User talk:JglynchatCU

April 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Competitive advantage, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternately, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Russell Cropanzano (May 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Praxidicae 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 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Russell Cropanzano 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:Russell Cropanzano, 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, 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.

Praxidicae (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JglynchatCU! 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! Praxidicae (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Russell Cropanzano

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Russell Cropanzano, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
It appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement of https://www.colorado.edu/business/leeds-directory/faculty/russell-cropanzano. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Praxidicae (talk) 19:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Hi JglynchatCU! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Jeffrey J. Reuer 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. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dan Zhang (Operations Research Professor) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dan Zhang (Operations Research Professor) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Zhang (Operations Research Professor) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Your addition to Donald R. Lichtenstein has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your email. Your addition was flagged by a bot as a potential copyright issue and was assessed by myself. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what the bot found.— Diannaa (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, JglynchatCU. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Joseph W. Alba, 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 organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
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 WP:Spam);
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. Thank you. Jack Frost (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JglynchatCU: You've still not responded to this and are continuing to create content in mainspace when you have a very clear conflict of interest. Please read this message and go through WP:AFC. Praxidicae (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Praxidicae: ,

I am addressing the concerns outlined in the talk space on my page.

My expertise. My contributions are based on my expertise in academic research as a Subject Matter Expert. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-matter_expert I’m a leading business scholar and a generalist who is asked to provide my perspective in many academic settings. I am, for example, one of five scholars in the world who are Fellows of the Association for Consumer Research, the American Marketing Association, and the American Psychological Association’s Society for Consumer Psychology. And I have served on the faculties of leading business schools of the world, and therefore have broad knowledge of business scholarship.

My motives. I, like many others, are trying to create and contribute to help build an encyclopedia. My contributions are related to business research, and my edits and additions have all highlighted the significant and meaningful contributions of researchers from a variety of backgrounds relevant to business academia and society as a whole. I am not a promotions person writing about a book. I am not a company and I am not a single purpose editor.

My path to writing the articles in question began when, as a user, I searched Wikipedia for some quick reference related to something I wanted to share with a non-expert. I consistently discovered that Wikipedia articles were wrong in my view in various ways, or inexpert. I began by adding my contributions to those articles. In the course of doing that, I also saw that there were Wikipedia stub pages on various business scholars whose work I knew, but no pages on other equally prominent and important scholars. So my increasing engagement with writing and editing Wikipedia articles is based on a genuine desire to be a part of the solution -- much in the same way as I agree to be on editorial boards, to write promotion and tenure reviews, to organize academic-practitioner conferences. I get zero compensation for my contributions and my motives are public service.

Conflict of interest. I understand the high level concerns about conflict of interest, but the tension here is that the people most expert are in the same field. In my case, I am writing about topics where I am highly knowledgeable. Too many articles in Wikipedia related to my field do not read as if a true expert wrote them. I say nothing that is not 100% factual. As a relative Wikipedia novice, however, I am still learning about issues that are causing flags. The need to demonstrate that a scholar is noteworthy is leading me to add content about awards received for work. That in turn is getting flags for the article being perceived as promotional. I am trying (unsuccessfully) to strike a balance between a) adding content to allow a non-expert in the field to conclude that the work is truly noteworthy, b) avoiding any perception that I am “puffing” the significance of work by giving factual citations to external recognition, and c) adding useful wikipedia content for readers -- my reason for doing this in the first place. My inexperience in balancing a) and b) for the Wikipedia editing community is obviously getting in the way of my achieving c).

In regards to “Still Going” I was gathering information to address the issue with the Joseph Alba page. I was not paid to create the page and did so simply on my respect for his research contributions. He is one of the most important marketing scholars and consumer researchers in the world. I am still working on the response with Praxidicae but was trying to apply what suggestions were offered to the additional contributions.

Going forward I would appreciate the opportunity to edit collaboratively to ensure that the content is coming from a neutral tone with citations to reliable, third party sources. If it would help I can also add information to the talk pages to clarify the intentions behind the creation of a page that highlights research or the author.

