Jump to content

User talk:ShivUoL

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]
Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, ShivUoL! Thank you for your contributions. I am JAaron95 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! —☮JAaron95 Talk 09:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Leicester Warriors has been reverted.
Your edit here to Leicester Warriors was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/LeicesterWarriors) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Pipette have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links.  
Your edit here to Pipette was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEy_NGDfo_8) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Shiv sandhu

[edit]

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 Shiv sandhu 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 http://www.leicesterwarriors.com/karlbrown/. 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. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 10:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tanya Vladimirova

[edit]
Notice

The article Tanya Vladimirova has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Daiyusha (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Rhaana Starling

[edit]

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 Rhaana Starling requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Nicola Royle

[edit]

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 Nicola Royle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Martha Clokie

[edit]

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 Martha Clokie, 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:

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) 12:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Andrea Cooper

[edit]

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 Andrea Cooper, 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:

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) 12:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Tanya Vladimirova

[edit]

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 Tanya Vladimirova, 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:

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) 13:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Rhaana Starling

[edit]

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 Rhaana Starling, 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:

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) 13:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Nicola Royle

[edit]

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 Nicola Royle, 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:

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) 13:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Alison Goodall

[edit]

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 Alison Goodall 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 http://www.academia.edu/34808683/Research_Student_Almanac_2017-2018_session_Semester_1. 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) 13:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

[edit]
Information icon

Hello ShivUoL. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Andrea Cooper, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, 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:ShivUoL. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=ShivUoL|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Daiyusha (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sibylle Schroll

[edit]

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 Sibylle Schroll, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Melcous (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down!

[edit]

You see what happens when you inundate us with multiple stubby articles. Providing that you make any necessary CoI and paid editing declarations, you may: work on one article at a time in draft space. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Catrin Pritchard

[edit]

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 Catrin Pritchard requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Catrin Pritchard for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Catrin Pritchard 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/Catrin Pritchard 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. Sheldybett (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi ShivUoL, obviously you have received a lot of notifications on this page because you have created a large number of articles very quickly, most of which have not demonstrated key things like notability. This might mean that you have missed the notice above under the heading February 2019 left by Daiyusha about paid editing. Your username, your editing, and recent disclosures by PubEng1 make it apparent that you are engaged in paid editing. This means you should not make any more edits to the main space of the encyclopedia until you have read and understood WP:PAID and agreed to abide by it. Please note that this is not optional, but a condition you agreed to by creating an account here. That is, you must make the appropriate disclosures, and you are requested not to edit or create articles directly but to suggest changes on talk pages or use the articles for creation process so that they can be reviewed by non-conflict editors. Please respond here to show that you have read and understood this, and ask any questions you have. Continuing to edit without responding to these requests could lead to you being blocked from editing. Thank you, Melcous (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melcous/Daiyusha thanks for your message. I was in the process of helping a friend out who is helping female academics at University of Leicester create their own wikipedia pages. This was part of International Womens Day https://le.ac.uk/iwd As my friend hadnt used wikipedia before I was trying to help by creating the dummy pages so she could add the content and also references. Obviously I do not want to be blocked and was trying to help a friend who doesnt understand IT. In regards to payment, I have never received any type of payment. I was assisting my friend in promoting International Womens Day, and more importantly promote STEM (Women in Science). ShivUoL (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. The question about paid editing is if (as your user name implies) you work for the university which the subjects of all the articles you are creating are from - this would fall under the definition of paid editing here which is quite broadly construed. Which means, again, that you need to be careful to abide by the relevant policies. Will you agree to do so? Thank you. (Also note that 'dummy pages' are not a thing, you should instead use the WP:DRAFTS and WP:AFC processes.) Melcous (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I occasionally contribute to the project Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red (WIR), not because I'm prolific at writing about women (outside odd exceptions like Karen Carpenter), but rather I see too many incidents like this. I second-guessed that you were writing these articles as part of a workshop and it certainly looked from a cursory glance that it was possible to write encyclopedia-quality articles about these professors. If you think any have been deleted unnecessarily, let me know and I'll try and get them restored. I'll ping project stalwarts Rosiestep, Megalibrarygirl and SusunW to see if they can offer further advice. Melcous, I don't think you're being helpful, if paid editing is "broadly construed" then I'm in trouble for getting "paid" pizza and beer for writing Bullets and Daffodils and getting a free lunch for improving The Minories, Colchester. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, perhaps 'broadly construed' was poorly worded and I should have just copied the section Meaning of "employer, client, and affiliation" from WP:PAID, but my point was this is about employment, which clearly seems to apply here, not free lunches. Happy to leave this to others as disclosures have now been made. Cheers, Melcous (talk)

