User talk:Stravo123

Welcome!

Hello, Stravo123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Best practices for editors with close associations
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! CNMall41 (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41:

Thanks for your generous offers and explanations regarding my recent proposed article! The article was rejected for citing references that did not show “published, reliable, secondary sources” independent of the subject. I am writing to ask for possible review or proof-read of a revised draft, and for clarification of a suggestion you had in your kind letter to me yesterday.

My rewritten draft attempts both to eliminate any statement of opinion for a clearer statement of fact, and to cite every statement of fact in the piece to a published, reliable, secondary source. In particular, I've removed a book reference published by iUniverse (“vanity press” warning), and added several additional, more reputable sources. In the new draft, three of my ten references are to peer-reviewed scientific journals, an additional one is to an entire research volume dedicated to the topic of my reference published by the largest mathematics organization in the US, and one is to a chapter in another peer-reviewed academic research volume published by Springer, the 2nd largest science/mathematics publisher in the world. Finally, additional references now link to external (independent) research bibliographies of published work authored both by the subject of my article (22 publications on Research Gate) and by other scholars researching topics of his invention either directly (Google Scholar, 11.9K results) or indirectly (3.4M results, respectively). I hope collectively these meet the criteria of being both substantial and reputable!

I’ve hosted the new draft directly on my User page as you recommended. If you were able to proofread and/or review it there, I would appreciate hearing your comment as to whether I have substantively engaged with the criticism that led it previously being declined.

The additional clarification I ask for relates to your comments about “accounts used by more than one person” or editors who “receive or expect to receive compensation” for contributions. Neither applies to my case. I am the only user (to my knowledge!) of Stravo123, which I created just yesterday. I'm also receiving no compensation for my contribution. I am, however, hoping to fill with usable hyperlinks holes in at least three currently-published Wikipedia articles that link to a “no page exists”-entry from the subject of my piece! I've also already disclosed my conflict of interest on my User page, as instructed by Wikipedia when first drafting the article. It could be your comments are somewhat boilerplate when writing to Wikipedians with apparent conflicts of interest, but it could be you are also responding to something specific in my draft or my profile of which I'm not aware. If so, can you help me better understand the concern? Thanks.

Again, I really appreciate your courteous letter, existing suggestions, and offer of further help. I hope that my revised draft usefully engages all three!

Best regards

Stravo123 (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping. I already reviewed so not sure why you are asking me to review it again. If no changers were made to improve it, then there really isn't anything I can review. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 sorry -- the changes I made in response to your initial Declination were on my "User" page (where References are substantially different than the original you first reviewed). Perhaps this was the wrong place to host. I have also (just) changed things on Draft:Nicholas Jackiw to match, though I had thought that page was subject to spontaneous removal. Are you able to review at one of these sites? Thanks so much.

Also had a few questions (above) not directly related to text but to your instructions to avoid "accounts used by more than one person" or payment for editing. Neither is the case here.

Thanks in advance for any take you can share on my draft re-write!

Stravo123 (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to resubmit if you feel the issues have been addressed. There are plenty of reviewers so someone should be able to give you a second opinion. In the meantime, you will need to remove the information from your userpage as it is consider a webhost to do so. Good luck. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 Okay, thank you. I've removed the copy from User and will resubmit my revised Draft per your suggestion. Thanks. Stravo123 (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nicholas Jackiw (April 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 CNMall41 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.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nicholas Jackiw and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

CNMall41 (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stravo123! Having an article draft 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! CNMall41 (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nicholas Jackiw (September 1)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to

meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria
or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth

Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Google Scholar cannot be used as a reference. Please remove it. If the underlying material is suitable as a means of verifying notability please use that. However, their product may be a difficult reference to use. Let me try to explain. If they manufactured vacuum cleaners, the cleaners would be their work. A vacuum cleaner could not be a reference for them, simply because it is the product they make. So it is with research, writings, etc. However, a review of their work by others tends to be a review of them and their methods, so is a reference, as is a peer reviewed paper a reference for their work. You may find WP:ACADEME of some use in seeing how Wikipedia and Academe differ hugely

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nicholas Jackiw and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Nicholas Jackiw

Hello, Stravo123. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Nicholas Jackiw".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When 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. ✗plicit 14:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]