User talk:Chiu8ka

Welcome!

Hello, Chiu8ka, 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 me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

April 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page European Parkinson's Disease Association has been reverted.
Your edit here to European Parkinson's Disease Association was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.facebook.com/theepda) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

September 2017

Your addition to Draft:World Federation of Neurology has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. MER-C 10:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You copied it from elsewhere, so why? You need to start from scratch anyway. What, if any, conflicts of interest do you have regarding the subject matter? MER-C 04:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I apologise for that. I had to start somewhere and one of my methods is to paste a lot of content from multiple sources to an area, a scratchpad so to speak, before distilling the content; it helps me ensure I do not miss any relevant information later on. I did not realise the page may be live in draft form as I believed the click the submit for review button was for that purpose - honest newbie mistake! I have started from scratch again in my sandbox. I would appreciate if you can take a quick look to see if I am on the right track. If so, I would like to continue in this vein.

Regarding conflict of interest, I would like to declare that the World Federation of Neurology (WFN) did approach me to create this entry - this was something I intended to declare according to Wikipedia disclosure guidelines when I eventually published the page. I will (hopefully) be paid for my work on this if it is successful, i.e. whether the final entry will be a simple statement of who the WFN are or a more detailed page as I am putting together in my sandbox. I am a self-employed technology and management consultant advising and working with a number of non-profit umbrella organisations on both pro bono as well as paid consultancy basis. This particular entry is not for promotion or PR - I have my ethics and code of practice also :) - I accepted this work because I have a personal interest in maintaining collections, slightly OCD when it comes to completeness and accuracy of information, but genuinely interested in contributing to Wikipedia. In my view, the WFN as an eminent umbrella group and international body representing the speciality of neurology in more than 100 countries/regions of the globe, and advisors to governmental institutions around the world such as the World Health Organisation, they are deserving of an entry in the what is arguably, the pre-eminent online encyclopaedia.

For the WFN, they were curious as to why many other notable organisations such as the WHO with whom WFN have a long relationship, would have an entry but the WFN did not. Their motivation is not PR but that anyone searching for information about the WFN on Wikipedia would find information that is an accurate representation of their existence. Currently, anyone searching for WFN finds the World Fishing Network! Finally, much of their history and activities would not be something the casual wikipedia contributor would have access to and as such they have given me permission to extract, abridge and edit content from their various publications and historical archives for this purpose. Sufficed to say, I am at your disposal in regards to this page and would appreciate any advise you may give. Chiu 08:00, 29 September 2017 (GMT)

I will (hopefully) be paid for my work on this if it is successful

In that case, as a volunteer administrator I explicitly refuse to help you undermine the credibility of this volunteer curated encyclopedia. Our readers expect independent, encyclopedic coverage of our subject matter. Conflict of interest is a basic ethical concept your employers should be familiar with. They should have realized that commissioning an article on them is explicitly a bad idea; it is your responsibility to tell them that. MER-C 08:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Understood and forgive me if I have given the impression this page is a commission. It is not. It was an enquiry by the WFN to ask why they were not listed and how entries were created. As I am an independent contractor and consultant, I could see that the absence of this information on Wikipedia was a gap in the knowledgebase, that the organisation is refered to in many other pages but the organisation itself does not have an entry. But at the same time I cannot carry out this work without charging them for my time. I had understood from the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest guidelines that Editors who are compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions. They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries. This transparency helps the Wikipedia community to understand and analyze the source and scope of paid editing, and to ensure that content originating from paid editors complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Could I ask the question therefore if I create this page as I am in my sandbox, will it be accepted OR is there no scenario in which the WFN could ever get an entry within Wikipedia? IF I accepted no payment and simply put together the most basic of information without histories or other links, would that be accepted. Sorry if I am not understanding some of the terminologies within guidelines etc. Ultimately any entry about the WFN on Wikipedia my be reviewed and edited so that it remains simply unbiased and informative. Thank you for your advise. Chiu 10:05, 29 September 2017 (GMT)