Thanks Ritchie333 for understanding what we are trying to achieve. We have approximately 12 academic profiles to create but we stopped on 3. They are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Page , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catrin_Pritchard , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nicola_Royle. Could these be restored/undeleted/warning messages removed please. Please let me know how you get on ShivUoL (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ShivUoL. Thanks for your interest in these women's biographies, for assisting your friend in promoting International Womens Day, and for promoting women in STEM. Bravo! Like Ritchie333, I'd like to try and help, too.
  1. FIRST, because you are writing about people affiliated with your employer, you must disclose your employment affiliation on your userpage. If you are seeking wording examples of how to disclose that you are a paid editor, check these out: User:Jesswade88, User:Digitaleffie, User:JanAtNorthropGrumman. P.S. The reason why your userpage is a redlink is because you haven't written anything there yet.
  2. AFTER you've made the disclosure on your userpage, Ritchie, Megalibrarygirl, SusunW, or I, and/or others can help with the articles you've linked and/or reconstruct the articles which have been deleted (e.g. in a "sandbox" area where they can be improved before being moved to "mainspace"). Hoping all this makes sense? --Rosiestep (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rosiestep, I have updated my userpage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ShivUoL . I am working with PubEng1 on this project. Does she need to do anything? ShivUoL (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating your userpage and for what you wrote. If PubEng1 has an affiliation (faculty, contractor, student, etc.) with University of Leicester and is writing about people affiliated with it, then she should follow the same instructions. Basically, if a Wikipedia editor has an affiliation with Foo and is writing articles about Foo, then they need to disclose their affiliation with Foo. Likewise, I have a statement (User:Rosiestep/About me#Conflict of interest statement) where I indicated that I had never written articles about that org or its people. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some work on improving Catrin Pritchard; although a deletion discussion is still taking place, in my view the article will probably be kept as several editors have mentioned the numerous academic papers she has authored or co-authored. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The event you're doing at University of Leicester... does it have a wiki meetup page where you're keeping track off the articles being creating/improved, e.g. like this: Wikipedia:University of Edinburgh/Events and Workshops/Women in Red? --Rosiestep (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rosiestep I don't think they have a meetup page yet. If ShivUoL and PubEng1 need help setting one up, I can help with that. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PubEng1 knows more about the project than I do. She is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PubEng1 ShivUoL (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm Rosiestep, I've never been paid to edit! Jesswade88 (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Jesswade88; didn't mean to imply that you had! Let me try again. I have provided examples of how editors disclose employment affiliation. Some of these editors write articles about their org or its people and get paid for doing so; and some don't. Other editors are paid by PR firms to write various articles on various topics having nothing to do with their employers. Don't assume someone is a paid editor or has a conflict of interest, e.g. if in doubt, ask. If you aren't clear about the guidelines, read more here: WP:COI and WP:PAID EDITING.
ShivUoL and PubEng1: your userpages address conflict of interest but they do not address paid editing. Please consider doing so. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ShivUoL and PubEng1 You are doing GREAT work. Hopefully the mob (as if) can hold off for a bit as its obvious that you are doing exactly what our project (Wikipedia) wants. You have missed a couple of niceties and some have got a bit over excited (IMO). They may not be biting the newbies but they are doing sometime very close. So can I just remind everyone that it would appear that EVERYONE here is doing the best for Wikipedia. Lets be nice even when someone has not complied with a favourite policy. Well done (all). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victuallers (talk • contribs) 18:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have got Draft:Sibylle Schroll restored - can somebody who knows more about her academic papers expand the article appropriately? I'm afraid I got as far as integral calculus in school and after that my brain couldn't cope. :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO Ritchie333 I'm lucky I can add with my fingers and toes! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion between paid editing and COI

[edit]

