User talk:KNivarthy

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, KNivarthy. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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. S0091 (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional guidance

Hi KNivarthy, please also read Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. Self-published publications/sites, such as the subject's website, LinkedIn, etc. are not considered reliable sources. In addition, ballotpedia is not considered in general reliable. It is best to stick with mainstream media sources and the like that are independent of the subject, have a history of fact checking and editorial oversight. Be sure to only summarize what the sources state; nothing less, nothing more (see Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. If you have questions or need help, you can reach out the Teahouse. S0091 (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rosemary Becchi (July 23)

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

This draft, as written, does not appear to indicate that one of the biographical notability criteria is satisfied. If one of the criteria is satisfied, please revise this draft appropriately, with a reliable source, if necessary stating on the talk page or in AFC comments which criterion is met, and resubmit. It is the responsibility of the submitter to show that a subject satisfies a notability criterion.

You may ask for advice about the biographical notability criteria at the Teahouse.

In particular, see and refer to WP:NPOL for notability, which is the guideline that the subject should be evaluated against.

As a candidate for the US House of Representatives, the subject does not have political notability. She also does not appear to have general notability except for coverage of her campaign, and it has been the policy of Wikipedia not to provide general notability based primarily on the coverage of a campaign.

If this draft is resubmitted, explain in AFC comments or on this draft talk page how general notability applies other than as a candidate.

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:Rosemary Becchi 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:Rosemary Becchi, 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KNivarthy! 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rosemary Becchi (July 30)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Robert McClenon was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: This draft has been resubmitted without any visible improvement, or with very little improvement. If you do not know what is needed to improve this draft, please ask for advice rather than making minor improvements and resubmitting.

You may ask for advice on how to improve this draft at the Teahouse or on the talk pages of any of the declining reviewers. (The declining reviewers may advise you to ask for advice at the Teahouse.)

If this draft is resubmitted without any improvement or with very little improvement again, it is likely to be rejected, and it may be nominated for deletion, or a topic-ban may even be requested against further submission by the responsible editor.

This draft was declined, saying that if it was resubmitted, a statement should be made as to how the subject satisfies general notability, since she does not satisfy political notability. It has been resubmitted without any improvement, which is tendentious.

This draft has been Rejected by a reviewer in the Articles for Creation review process. DO NOT resubmit this draft or attempt to resubmit this draft or prepare or submit a draft that is substantially the same as this draft without discussing the reasons for the rejection. You may request a discussion with the rejecting reviewer, or you may request a discussion with the community at the Teahouse. A discussion will not necessarily agree to a resubmission.

It should be noted that the reviewer has not decided that the topic is not notable. An article on the topic may be accepted in the future. However, there is no reason to think that this draft will become an article, and there is evidence that this draft will never become an article. If there is to be an article on this topic, this draft must first be blown up and started over.

If this draft is resubmitted without discussion and without starting it over, or if an attempt is made to resubmit this draft or an equivalent draft, without addressing the reasons for the Rejection by starting over, a partial block or a topic-ban may be requested against the submitting editor.

You may ask for advice about Rejection at the Teahouse.

The subject may be notable (and she will be notable if she is elected), but this draft is not making any progress toward establishing notability.

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Rosemary Becchi

Hello, KNivarthy. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Rosemary Becchi, 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) 00:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Rosemary Becchi

Hello, KNivarthy. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rosemary Becchi".

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!} 23:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]