The best course of action is to wait until someone with no stake in the outcome comes along and deems it worthy of inclusion. It might take a while, but the integrity of both the organization and the encyclopedia are preserved this way. Would the editorial board of the Encyclopedia Britannica or the World Book be happy with your proposed solution? Probably not, I reckon. MER-C 11:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Mer-C. I do not believe waiting for something to happen in this case is a good solution as it is highly unlikely anyone will automatically think to create a page on the WFN. The WFN has been in existence since 1957 and mentioned many times throughout Wikipedia entries and yet it does not have an official entry. In the 17 years since Wikipedia's inception, do you personally believe this will change?

One of the core aims of Wikipedia is to allow anyone to edit articles. It has a Conflict of Interest declaration where editors may declare financial interests. Does Wikipedia as a matter of process reject all paid contributions? If so, why have a COI declaration for this? Is it in place simply to catch those honest enough to make the declaration so that they can be shot down?

The Encyclopedia Britannica itself relies on an employed panel to decide what should be included, and commissioning writers to produce the content, before submitting all content through a rigorous review process. This in no way reduces the quality and validity of the content in any way. Furthermore, I strongly believe the information I have put together has been written in a manner that does not damage the integrity of the WFN or self publicises for the sake of PR, nor I believe does it harm the integrity of Wikipedia. I have endeavoured to maintain impartiality and style of writing contained in Wikipedia. Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and I would ask that you may reconsider my contribution in good faith. I am happy not to be credited for its publication and happy not to submit an invoice to the WFN (for the benefit of doubt, WFN may hold me to this statement and I am creating this article pro bono and without payment). I truly believe the content is worthwhile of inclusion within Wikipedia which I hold in the highest regard. The last thing I want is for Wikipedia to contain content that is not true or accurate. Please do have a look at my sandbox and if you feel it is worthy, please publish it under your name or permit me to publish as mine. I look forward to your final decision. Yours in good faith, Chiu 13:37, 29 September 2017 (GMT)

This aspect of Wikipedia is somewhat out of my expertise, but you can get a review via Wikipedia:Articles for creation when ready. It might take a week to get feedback due to the volume of submissions we get. 13:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you sincerely Mer-C, for your time and patience. I will do as you suggest. Chiu 14:20, 29 September 2017 (GMT)

Your submission at Articles for creation: World Federation of Neurology (October 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dodger67 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:World Federation of Neurology and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• 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.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Chiu8ka, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that 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! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: World Federation of Neurology has been accepted

World Federation of Neurology, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

scope_creep (talk) 01:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Raad Shakir

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Raad Shakir requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://london4arabs.com/services/doctors/profile/86-Dr-Ra_ad-Shakir. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

You have an obvious conflict of interest, please don't write about yourself, your friends or relatives and read the guidance below:

Conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. I am none of the above! However, I have contacted Raad Shakir for information to verify the accuracy of the information. Is this wrong? I see many links to eminent people on Wikipedia, specifically 2021 New Year Honours. Are all the links to the articles relating to the people created by 3rd parties with no interest, knowledge or connection with those people? Have all those people who have an article against their name been informed or consulted with before Wikipedia posts about them? With with the emphasis on data protection, privacy and transparency, how does Wikipedia expect me or anyone else to validate all the information?

Finally, which part of the page content that I have put together do you feel is promotional or cannot be independently verifiable? I am happy to edit the content to conform with Wikipedia's style of writing but are you saying that because I have been in contact with the subject, I am no longer permitted to create this page? Chiu (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• When you write about a person, you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that they meet the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the person or an associated organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the person claims or interviewing them. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls.
• You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.
• There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
• You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. You must also reply to the COI request above.