As an active member of Women in Red, I constantly check out or review articles written by students and faculty which cover the biographies of notable women (both living and dead) from the university to which they belong. Unless there is any indication to the contrary, I always assume that they are not being paid for their contributions to Wikipedia and that they undertake the work in their free time. I should emphasize that many meetups specifically target coverage of notable members of the institution where the event is being held. If I remember correctly, Victuallers has hosted events in the UK which aim to encourage students to write biographies of notable members of their institutions. In such cases, I cannot recall the need for any statements on their user pages regarding conflict of interest. I am therefore very confused by the above discussion, especially Rosiestep's suggestion that COI statements should be included on the user pages of ShivUoL and PubEng1. As far as I can see, they are not being paid by their institution to include articles about notable graduates or members of the faculty and they probably have no contacts with those they are writing about or any personal interests in them. In any case, if they need to add COI statements, then probably about 20% of all those participating in Wikipedia editathons held at universities need to do so too. Several of the contributors who have joined Wikipedia over the past couple of weeks seem to come in the same category. It is difficult enough to encourage interest in Wikipedia. Surely we don't want to make things even more complicated. If there really is a valid COI which is outside the framework of paid editing, then should this not be mentioned on the article's talk page rather than on the user page of the contributor? Many editors wish to remain fully anonymous. Making statements on their user pages about their institution could be very revealing.--Ipigott (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick reply to this Ipigott, but this does seem to be two different situations: the example you mention of students writing about notable members of their institution, whereas here we seem to have employees of an institution, ("in public engagement" which suggests at least part of the job is promotion), who have directly contacted the subjects of articles, and initially created a large number of articles about people some of whom may or may not be notable. I'm also an active member of Women in Red and it looks like some of these articles will become good contributions in that area, which is great, but I also think we need to take WP:COI and WP:PAID seriously (as has been done when for example similar flurries of articles have been created by employees of Indian and Chinese institutions creating a large number of stubs for their staff members without clearly establishing notability), and hopefully following those will actually lead to better articles in the long run. Melcous (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I'm a newbie to this and more than happy to set up a wiki meet up page if someone can tell me how to do it. :) Basically, I'm in public engagement at the Uni and wanting to write about some of the amazing scholars we have here (women, LGBT, BAME etc.) and improve diversity on Wikipedia. I'm not paid to do this, I'm doing it because I think it needs doing and ShivUoL kindly agreed to give me a hand getting pages set up for me to fill in. I've just emailed a bunch of women here and asked them for info. I've got information for Nicola Royle, Catrin Pritchard, Sybille hasn't replied (and yes, I will struggle with explaining what she does! :)), Rhaana Starling, Tanya Vladimirova, a bit for Alison Goodall and also for Martha Clokie. Andrea Cooper hasn't replied. I'd next like to create a page for Emma Parker. Thoughts and advice all gratefully received! :) PubEng1 (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PubEng1: The best advice I can give you is to look carefully through Women in Red's Ten Simple Rules for creating women's biographies. You might also find it useful to read these guidelines on biographies. It's extremely important to find secondary sources (e.g. journal and newspaper articles) which confirm notability by including significant detail about the person in question. Recognized awards also help. Why not become a member of Women in Red? We can then all help you out if you run into difficulties. You can always contact me on my talk page if you need further assistance.--Ipigott (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PubEng1: I've just been looking at your draft of Nicola Royle. Unfortunately most of your sources are primary, in other words they are related directly to Royle herself or the works she has written. There have also been reports in the press, for example this. And I see from here that in August 2018 she received a substantial award for research on "Investigation of the impact chromosomal integration of human herpes virus 6 (HHV6) has on telomere molecular biology". She has also been recognized in Advances in Genetics. Sources such as these help to establish notability.--Ipigott (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Ian. This paid editing rule is getting misused. Victuallers (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem of paid editing refers not only to choosing whom to write about, but what to say. For academic faculty and researchers, it should be possible even for someone with paid coi with respect to the university to select suitable subjects for articles using the criteria of WP:PROF. Start at the topic. and write about those faculty with named chairs, or who have won major international prizes, or been the presidents of major scholarly societies in their fields, or are members of theNAS or equivalent. After this, consider the full professors who have written two or more scholarly books with major academic publishers. If you can find reviews, and there almost always will be, they'll be unquestionably qualified. Then look at the full professors in sciences who have published the most peer-reviewed papers in important journals. Check the citation records. If using Google Scholar, start with the ones in each field with the papers with the greatest number of citations. How far down you can safely go depends on the field, but you'll soon find out if you start at the top.
The difficulty is in writing suitable articles. In my experience, almost all PR staff automatically write about the person's current and previous job, and mention briefly the earlier degrees and positions at the end. For an encyclopedia , do it chronologically with exact dates. Then describe their research, based on the things they have received awards for, or published highly cited papers of books about. Don't include a single word of praise of puffery, even if it's in the award citation. Don't use generalities or puffery, or vagueness such as "had a role in..." Don't talk about the social or scientific significance of the subject they work on--that information belongs in the articles on the subject . Don't bother with internal university awards or assignments, except for being the head of a major institute containing additional senior faulty than just themselves. Omit routine memberships, includes ones where it's a substantial honor. Omit beingon an editorial board; includebeing editor in cheif of a major journal. Include major professional service, like being head of important outside committees; omit routine, like being a member.
Promotional writing is writing that tells what the university would like outsiders to know about the subject. Encyclopedic writing is writing that tells general readers what they might reasonably want to know. Wanting to write an article to show the world how good the university's professors are is promotional. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

[edit]

To supplement the above advice, the criterion for notability of academic faculty is WP:PROF. This does not require secondary sources for the career, and the accomplishments which show someone notable under this rule are the publications. It's nice to get additional secondary sources, but they are not actually necessary. Make sure the articles contain the full sequence of degrees and positions, with dates, and, in the humanities, a complete list of books published, with year date publisher andI ISBN (and links to published, if available), but in the science, the 5 most cited articles, given in full with coauthors, full name of journals, and links, with the number of citations to each of hem . And any national level awards. Very sparse article attract skepticism as do those using vague claims and superlatives, or those that list all possible internal and external committees. DGG ( talk ) 11:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC) `[reply]

Nomination of Kim Page for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kim Page 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/Kim Page 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. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Martha Clokie

[edit]

Hello, ShivUoL. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Martha Clokie.

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 by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sibylle Schroll

[edit]

Hello, ShivUoL. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Sibylle Schroll.

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 by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ShivUoL&oldid=1137874393"