User talk:Ejacobs8990

Welcome!

Hello, Ejacobs8990! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} 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 name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Peaceray (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Krista Varady (March 26)

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

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.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and 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:

The sources cited are papers co-authored by the subject. They do not establish notability per se (see the general notability guideline. They, and her research work more generally, may make her notable per WP:NACADEMIC, but in that case please specify clearly which of the 8 criteria she satisfies, and what evidence there is to support that.

The sources are also unlikely to support information such as where she was born, where she studied, and what honours she has received. So where do those details come from?

--

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:Krista Varady 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:Krista Varady, 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing this article.

1. Appropriate references:

As requested, more references have been added to show that this scientist is very notable in her field. Specifically, she has been referenced in several major media outlets, including the New York Times, Scientific American, and the Atlantic, amongst others, for her work in intermittent fasting. These citations have now been added. If more news outlet citations are needed, please let me know.

Citations for her where she was born and where she received her degrees have also been added.

A citation for her honor from the American Society for Nutrition has also been added.

Journal publications: Please also note that she is not simply a co-author on these publications. She was the lead author, as indicated by her name appearing last in the author list. In this capacity, Dr. Varady designed the research, obtained funding, supervised the research, analyzed the data, and published the paper.

2. Notability

Dr. Varady meets these two criteria for notability:

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. Ejacobs8990 (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ejacobs8990! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Krista Varady has been accepted

Krista Varady, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Cabrils (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing this excellent news! I appreciate your help in creating this article. Ejacobs8990 (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Hi Ejacobs8990! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Krista Varady that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Kj cheetham (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! I will keep this in mind going forward! Ejacobs8990 (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Krista Varady. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bon courage (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is unnecessarily bitey and there is a kinder way to handle this that I expect experienced editors would be able to engage in.

Ejacobs8990, I understand you are a newish editor but calling the edits of @Bon courage, vandalism, is not civil and its not the way we collaborate. Both sides could do a little in learning how to treat others with good faith but its especially shameful when experienced editors have to be told.

I looked into the dispute and I notice some critical errors along the way. @Bon courage is the one trying to make massive changes, the merits of which I have not delved into, so when edit summaries are left like this, it's very troubling. This editor is not trying to add a massive amount of information to a article. Most of what they are trying to do is restore the original article accepted through the AfC process. I would call that edit summary inaccurate if not uncivil. WP:MEDRS is a thing and this content may violate that. @Ejacobs8990, because the content is disputed you have to prove the content meets the criteria for inclusion. The WP:ONUS is always on the one seeking to "add" the content. However, WP:EPTALK is for everyone, even those seeking to remove content and especially once an editor expresses issues with either removal or inclusion. There is a better way to handle this from all sides and its disheartening to see that we would rather bite new editors than try to educate them thereby making them a better editor all around. This is, of course, just a cursory look at this single dispute and the facts based on the history of the article. --ARose Wolf 16:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate your comments. I have escalated this issue and requested page protection. Ejacobs8990 (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bon Courage, You have been repeatedly removing the scientific accomplishments of a female scientist (Krista Varady) claiming that they are "self-promotional". However, each statement about her work is supported by several peer-reviewed scientific articles. Moreover, the way that her contributions are listed, are similar to how things are presented on the pages of other male scientists , e.g. Linus Pauling. It is interesting that you are targeting the work of women and not men. These actions seem to be rooted in sexism.

It is already very difficult for women to edit anything on Wikipedia, as 90% of editors are males. Some male editors seem to have complete disregard for content generated by women editors, and pages that cover the accomplishments of females. These systemic issues have been covered by the mass media (see Atlantic article below) and I am surprised they are still allowed to happen.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/