Thanks for message. Requesting an article is possible but no guarantee if or when it will be picked up. If you are not paid, you can write the article but put {{Connected contributor|User1= }} on its talk page with an explanation. Note that you are writing about him, not for him, and your text isn't subject to his approval, only our rules, so it must be completely factual and neutral in tone, and fully referenced to independent third-party sources. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Jim for the guidance and understanding. Very helpful. I will try again and do my best to keep to Wikipedia guidelines. Always learning : ) Chiu (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Raad Shakir

The article Raad Shakir has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Topic not notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tame (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tame,

I have been through this with Jimfbleak after the page underwent speedy deletion Shakir is an eminent neurologist known globally through his work with many international organisations including the World Health Organisation, and recently awarded a CBE — a huge honour for anyone in the UK. CBE is the highest award by the Queen in the UK before a full knighthood. Shakir has a distinguished career that I have not included on this page because I do not want to appear promotional.

If Shakir is not a notable person, then it can be argued that the majority of people linked to from the 2021 New Year Honours Wikipedia page are also not notable! What is the definition of a person being notable if it is not having a supremely distinguished career, past president of the World Federation of Neurology, senior member of the Royal College of Physicians, over 76 publications, books, Fellow at major neurology organisations on every continent, could go on! Please remove the proposed deletion tag. Chiu (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Chiu8ka. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Raad Shakir, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. ☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 07:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mamushir. I have been through this with Jimfbleak, Tame, and Liz. I tried to explain that there is no conflict of interest. Both Jim and Tame gave me the opportunity to create the page, add the conflict of interest declaration in the page Talk tab, and given 7 days to improve the article but I have not been given that time before the page has been deleted again!

As I explained to Jim and Tame: I am not paid to create the article and I do not work for Raad Shakir although he knows me through my work with many charities (WFN, EBC, EFNA, EPDA, SENA, etc.). Shakir is an eminent neurologist known globally through his work with many international organisations including the World Health Organisation, with notable achievements, awards and senior positions, and recently awarded a CBE which is notable in itself. He had noticed that whilst quite a few of the people on the page Queen's New Years Honours list had an article on them—he did not. And so he approached me to see if it was possible to create a page to expand on his work and achievements which are notable to the extent explained previously, as well as in my original article that was deleted : (

How many people does the average non-IT Joe know who can help with something like contributing to Wikipedia? In Shakir's case, he only knew of me. Being familiar with his achievements and the fact that he was awarded a CBE was evidence of notability; the CBE is the highest ranking Order of the British Empire award, followed by OBE and then MBE.

I agree with Wikipedias strict policies on editing and article creation but I fail to see how any articles on people or indeed anything on Wikipedia could have been put together without someone carrying out a modicum of due diligence and research, which may includes contacting the subject, to verify facts. Unless the contributor openly declares the latter, but instead links numerous external references, which the subject may have provided them, it is a matter of debate how independent or verifiable that content is. Is the only way for an article to be created by putting in a request so that one day, someone working and paid by Wikipedia who has absolutely no interest, expertise or background in the subject will decide the article is worthy to be created? Anyone else who knows the subject is immediately banned?

You have stated: editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Every article on Wikipedia that is about a person, artist, celebrity, song, TV show, movie etc. can be considered publicising and/or promoting. It is matter of personal opinion. How the article is written determines the readers perception of whether it is blatant advertising or promotion. I have worked hard to avoid this but am obviously failing.

My original article was slowly being refined and fairly in depth about career, achievements etc—I had referred to other similar approved articles for structure—but I was never given the opportunity to refine this before the page was deleted and I had to restart from scratch; I didn't have a backup! I am not a full time Wikipedia contributor and it's difficult for me to understand how to configure the add-in COD template codes. I tried to add {{Connected contributor|User1=}}on the talk page as Jim had advised but being a noob there seemed to be very little option or configuration to add a more in-depth explanation. I apologise for being so non-technical. I read through many of your help documents but to be honest, a lot of it went over my head.

One of the core aims of Wikipedia is to allow anyone to edit articles. Are they only allowed to edit existing pages (created by Wikipedia staff) or create pages that they have no expertise or interest in at all? This surely dilutes the quality of Wikipedia content.

