:N of "significant coverage in multiple third party sources", but others may have different interpretations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

thanks, made a different username, and we will be working on the content a little more --RoTuT (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Who is "we"? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:27, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

i had help getting the format correct, but that person is no longer here, i should not have used "we" in that last post --RoTuT (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Potential source

This editorial about Deschanel and her TV show has the interesting comment "Men aren’t attracted to her because she physically resembles a child, but because she emotionally represents the non-threatening nature of a young girl. Men will never have to worry about her mental superiority when her website has a name like “Hello Giggles.”" - I am not sure if it is appropriate for this article or how to incorporate it if it is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It's probably a better fit on Zooey Deschanel because the comment is about her rather than about the website as such. Roger (talk) 10:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

This is total garbage, pseudopsychology and plainly sexist. Don't include it on any article. 2601:645:8001:F586:F9A3:D10:964E:4077 (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Bought for 3 figures?

This uncited claim is ridiculous. if 100,000 is 6 figures, then 3 figures is ... between 1 hundred and 1 thousand dollars? Way too low to be the selling value of a website like this. 2601:645:8001:F586:F9A3:D10:964E:4077 (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)