User talk:Ijacobs8

This is Ijacobs8'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: Jeff M. Jaffe (April 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 Majash2020 was:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

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:Jeff M. Jaffe 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.

Majash2020 (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have updated the structure of the citations, and I hope this time it meets Wikipedia requirements.

Please note my previous request to rename this article: Jeffrey M. Jaffe

(I inadvertently created it as "Jeff M. Jaffe" but would like to align the title with how I refer to the individual in the text.)

Thank you,

Ian Ijacobs8 (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ijacobs8! 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! Majash2020 (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Majash2020. I will improve the references per the documentation and then hope to resubmit the document. Thank you! Ijacobs8 (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jeff M. Jaffe (May 4)

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

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

All statements need to be sourced, starting with the date of birth.

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:Jeff M. Jaffe 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.

Greenman (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jeff M. Jaffe (June 29)

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

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet 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:

It is possible that this person is notable, and that some of the sources in here can help make that case, but notability is entirely unclear since this is written as a kind of narrative resume, with way too much irrelevant information and irrelevant sourcing--and adding this biblical scholarship stuff (an apparently self-published book, and no secondary sourcing) just makes it even more unclear. Start by trimming that fat, including all that material which has primary 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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jeff M. Jaffe 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.

Drmies (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jeff M. Jaffe (October 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ldm1954 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

If you do not address the issues already pointed out, next time it may be a hard Reject with no option to resubmit.

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:Jeff M. Jaffe 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.

Ldm1954 (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft suggestions

Sorry I wasn't able to help more when you came into IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help. I was nearing the end of a platelet donation and was trying to type one-fingered on a tablet. I probably shouldn't even attempt to look at IRC when I'm stuck like that,

I modified the section headers on your draft to make it look a little more like a Wikipedia article. It's a very small step.

Articles about the success of W3C that do not particularly cover Jaffe's role are probably not helpful for what you need to do, which is to establish that Jaffe meets Wikipedia's notability criteria.

One note about inline citations - footnotes should appear after the punctuation at the ends of sentences.

In most Wikipedia articles, there is a summary or intro at the top. That section does not need footnotes because it is summarizing what is said in the body text below, where sources must be cited. Most biographical articles order the person's life events in chronological order.

When presenting a draft, longer and more detailed is not necessarily what helps get a draft accepted by reviewers. Instead, you want to succinctly present the evidence for notability. Once there is an accepted article, you can expand on that foundation. You would want to do that through edit requests on the talk page, since you have a declared conflict of interest.

What would be most helpful would be some mainstream reporting about him and his role in making the Web what it is today. Relying too much on what W3C has to say will be regarded as a flaw in your draft. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

> Sorry I wasn't able to help more when you came into IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help. I was nearing the end of a

> platelet donation and was trying to type one-fingered on a tablet. I probably shouldn't even attempt to look at

> IRC when I'm stuck like that,

"Hold on, let me just give blood here at the same time as helping people with their wikipedia contributions. Also, I'm making charitable donations with my ipad using my foot."

Thank you for all of that generosity!

I appreciate your comments and have inserted some replies and questions. If you have some additional cycles, I would greatly appreciate your time.

> I modified the section headers on your draft to make it look a little more like a Wikipedia article. It's a very small step.

Thank you.

> Articles about the success of W3C that do not particularly cover Jaffe's role are probably not helpful for what you need to do, which is to establish that Jaffe meets Wikipedia's notability criteria.

That seems to be the crux of the issue here: the notability criteria. Looking at that wikipedia documentation and comparing to what I believe we have in the case of Jeff Jaffe:

Basic: There is ample coverage in the tech media (and general media as well) about his contributions to the Web as W3C CEO.
Additional: I don't believe Jeff has received an award or honor related to his role.
Additional for Academics (closest fit here): "are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." I believe Jeff has been notable in the Web world, even though his biograph is (probably) not the subject of secondary sources.

> One note about inline citations - footnotes should appear after the punctuation at the ends of sentences.

I can fix that.

> In most Wikipedia articles, there is a summary or intro at the top. That section does not need footnotes because it is summarizing what is said in the body text below, where sources must be cited.

Ok

> Most biographical articles order the person's life events in chronological order.

For many articles that makes the most sense. However, since what I thought was most notable for Jeff was his tenure as W3C CEO, I thought I would lead with it. I don't object to moving the "early career" bits before the W3C bits.

> When presenting a draft, longer and more detailed is not necessarily what helps get a draft accepted by reviewers. > Instead, you want to succinctly present the evidence for notability.

Here is my logic:

The Web is important.
The W3C is the premiere standards body for the Web.
The CEO of W3C therefore plays an important role ensuring that the W3C creates a Web platform that meets humanity's needs. I highlighted a few of Jeff's key successes with this sentence: "The net of all of these efforts was growth in Membership of 50% in ten years, growth in the number of participants by a factor of 10, and major new impacts for industry and the Web community as itemized below."

It is not clear to me that my logic for establishing notability aligns with what reviewers are expecting. Is there a way for me to express my logic such that it aligns with reviewer expectations? I realize there may not be a way. But as I am new to this, I thought I would ask. :)

> Once there is an accepted article, you can expand on that foundation. You would want to do that through edit

> requests on the talk page, since you have a declared conflict of interest.

Thank you, that helps me understand how this would work going forward.

> What would be most helpful would be some mainstream reporting about him and his role in making the Web what it is today.

> Relying too much on what W3C has to say will be regarded as a flaw in your draft.

That is very helpful. In some cases, I point to W3C press releases merely for more information, rather than as signals of notability. Should I handle those references differently (or simply drop them as not useful)?

There are numerous non-W3C references in the piece. (More than 20 by my quick count.) In some cases, those articles are reporting W3C's activities, more than Jeff's role specifically (other than to identify him as the CEO). I am getting from this conversation that the piece would be strengthened by non-W3C sources speaking more directly about Jeff's role and impact.

Thank you again for the insights and suggestions,

Ian Ijacobs8 (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Jeff M. Jaffe

Hello, Ijacobs8. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jeff M. Jaffe, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Jeff M. Jaffe

Hello, Ijacobs8. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Jeff M. Jaffe".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]