User talk:JDtoBee

This is JDtoBee'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: David Gamage has been accepted

David Gamage, 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class 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!

S0091 (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, JDtoBee. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Draft:David Gamage, 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 article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
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 Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
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.

Hi JDtoBee, if you have a COI you need to declare it. While this is still in draft, you are welcome to continue improve it. S0091 (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any conflicts of interest. I am a student in the field of tax law and have some general interest in the creation and maintenance of quality articles on tax law, but that is not a conflict of interest. I do not understand why I am being accused of having a conflict of interest. JDtoBee (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JDtoBee. Just to be clear, you do not personally know David Gamage or have an affiliation with him? S0091 (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never met him. I have no affiliation with him. I was assigned one of his articles to read in one of my classes, by another professor, at a different law school, but this is not a conflict of interest. JDtoBee (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree what you describe is not a COI so will post a note to that effect on the draft's talk page. S0091 (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! If you could please also review the article and let me know if you think the tone or style is inappropriate and how I could fix that, I would appreciate it. I am trying to learn how to edit here and would like guidance. Just having my editing work being declared wrong without any answers to my questions about specifics is very discouraging. JDtoBee (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given I am the reviewer who accepted the draft and my acceptance has been challenged I will leave it to another reviewer. Please understand this is somewhat normal (see WP:BRD). I do not take the concerns expressed by Netherzone personally or lightly, nor should you. They are an experienced editor who has been an active since 2012 with over 45k edits and has created/improved many articles and drafts. Hopefully the concerns can be addressed and the article accepted (again). S0091 (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. JDtoBee (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you do not want to review or advise further on this, but for you to then object to my then turning to ask another editor who had previously reviewed and communicated with me about the draft for advice seems counterproductive to mentoring new editors. JDtoBee (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point, JDtoBee. I apologize. I see it is declined again due to promo. The only sentence that comes across to me as promotional is the last one about his work being critiqued, using the terms "prominent" and "eminent". I would re-work that sentence to remove the WP:puffery and be more specific about their critiques. Also be mindful of WP:CITEKILL. Generally only one source is needed to support a fact. There may be reasons you are using multiple but trim any that are redundant, keeping the best one(s). S0091 (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks! I'm going to take a break from all this for a bit to clear my head and focus on other stuff. But then I will try to revise according to your advice and eventually resubmit unless someone else does so first. JDtoBee (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand; it's been frustrating. The other option is to remove that sentence. Either way, the draft will be around for at least six months before it's deleted as abandoned (six months after last human edit). I doubt anyone else is will submit it because drafts, while still public like this page is, are not indexed so one has to know it exists to find it. That is also why COI was suspected because non-experienced editors and certainly readers do not know drafts exist. S0091 (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I found the draft on an earlier version of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Law/Article_alerts I thought those alert pages are where prospective editors are supposed to look for drafts related to topics they are interested in to review?

I don't really want to review pages on topics I have no interest in like what my userpage suggests, so I thought the alerts page was the best place to look for drafts on topics related to my interests? But maybe I am confused or not understanding something?

None of the other articles on that alert page currently look interesting to me, so if you have suggestions for a better place to look for articles related to tax law that need editing I would appreciate the advice. JDtoBee (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't intend to make you feel like you needed to explain anything further. Yes, WikiProjects are good a place to start and while many are largely inactive, Law does have some active editors. I suggest posting a note on the talk page (WT:WikiProject Law) to elicit suggestions/connect with other editors. Another project, though not very active, is WP:WikiProject Economics that crosses with tax (there's also WP:WikiProject Taxation but it's inactive). S0091 (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! JDtoBee (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also SuggestBot. I have not used it but it looks like you can give it WikiProjects and WP:Categories that interest you. For categories, find a few existing articles that match your interests, then scroll to the bottom of the article to see what categories they are in. See also Category:Tax law. S0091 (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: David Gamage (May 19)

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:David Gamage 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.

Toadette^Edit! 08:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JDtoBee! 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! Toadette^Edit! 08:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft talk:David Gamage

Hi JDtoBee, I reverted your removal of the talk page discussion as I think it is still pertinent to the draft. I will not not review the draft again because I think a fresh set of eyes are needed but if the draft is accepted you can leave a request on my talk page (click the "talk" link next to my signature) to archive the discussion/comments and I will do so. S0091 (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok. I just thought that the giant wall of past comments on the talk page might be deterring anyone from reviewing the article. JDtoBee (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me it shows you were engaged in resolving issues. Also, if there are any other concerns the reviewer can engage with you there by picking up the discussion where it left off rather than declining it wholesale or revisiting concerns already addressed. S0091 (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

makes sense. Thanks! JDtoBee (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]