User talk:Kyda6468

April 2020

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Sharon Matusik, from its old location at User:Kyda6468/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sharon Matusik (April 13)

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

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.

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Wikipedia is not a place to post a press release about someone or post their CV. We do not care about their press links. Nor do we care about unsourced claims like "has promoted the equal participation of women in business and business leadership". What we do care about is a formal, neutral entry about the subject that is properly backed with inline citations.

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:Sharon Matusik 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:Sharon Matusik, 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.

Sulfurboy (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kyda6468! 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! Sulfurboy (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. 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:Sharon Matusik 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:Sharon Matusik, 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.

1292simon (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Hello, Kyda6468. 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.

I've added the COI template to the Jeffrey J. Reuer talk page. You should also do so at the other pages that you've created. It'd be good form to also add the COI userbox to your user page. Wikipedia takes undisclosed paid editing very seriously, so you want to disclose clearly. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Manuel Laguna

If this was the first article that you 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.

The page Manuel Laguna has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appeared to be a direct copy from https://www.colorado.edu/business/leeds-directory/faculty/manuel-laguna. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been 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.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review GirthSummit _(blether) 07:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Hi - I've noticed that you have written a number of articles about academics at the Leeds School of Business. You have been directed above to our COI guidelines, and you should also read PAID, which forms part of the terms of use of this website. Assuming you have a connection to this subject, you are required to declare it, and you should be using the AfC process to publish articles. Please respond to this concern. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undeclared paid editing

Hi again. In this edit, you have once again edited an article about an employee of the University of Colorado. Since I last commented here, I have been made aware of this edit summary, in which you indicate that you are an employee of the University of Colorado. While I thank you for making your connection clear in that edit summary, that is not sufficient. Again, please read PAID and COI, and make the necessary declarations. If you continue to edit about these subjects without making the appropriate disclosures, I will need to block your account from editing until you have addresses these concerns. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of your articles have been moved to draft space for this reason. As a paid editor, you should not be making inclusion decisions. MER-C 13:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Davis

I am a current student and student worker for the University of Colorado Boulder at the Leeds Business School.

As a student employee I have been tasked to do and assist with public outreach, and in that sense that my job requires me to post professional biographical pages for accredited professors and be paid for these posts.

I guess you've read the COI and paid editing guidelines. If you'd like to pick one of the draft articles to polish and eventually run through Articles for Creation, I'd be willing to give you some feedback on it. Perhaps on a female subject? First piece of advice: almost every sentence past the lede should be supported by a citation to a reliable source. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I did read the COI. Could you take a look at Sharon Matusik's page and give me some feedback? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sharon_Matusik . I believe that this is the most credible female subject I have submitted. Kyda6468 (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first thing to do would be to bring it in line with the WP:MOS: It looks like you're doing something strange with the headings. Then, almost every sentence should be followed by a ref tag pointing to a reliable secondary source. Her papers are primary sources, and not very helpful. (You generally can use primary sources for routine and run-of-the-mill CV details, but not for much else.) I'd suggest combining the first three sections to "Education and career", and cutting the research description down to 1-2 sentences, unless her research has been covered by a 3rd party in a reliable source. (Citations to her own work are not so helpful here; a 1-2 sentence description could be supported by a reference to her description of her research on a CU profile page.) The stuff about her tenure as dean might be possible to include, if it's been covered in a local or campus newspaper, for example. You might add a "Selected publications" section with her 3 most highly-cited papers in it. It'd be somewhat helpful if she created and curated a Google Scholar profile, which would make it easier to try to establish WP:NPROF criterion 1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see your recent round of edits, and the sourcing looks somewhat better. You've got a lot of bare urls in the citations, OTOH. It's generally preferred to use Template:Cite web or Template:Cite news or the similar templates. (Cite journal, cite book, ...) There are some tools listed at Help:Citation tools that'll help you fill in the templates (citer is perhaps the most helpful of those). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have changed those citations and the research was cut down into two sentences. Do you think it is ready to be submitted, and do you think that I need to contact the editors that made comments on this page? Kyda6468 (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to take a few days to reply. The Dean section is still completely unsourced. The Research section has only primary sources to her own work, although it's at least fairly short. Add sources to the Dean section (say, from local news?). I recommend adding a section to the talk page entitled "Notability", and saying clearly under there what notability criteria you think she meets. I see you have the COI disclosure on the talk page, so that's good. (Hint: she probably does not meet WP:NPROF C6, but C1 looks likely.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing. I notice that you are building the citations by hand. It's both easier and also produces better/more consistent results to use the citation templates. For papers with a DOI, you can go use the Citer tool and enter the doi, and the tool will fill in the template for you. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you so much for your feedback and taking the time to help me! I have fixed those citations and used the tool on wiki to do my citations. I have also found 3 more citations that include some newspaper articles. Kyda6468 (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the text in the Dean section of the article is so well supported by the citation; it also sounds too promotional. I'd start with the article you cite, and also with [1], and summarize them briefly (avoiding copyvio) and from a WP:NPOV. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some changes and figured out a better way to include the recommended citation. I have also went through it to make sure to get rid of promotional language. Kyda6468 (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the Dean section has the same weaknesses that it did before. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologizes I thought you meant the first section. I thought it was best to take out that section just because there are no other notable sources on this subject, and it was kind of irrelevant to the real reason why she is noteworthy, her research, and her high-rank position at Leeds. Kyda6468 (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing an undersourced section is one way to go! I don't see any major concerns that remain in the article. I'd suggest adding a clear statement of why you think she's notable somewhere in the talk page or otherwise before or as you submit to AfC. Keep in mind that AfC editors are not necessarily that familiar with WP:NPROF. As I mentioned already, it would be helpful if Matusik would set up a Google Scholar profile (as a convenient way to demonstrate scholarly impact), but I think the article has a reasonable chance at your next submission to AfC.

Btw, if you're looking for a next article to look at (while you wait for AfC on the first), I'd suggest Draft:Margaret C. Campbell. The journal editorship + named professorship help, and the GS profile makes scholarly impact clearer. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that dean is usually not sufficient for WP:NPROF C6. The president of UC Boulder qualifies; the provost might.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jonathan L. Rogers has been accepted

Jonathan L. Rogers, 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!

DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sharon Matusik has been accepted

Sharon Matusik, 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!

DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey J. Reuer moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Jeffrey J. Reuer, 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. 1292simon (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Tony Tong

Hello, Kyda6468. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Tony Tong".

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) 21:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Janet Bercovitz

Hello, Kyda6468. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Janet Bercovitz".

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) 21:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Sarah Zechman

Hello, Kyda6468. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sarah Zechman".

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) 21:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:John G. Lynch Jr.

Hello, Kyda6468. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "John G. Lynch Jr.".

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) 19:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret C. Campbell

While (as you saw from my AfC comment) I don't think Draft:Margaret C. Campbell is ready for mainspace as it stands, there is a simple solution. We could cut the research section down to a few sentences. (I had a very short research section that was reasonably well-sourced, which I had left in parallel with the longer section of original research.) The drawback of that is that it would be a bit difficult for an editor with COI to try to add to it later. What do you think? (Do you want to work on the article more?) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Margaret C. Campbell has been accepted

Margaret C. Campbell, 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.

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!

DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sharon Matusik for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sharon Matusik 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/Sharon Matusik 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 until the discussion has finished.

Chris Troutman (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]