User talk:HelenWiseman

This is HelenWiseman's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sara Mahdavi (November 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 WikiOriginal-9 was:

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.

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sara Mahdavi and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HelenWiseman! 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! WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Sara Mahdavi has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sara Mahdavi. Thanks! WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I’m not quite sure how this works, but am I correct to assume that you’ve suggested they decline the page due to

“Notability”

The topic of an article must already be covered in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. These include academic journals, books, newspapers, magazines, and websites with a reputation for fact checking.

I did my best to cite several peer reviewed and news sources but perhaps I didn’t do them right? Could you please help? Thanks HelenWiseman (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, HelenWiseman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Best practices for editors with close associations
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style
The Teahouse, our help forum for new editors

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, visit the Teahouse, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your message. I see that my draft has been removed without me having a chance to edit it. Not sure what happened but I was just speaking to my mentor about how to create better articles, and I did press edit for the page, but someone deleted it! Anyway, I guess this site might be a bit over my head… I spent several hours on this page so I would appreciate it if you’re able to send it back. I was about to add references and re-submit it but now from what you’re saying it seems that I cannot do that either because of some perceived conflict of interest because of having more thank one account? I’m not sure how and why that’s possible because I only have one account and I don’t have a company email, as stated in the message. Anyway, I was just trying to raise the profile of female scientists as I was inspirers by another female physicist who I read about that did this for hundreds of female scientists to help gain them recognition and the respect they deserve in attempt to close the gender inequality gaps that exist for women in workplace, particularly in science and technology.

Please let me know how I can at least get the profile back that I worked on and what other options I have. Some of the information here is quite subjective but perhaps I need to read more to understand how to this better. Feel free to send me any useful tips you might have. Thanks again and have a great day. HelenWiseman (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks for message. Although the welcome message above is a standard template, the fact remains that you have an obvious conflict of interest, please don't write about yourself, your friends, colleagues or relatives and read the guidance below:

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.

Some text is unreferenced, and your references are nearly all written by her, are interviews with her, or don't actually mention her. We need independent third-party sources
Her articles should not be used as references. If they are significant, list them as publications with no further reference
She's an academic who writes papers, that's part of the job, so I'm not sure how she meets the notability criteria I've linked above

You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.

a sought-after speaker at leading medical conferences, government agencies, and popular media outlets... Aim to contribute significantly to advancing our understanding of personalized medicine and improving health outcomes across diverse populations.

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.

I didn't check the text, but your image was taken from a copyrighted page and has been nominated for deletion.

Not reasons for deletion, but you had no wikilinks, eg Harvard University and "Scientist, Author, Speaker, and Clinician" is incorrectly capitalised.

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. If you are writing about yourself, or someone you know as a friend, colleague, client, employer or relative, you have a conflict of interest, and you must disclose the nature of that COI.

I'm prepared to restore the text to a user sandbox in principle, but first you need to clarify the nature of your obvious COI.

If you want to reply, you can do so on my talk page. You can alternatively leave a message on this page, and I will know you have done so if you start it with my user name, User:Jimfbleak and sign it with four tildes ~~~~ when you post it. That will send me an alert.

Reply to deleted page

Dear User:Jimfbleak, Firstly, I would like to thank you for taking the time to respond and highlight the issues with this article. As a first attempt, I see now how it is flawed in how it’s written and the tone bias, perhaps because of my attempt to overcome the complete lack of self-promotion from this scientist who when I learned about her work on the radio, was so surprised by her lack of digital footprint and recognition. I think in the world of extreme self-promotion, it’s important to have individuals, communities and organizations that put afford in monitoring what gets published. I appreciate this about you and this community. I can certainly see how reading the page raised a few red flags, but I’m a little confused about why it was deleted altogether, before I had an opportunity to correct it and write it better, according to the guidelines and standards, which I must admit can be quite a subjective at times. For example, I read the notability and copy write articles you kindly cited, and I would respectfully disagree that either has been violated. I have permission to use the photo as stated in the declaration and the she is a notable person who’s work, advocacy and efforts hold great potential to transform human health as it relates to food and beverages, most specifically coffee consumption. Although she might have conducted some of her work in the context of her paid work, although much of it has not been paid work, I find this a perplexing reason to disqualify it as “notable”. Her peer-reviewed publications in highly reacted medical journal has created incredible interest in her work and her advocacy about caffeine guidelines. I think these are interesting, novel and important facts that should be on Wikipedia. Judging from the the significant attention her one paper has received, indicating it’s ranked a months the top 1% of all other publications around the same time and 5% of scientific publications of all times, I would hardly say that she just mealy published something as a part of her job https://jamanetwork.altmetric.com/details/141813303#score

I do agree with you the language I used, style of referencing, and some technical aspects of my article are incorrect and certainly give a promotional and bias view, which I was willing to fix, but never got a chance as it was instantly removed. I am confident you would agree writing for Wikipedia is not easy and it’s time consuming, and I am not paid for it, just like many others in the community so it just needs a little support and practice to get better.