You have a COI Declaration process for articles. Does Wikipedia as a matter of process reject pages where the originator makes a declaration in good faith and for complete transparency? If so, why have a COI declaration unless it is to catch those honest enough to make the declaration and abide by the rules —so that they can be shot down?

Forgive my frustration. I am a strong advocate of Wikipedia to the extent that I donate to the foundation each year, but it seems the internal processes and multitude of reviewers/auditors interpret policies differently and it is a minefield for me trying to navigate it.

PS. Thank you for moving the article to Draftspace (Draft:Raad Shakir) rather than completely obliterating it.

Please advise if I should give up on trying to create the article at all because I will never pass the COD conditions whatever I do.

OR please help me to configure the COD declaration template so that my connection with the subject is transparent. I'm still learning.

Thank you sincerely. Chiu Chiu (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Pinging

You have left messages for two editors above, but they may not know. They will know you have left a message if you start it with a link to their user name (so for me it would be User:Jimfbleak) and sign it with four tildes ~~~~ in the same edit when you post it. That will send them an alert.
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. As you can tell I'm very green with all this. Appreciate all the feedback and pointers. Chiu (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Your edit to Draft:Raad Shakir has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🇨🇦 (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Dianna.

I am still editing the article after much discussion with a number of Wikipedia reviewers (User:Jimfbleak, User:Tamingimpala, User:Liz, User:Mamushir)

That said, I have not used any copyrighted material at all. I also thought that Draft meant it is not live!

Please can you restore my article back to draft so I can continue editing. If you can direct me to where I have broken any copyright, please advise.

Many thanks Chiu (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Chui, Diannaa will not see your messages unless you start them with a link to her account, as I have done here, and sign them in the same edit. Although draft pages have a degree of protection, they still can't be used to hold copyright material Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again User:Jimfbleak. I did not think I had used copyrighted sentences but obviously I need to review.

Thank you User:Diannaa for restoring my draft. i will try to keep my sentences to the point.

I appreciate everyone's help and advice. Chiu (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I found some content copied from here and here.— Diannaa 🇨🇦 (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa I had edited quite a lot but had not saved before you reviewed and I lost my changes when the page was removed. I will re-do. In the meantime, how do I make a declaration that I have permission to use specific content (if I do want to use copyrighted content with permission)? Chiu (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Please don't add copyright content to Wikipedia, not even temporarily for editing. Please do your amendments before you save the page, or use an external editor. If the copyright holder wishes to release material under a compatible license, please see WP:Requesting copyright permission for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent.— Diannaa 🇨🇦 (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Raad Shakir (July 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Scorpions13256 was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Raad Shakir 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:Raad Shakir, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Scorpions13256 for reviewing. I have re-edited to try to be more formal and neutral. Chiu (talk) 06:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Your article

I saw the changes you made after my review. To me, it would seem that the best way to rewrite the article would be to start from scratch. Having a "Major Achievements" section is likely going to sound promotional no matter how you word your sentences. Unfortunately, I am not all that experienced in writing biographies, so I think it would be best for you to ask a question at the WP:TEAHOUSE. This article seems to have a lot of potential. Scorpions13256 (talk) 09:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Scorpions13256 and for your appraisal. I had based the headings and tone on other Wikipedia pages on notable persons: Category:British neurologists, Category:French neurologists. I have re-written the text from scratch no less than 4 times now. In its current iteration, I have removed sections, adjectives, and superlatives, rephrasing to be more factual, non-effusive, and as non-flattering as I can possibly be; I really do not know how to make it sound even more formal and non-promotional than it already is. I have changed the "Major Achievements" to "Work" if this will help? Chiu (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I will review the article right now. The first part of it looks good so far. I will try to improve some of it myself. Scorpions13256 (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Good work

Honestly, it now looks good. Submit it again, and I will move it into the mainspace. Scorpions13256 (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Scorpions13256 Thank you sincerely! Chiu (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

It has been published! Scorpions13256 (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)