I have requested page protection and am also escalating this issue to wiki administrators. Ejacobs8990 (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to edit war and make stupid false accusations you will likely get blocked. I have already responded to you with all necessary information for you to get some WP:CLUE. It's up to you which path you take! Bon courage (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue doing this you will likely get blocked. What you are doing is sexist. I am reporting your behavior at many levels. Ejacobs8990 (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ejacobs8990, I don't doubt your motivations. I see how passionate you are about this subject and where most of us may see signs of a potential COI, I think you could legitimately become a great editor and net positive for this encyclopedia. I am a woman and I know full well the difficulties we have in our ability to have our edits taken seriously and in the issues still facing women in getting recognized in certain fields of expertise which does permeate the culture here on Wikipedia. That being said, we can't go around throwing out accusations saying editors are being sexist without providing clear proof and @Bon courage believing that most of the content on that specific article is a violation of policy is not proof of anything except their view points in regards to policy. Personally, I don't feel they have provided enough evidence to discredit all of the content that was in the article whatever the motivation for having it there. Simply stating a policy name and saying you believe it is "promoting-seeming" isn't enough in my book and that's even after looking at the policy they referenced. There are issues with the article as it was, especially in regards to the claims of the results of her research and testing. Most of the sources for this information are primary because the papers themselves give the subject credit for writing them. If I read MEDRS correctly you need secondary sources in no way affiliated with the subject in order to verify the claims made by the primary sources. Let me put it this way. The primary sources can be used to verify the research and testing her and her team does or did. But to verify the results of that testing and have that in a Wikipedia article you need secondary independent sources. Does that make sense? I still maintain this could have been handled different by the experienced editors involved had a little more kindness and patience been utilized from the beginning. --ARose Wolf 12:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This[1] - with its insults and threats - was this editor's opening interaction with me, and this[2] (through gritted teeth) was my mild response, with an invitation to please discuss. In return I got redoubled insults[3] and edit warring.

For clarity, with an example, it is not acceptable to write in a biography that PMID:17616757 is "the first literature review of intermittent fasting" when this appears entirely made up. It is not in the source. Worse, it is apparently not even correct as review articles like PMID:15741046 are older.

I am always happy to discuss content but I'm not willing to sit by and watch a living person's bio get messed up, especialy by an editor who's trying to get their way with nasty smears. Bon courage (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much anything with .gov in it is primary anyway as Wikipedia considers most if not all government documents/web links to be primary. I haven't looked at the documents/web links themselves yet to verify the statements made above. That's just my initial observation and based on my previous experiences in dealing with BLP's. --ARose Wolf 15:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah but with PUBMED the .gov page is just a landing page behind which lies (nearly always) an academic journal article, typically from a commercial publisher. This might then be any of the flavours of WP:MEDASSESS and more! Bon courage (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take content issues to the article talk page so its easier for the community to find it there. My intent here was to ask for civility and understanding and to clarify what I saw as issues outside of content in regards to what happened. --ARose Wolf 15:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring noticeboard discussion

Please not I have filed a report about your editing at WP:AN3. The link is here. Thanks. Bon courage (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General advice

Hello Ejacobs8990 -- Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Sorry you are having such a hard time with the article on Krista Varady. Articles on living people are extremely hard to get right, particularly when they work in the medical field and the medical project applies WP:MEDRS to them. I have given you some advice on developing the article at the Women in Red talk page. More broadly, to improve other editors' understanding of where you are coming from it is always useful to start a user page. You don't need to write very much, but indicate what you've written on Wikipedia, what your plans for future work here are, your areas of interest and expertise, any non-English languages you speak. You must also disclose any connection you have with Varaday.

You can understand that many people come to Wikipedia trying to push a point of view or promote a person or company, which means that editors who primarily edit a single article or narrow topic are often treated with suspicion. If there are other topics on which you can access reliable sources, then improving a wider range of articles will help you to integrate into the editing community. Hope this helps! Espresso Addict (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red October 2022

Hi there Ejacobs8990. In case you're interested in working on other articles within the scope of Women in Red, here are our October offerings:

Women in Red October 2022, Vol 8, Issue 10, Nos 214, 217, 242, 243, 244

Online events:

New: Alphabet run: G and H | Women in STEM / Ada Lovelace Day | Geofocus West Asia
Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman

See also:

Women in Green's "Wildcard Edition" Good Article editathon

Other ways to participate:

Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications.
Join the conversations on our talkpage.
Help us plan future events.
Follow us on social media:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Rosiestep (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Krista Varady photo.jpg at Commons

Hello, Ejacobs8990. You have new messages at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Krista Varady photo.jpg.
You can remove this notice at any time.

When you uploaded Commons:File:Krista Varady photo.jpg, you marked the creation Date as 12 July 2013 & the Source as Own work.

Another user has proposed its deletion because of possible copyright infringement because the photo also appears at https://ahs.uic.edu/kinesiology-nutrition/directory/varady-krista/ with the copyright marking of © 2022 The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois at the bottom of the page.

If you are indeed the creator, please fill out the form at commons:Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator ASAP to prevent the deletion.

I hope you see this in time. I would have used the Special:EmailUser form to email you, but apparently you have not specified a valid email address either on English Wikipedia or Commons.

If the file is deleted before you can act, please fill out the form at commons:Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator then use the commons:Commons:Undeletion requests to request restoration. Please pay careful attention to the instructions.

Thanks! Peaceray (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]