I would still like to contribute to gaps in knowledge related to research in business and consumer financial decision making. JglynchatCU (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still going

You have an obvious conflict of interest and you must declare it. If you work directly or indirectly for an organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. If you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:JglynchatCU. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=JglynchatCU|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message. Also read the following regarding writing an article:

you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, logs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company or organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls
The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:

significant coverage in
independent,
multiple,
reliable,
secondary sources.

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability.

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

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. You must also reply to the COI request above.

1292simon (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @1292simon:,

I am addressing the concerns outlined in the talk space on my page.

My expertise. My contributions are based on my expertise in academic research as a Subject Matter Expert. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject-matter_expert I’m a leading business scholar and a generalist who is asked to provide my perspective in many academic settings. I am, for example, one of five scholars in the world who are Fellows of the Association for Consumer Research, the American Marketing Association, and the American Psychological Association’s Society for Consumer Psychology. And I have served on the faculties of leading business schools of the world, and therefore have broad knowledge of business scholarship.

My motives. I, like many others, are trying to create and contribute to help build an encyclopedia. My contributions are related to business research, and my edits and additions have all highlighted the significant and meaningful contributions of researchers from a variety of backgrounds relevant to business academia and society as a whole. I am not a promotions person writing about a book. I am not a company and I am not a single purpose editor.

My path to writing the articles in question began when, as a user, I searched Wikipedia for some quick reference related to something I wanted to share with a non-expert. I consistently discovered that Wikipedia articles were wrong in my view in various ways, or inexpert. I began by adding my contributions to those articles. In the course of doing that, I also saw that there were Wikipedia stub pages on various business scholars whose work I knew, but no pages on other equally prominent and important scholars. So my increasing engagement with writing and editing Wikipedia articles is based on a genuine desire to be a part of the solution -- much in the same way as I agree to be on editorial boards, to write promotion and tenure reviews, to organize academic-practitioner conferences. I get zero compensation for my contributions and my motives are public service.

Conflict of interest. I understand the high level concerns about conflict of interest, but the tension here is that the people most expert are in the same field. In my case, I am writing about topics where I am highly knowledgeable. Too many articles in Wikipedia related to my field do not read as if a true expert wrote them. I say nothing that is not 100% factual. As a relative Wikipedia novice, however, I am still learning about issues that are causing flags. The need to demonstrate that a scholar is noteworthy is leading me to add content about awards received for work. That in turn is getting flags for the article being perceived as promotional. I am trying (unsuccessfully) to strike a balance between a) adding content to allow a non-expert in the field to conclude that the work is truly noteworthy, b) avoiding any perception that I am “puffing” the significance of work by giving factual citations to external recognition, and c) adding useful wikipedia content for readers -- my reason for doing this in the first place. My inexperience in balancing a) and b) for the Wikipedia editing community is obviously getting in the way of my achieving c).

In regards to “Still Going” I was gathering information to address the issue with the Joseph Alba page. I was not paid to create the page and did so simply on my respect for his research contributions. He is one of the most important marketing scholars and consumer researchers in the world. I am still working on the response with Praxidicae but was trying to apply what suggestions were offered to the additional contributions.

Going forward I would appreciate the opportunity to edit collaboratively to ensure that the content is coming from a neutral tone with citations to reliable, third party sources. If it would help I can also add information to the talk pages to clarify the intentions behind the creation of a page that highlights research or the author.

I would still like to contribute to gaps in knowledge related to research in business and consumer financial decision making. JglynchatCU (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@1292simon and Praxidicae: I want to point out that the user name JglynchatCU appears to be intended to parse as "J G Lynch at CU". Combined with the above, I believe the user is self-identifying as a specific faculty member of CU, see [1]. I agree on his expertise, but am concerned that articles about CU faculty from an editor with a substantial COI should go through WP:AFC (and be edited with extreme restraint thereafter). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Russ Woodroofe. I agree that the COI situation here requires the AfC and restraint measures that you suggest.

JglynchatCU, the proper COI disclosure methods are in the links above. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjai Bhagat moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Sanjai Bhagat, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creep^Talk 14:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Test

Hi @jglynchatcu this is a test message! Kyda6468 (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard L. Wobbekind moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Richard L. Wobbekind, has been moved to draftspace.

