User talk:Sammyjava
Page contents not supported in other languages.
The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk)13:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a reviewing administrator who specializes in academic bios, I re-checked the article. The main problem is that the material is written in too personal a style, as a tribute to here. Here are the general rule for this type of articles:
(See also our guide to writing Wikipedia articles . )
First, give the basic information--the source should be the CV-- birthplace and date, degrees, previous positions. If there are published books, list them in formal bibliographic style. In a field dependent on journal articles, list the 3 or 4 most influential articles, getting citation figures fromScopus orWeb of Science or Google Scholar, or some other appropriate source.. Do not include conference presentations, book chapters, and other minor published work. Such a list needs to be frequently updated, and belongs in the CV, not an encyclopedia.
Include major national level offices and awards, but not minor ones. Be sure to list editorships (but not mere editorial board membership) --we consider it very important, and you should add it to the articles for the relevant journals also, with a link to the bio.
If the person has any notable students who would qualify for Wikipedia bios, include them. Their PhD & postdoctoral advisors probably also qualify for bios here; add them and link them, even if they do not yet have articles.
It is not necessary to cite the basic information in detail to other than the official CV. However, give any actual references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. For any part you quote directly from a published bio, include quotation marks and a reference.
Pay particular attention to the way we make links to other Wikipedia articles. AvoidWP:Peacock terms: do not use words of praise, or state that the person is important: the contents of the article will show it.
Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective students--that sort of content is considered promotional. Keep in mind that the goal of an encyclopedia is to say things in a concise manner, which is not the style of press releases or web sites, or CVs, which are usually more expansive.
And be certain never to use material copied from other sources unless it is in the public domain, or released to us under a free license Even when it might be possible to get permission, there is generally no point in doing so--a person's web site or CV is usually unsuitable for WP, because it is usually written to some degree as a press release, praising rather than describing the subject and containing material we would not include, such as a full list of every minor publication. It is therefore always better and much easier to rewrite. In doing this, remember to also alsoClose paraphrase. Rewrite from scratch, changing not just the words, but the arrangement into sentences and the sequence of ideas.
If I can help you with any of this, let me know. DGG ( talk)04:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions toWikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you cancreate articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Sionk (talk)03:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
I saw that you live in Madison (based on your userpage), so if you're interested, I wanted to invite you to ahumanities edit-a-thon in the Madison Public Library onFriday, April 25th (1:30–3:30). It'll be on the shorter side and is aimed at new editors, but I hope to see you there. More information is available on the2014 UW Conference on the Public Humanities website.Let me know if you have any questionsczar ♔04:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sammyjava. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made toDraft:Gohar Vardanyan, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia'smandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category ofconflict 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 onneutral point of view and whatWikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; theWikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin toblack-hat search-engine optimization.
Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on thetalk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through thearticles for creation process, rather than directly.
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you arerequired by theWikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page atUser:Sammyjava. The template{{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:{{paid|user=Sammyjava|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.GSS 💬15:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GSS Note that I have resubmitted the draft for review. I apologize for moving it to main on my own earlier today, that was a mistake on my part, thinking that the article would be put into review mode. Now it is in the proper review process, as I had originally intended! I hugely appreciate your help in getting this page published!
There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possibleconflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you.GSS 💬17:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you may know, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject isnotable. Essentially subjects are presumednotable if they have received significant coverage inmultiple publishedsecondary sources that arereliable,intellectually independent of each other, andindependent of the subject. To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’. Additionally, the draft tends to read too much like a CV, whichWikipedia is not. Also, if you have any connection to the subject, including being paid, you have aconflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link). Please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements, then please make the necessary amendments before resubmitting the page. It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on thedraft's talk page, theWP:THREE best sources that establishnotability of the subject. It would also be helpful if you could please identifywith specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:NMUSICIAN criteria #3, because XXXXX").
You may also wish to leave a note for me onmy talk page and I would be happy to reassess. | Hello,Sammyjava!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 theArticles for creation help desk. If you have anyother questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at theTeahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!Cabrils (talk)21:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply] |
Hello, Sammyjava. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:Gohar Vardanyan, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you canrequest it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.FireflyBot (talk)22:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sammyjava! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such astypo corrections or reverting obviousvandalism. Any edit that changes themeaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you.DrKay (talk)12:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Sammyjava. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:Jonathan Leathwood, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you canrequest it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.FireflyBot (talk)00:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]