User talk:JRobble/Archive 2

AfC notification: Draft:Jay Wexler has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Jay Wexler. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 12:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jay Wexler has been accepted

Jay Wexler, 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. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Theroadislong (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Linda McClain has been accepted

Linda McClain, 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. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Linda McClain

Hello, JRobble,

Thank you for creating Linda McClain.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please add notability information to the lead. In addition, please add DOB/birth year with a citation to a reliable source (otherwise, remove birthyear from infobox). Nice work!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Citrivescence}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Citrivescence (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: David H. Webber has been accepted

David H. Webber, 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. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

– bradv🍁 05:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Pnina Lahav has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Pnina Lahav. Thanks! Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 09:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pnina Lahav (August 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sahaib3005 was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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:Pnina Lahav 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:Pnina Lahav, 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.

Sahaib3005 (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JRobble! 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! Sahaib3005 (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

coi

This is about your coi with Boston University, as came to attention for [[:Draft:Pina Lahev]. to which you made some contributions. In declining that article as not yet notable, I wrote:

I note a coi was declared, but it was a paid coi, and it did not make ful disclosure according to our rules. There were three separate individuals involved in writing this, all from her university. This could mean 3 separate employees of the university, or an outside agency the University has hired, or several outside agencies. This needs to specified. .

The usual advice for someone who is not yet notable, is to try again, once her second book is published, and had gotten substantial reviews in third-party published independent reliable sources, not press releases, blurbs, blogs, Amazon, or Goodreads.

For coi editors, the advice is different: Boston University should stop trying to publicize their faculty authors by writing articles about them in WP. It is almost impossible for PR people at a university or publisher to write a satisfactory article. If she is really notable, someone without coi will write an article about her.

I also point out to the coi editors, that their participation in this work lends a degree of doubt about all articles on Boston University faculty, and I advise them to make sure there are coi statements added for all other articles that may have been affected. I --and other reviewers--are very likely to check them. I see they have in fact declared some other articles, and I shall now check them to see that they do not resort to the hyperbola used here, in claiming authorship of books for which the person was not the author, and including prizes from their own institution.

Sometimes I will try to fix such articles, as I started fixing that one. But if there's a sustained PR campaign, I would be much more inclined to recommend deletion of the articles, for I do not see why I or any volunteer should devote our efforts to material that someone else is being paid to write.

I shall add a formal warning. DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may also wish to consider the experience of a friend of mine here, who a number of years ago decided to assign to his class the writing of bios for the other faculty in his department. When some of the bios were chanllenged and removed with a public disscussion that concluded with not notable, his colleagues, understandably enough, got quite angry. I'm a librarian myself, and I would never attempt such a project. Please at least consider the consequences of a similar occurrence. DGG ( talk ) 22:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pnina Lahav (August 9)

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

not yet notable, by either WP:PROF nor WP:AUTHOR. \4 books are listed, but she has actually written only one,Judgement in Jerusalem. The bio of Golda Meier is not expected until 2022, For the other 2, she is editor , or one of 4 co-editors, not author. , and it makes a substantial difference. I'm not familiar with what citations can be expected in her field for articles, so I checked the citations of the people whose work cited her, and there were a considerable number who were much higher. Of the awards. most were from her own university; that doesn't count, so I removed them./ The remainder are not important enough to justify notability by WP:PROF. One medium-successful book is not enough for AUTHOR

I note a coi was declared, but it was a paid coi, and it did not make ful disclosure according to our rules. There were three separate individuals involved in writing this, all from her university. This could mean 3 separate employees of the university, or an outside agency the University has hired, or several outside agencies. This needs to specified. .

The usual advice for someone who is not yet notable, is to try again, once her second book is published, and had gotten substantial reviews in third-party published independent reliable sources, not press releases, blurbs, blogs, Amazon, or Goodreads.

For coi editors, the advice is different: Boston University should stop trying to publicize their faculty authors by writing articles about them in WP. It is almost impossible for PR people at a university or publisher to write a satisfactory article. If she is really notable, someone without coi will write an article about her.

I also point out to the coi editors, that their participation in this work lends a degree of doubt about all articles on Boston University faculty, and I advise them to make sure there are coi statements added for all other articles that may have been affected. I --and other reviewers--are very likely to check them. I see they have in fact declared some other articles, and I shall now check them to see that they do not resort to the hyperbola used here, in claiming authorship of books for which the person was not the author, and including prizes from their own institutions.

Sometimes I will try to fix such articles, as I started fixing this one. But if there's a sustained PR campaign, I would be much more inclined to recommend deletion of the articles, for I do not see why I or aby volunteer should devote our efforts to material that someonelse is being paid to write.

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:Pnina Lahav 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:Pnina Lahav, 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.

DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]