Paid editing should go through the AfC process. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Diego Garcia (economist) has been accepted

Diego Garcia (economist), 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 C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! 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!

DGG ( talk ) 07:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Thomas G. Thibodeau

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Thomas G. Thibodeau requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.colorado.edu/business/leeds-directory/faculty/thomas-g-thibodeau. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Russell Cropanzano (December 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 Praxidicae 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Russell Cropanzano 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:Russell Cropanzano, 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.

Praxidicae (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Kai R. Larsen

Hello, JglynchatCU. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Kai R. Larsen".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. We will respond quickly.JglynchatCU (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Donald R. Lichtenstein

Hello, JglynchatCU. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Donald R. Lichtenstein".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I will address these points very soon.JglynchatCU (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Joseph W. Alba

Hello, JglynchatCU. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Joseph W. Alba".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I will address these points very soon. JglynchatCU (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Phillip Fernbach (academic) (March 3)

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

Youtube+Linkedin <> WP:RS, Book mention alone does not provide notability.

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:Phillip Fernbach (academic) 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:Phillip Fernbach (academic), 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.

CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Richard L. Wobbekind

Hello, JglynchatCU. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Richard L. Wobbekind, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Douglas J. Skinner has been accepted

Douglas J. Skinner, 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!

PK650 (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sarah Zechman (May 24)

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

The comment the reviewer left was:

Potentially notable per WP:PROF. However, sources will need to be found for her personal information and research. See WP:V and WP:BLP.

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:Sarah Zechman 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:Sarah Zechman, 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.

Modussiccandi (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Russell Cropanzano (June 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 Scope creep was:

Please add a couple of references around the education section and give me a shout. And one for his job please.

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:Russell Cropanzano 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:Russell Cropanzano, 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.

scope_creep^Talk 10:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Russell Cropanzano has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Russell Cropanzano. Thanks! scope_creep^Talk 20:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ecological validity (perception)

Thank you for your great work on this page! Antrocent (♫♬) 21:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Phillip Fernbach (academic)

Hello, JglynchatCU. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Phillip Fernbach (academic), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Kai R. Larsen

Hello, JglynchatCU. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Kai R. Larsen".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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!} 14:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Phillip Fernbach (academic)

Hello, JglynchatCU. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Phillip Fernbach".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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!} 19:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Joseph W. Alba

Hello, JglynchatCU. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Joseph W. Alba".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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!} 19:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Sarah Zechman

Hello, JglynchatCU. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sarah Zechman, 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) 19:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Russell Cropanzano

Hello, JglynchatCU. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Russell Cropanzano, 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) 21:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Sanjai Bhagat

Hello, JglynchatCU. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sanjai Bhagat, 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) 18:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Sanjai Bhagat

Hello, JglynchatCU. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sanjai Bhagat".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If 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!} 18:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of J. Chris Leach for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article J. Chris Leach is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Chris Leach until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

DevSpenpai::talk 15:49, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Cropanzano

Hello Professor Lynch -- I've reduced your article on Professor Cropanzano to a stub so as to be able to accept it without independent sourcing because I believe that the subject is clearly notable as an academic. If you are aware of any reliable independent sources (eg book reviews, festschrift-type papers, prize/fellowship bios that are not from his universities) then let me know and I'll add them. Thanks for contributing this and other content. I'm sorry you've had such a hard time getting it accepted. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. I have had such a frustrating time with Wikipedia that I will not be creating new articles related to my expertise in the future. 128.138.64.112 (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Joseph W. Alba

Hello, JglynchatCU. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Joseph W. Alba".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh:Hi What is wrong with the article? Please re-instate it so I can see what the objection was. It is an utterly accurate item on one of the most decorated consumer behavior researchers in the world. JglynchatCU (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JglynchatCU, please read my previous message. As I stated, it was deleted because it was a draft and hadn't been edited in 6 months. You may request it be restored at WP:REFUND. I am not an admin so I cannot restore it for you. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JglynchatCU: It looks like you've made a request for undeletion before. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]