I also wanted to share with you why I wanted to write an article about a female Canadian scientist. I was so inspired by the work of Jessica Wade, who took it upon herself to do something about the brutal inequality female scientists face every day and historically. She single-handedly wrote 1000’s Wikipedia articles about female scientists around the world to help them gain recognition about their critical, transformative and often unnoticed contributions to betterment of humans, animals and our planet. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna52476

Of course most of us cannot be as extraordinarily dedicated to this cause like her, but I just wanted to do my little part by writing my first article about a young woman who had done some extraordinary things. I think if we all do a fraction of what Jessica did in raising the profiles of qualified scientists, we would be in a better position to raise awareness about facts, rather than the alternative to truth based on self-promoting individuals with no qualifications or education about health and science but having 1 million followers on social media. In addition, showcasing and raising profiles of female scientists might be able to make a change our view of women scientists, inventors and scholars, and their contentions to our global society and human history in sciences. This is important work because most of them are too busy to self promote or even talk about their discoveries, to the public or popular media as they attempt to solve so many current and real health issues faced by human populations. I hope that I have been able to clarify my intent and attempt, as you know very well on your long history, this kind of work and writing takes a lot of time. A luxury most people do not have.

I thank you for your time and I hope that you would at a minimum return my hours of work to me on this female scientist. If you feel that after my edits, taking into account your suggestions and those of my Wikipedia mentor that was assigned to me earlier, she’s still not notable enough for Wikipedia, I will accept that. I will just have to remember to save my work on an alternate platform so it’s not lost again. I will investigate other more welcoming platforms to raise awareness about her work and perhaps in the future when someone else writes about her whose more experienced with Wikipedia guidelines and style, she will be profiled in your organization.

Sincerely, (HelenWiseman (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)) HelenWiseman[reply]

More

Please see the last sentence of my previous message, I won't see a message here unless you start them start it with my user name, User:Jimfbleak and sign it with four tildes ~~~~ when you post it. That will send me an alert. It's only chance I came back.

I've already said that I will restore the text once you have clarified any conflict of interest, but I don't think you have fully done that

You said that you are not being paid, but that doesn't mean you have no COI, if she's a friend or colleague, you still have COI

You declared the excellent close-up posed image you used to be your own work, and released the copyright to us. If it's true that you took the image, which she uses on her own page, you are either her or know her very well

However, you now say you have her permission to use the image which you have previously said is taken by you, one of those claims must be untrue. If this is the correct statement, it raises the question of why she should give you permission to effectively waive her, or the real photographer's, copyright unless you know her

As I've said, you need to be transparent about any connection. A COI doesn't stop you writing about her, but it must be declared. All you have done so far leaves me none the wiser.

Unrelated to the COI, you still can't use the image. We can't verify that she's relinquished her rights to you to release the image to be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial, as we require here, and in any case her page still claims copyright. If she really wants to let us use the image, she must indicate on the page that the image is PD or can be used under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, although I rarely write biographies, three of the four that reached good or featured article standard were about female scientists, naturalists or nature activists, so I'm not just being a chauvinist pig here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jimfbleak I’m not sure why when I’m following the format you’ve suggested to reply to you, it’s not populating the way that you would like. Again, this is my first attempt to use this system and would appreciate a more patient response from you. I’m also not sure why we are so focused on the photo now. Regarding COI, I heard about her in the news, as I stated to you, and contacted her and she provided the photo and permission to use it. I’ve declared everything but now the emphasis has changed from the content, notability and validity to the use of her photo. Her site has similar pictures but not the same one that was provided to me, so I’m not sure where this argument about the copyright are coming from. I also don’t understand the combative nature of your replies. I took a lot of time to draft a carefully written response to you but I find your comments and actions very inflammatory and presumptuous against a new user. All I’m asking is that you release the content of what I spend a lot of time writing about in code which was not easy to do. I’m glad that you have written about 3 female characters in the 20 years of writing articles for Wikipedia. My intention wasn’t to make you feel like a chauvinist pig, those are your own words. Everyone is entitled to be interested and write about what they like. You made me feel that I needed to explain myself to you because you deleted my page! I understand there are many issues with what I wrote but why would you be so quick to jump to conclusions before making an attempt to find the facts? I say this because when a mentor or another writer was assigned to review my page, they simply made suggestions and I was in dialogue with them to learn the process to do it properly. We all only learn by making mistakes but to have this type of an experience when attempting something new, it’s extremely discouraging and I simply don’t understand it.

Please tell me what is still outstanding and ambiguous to you at this point.

Thank you

HelenWiseman (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)HelenWiseman[reply]

There is only one real issue at the moment. I keep saying that I will restore the text when you clarify the nature of your COI, which despite reams of text you have still failed to do. If repeating the same question seems combative or impatient, I'm sorry, but you keep avoiding answering it. If you give me a straight, one-sentence answer, I'll happily sandbox the text and provide further advice if necessary Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jimfdbleak I have answered your question twice before but I will write it again a third time. I heard about her work on the news that I sited in my article and contacted her. No COI applicable to declare as I read on the website hence none been declared. Please let me know if I’m misunderstanding or misinterpreting this. Thank you HelenWiseman (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason your alerts to me aren't working is that you are not putting my username in curly brackets in the edit box {{User:Jimfbleak}} I'll restore shortly and provide a link here when I've done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you suggest I start a new different article or page as a second attempt? I have a few female scientists I’d like to write about and perhaps I can start fresh with a new article, learning what was highlighted in this discussion. How can I get a mentor to review this before posting so that I can get some feedback before submitting it? Thanks HelenWiseman (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:HelenWiseman/Sara Mahdavi, I've tidied the first proper paragraph Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but I just tried that and the blue reply button disappeared for me to send this to you! HelenWiseman (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even after all these years, it's possible to make silly mistakes. Editing in a rush earlier, I confused two things [[User:Jimfbleak]] and {{user|Jimfbleak}} either will work, but not the chimera I put before. Or you could just copy my signature from the end of a message Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]