User talk:Sammyjava

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mabel Hokin (October 15)[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mabel Hokin.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page. Please remember to link to the submission!
You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Sammyjava. You have new messages at Aggie80's talk page.
Message added 13:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Status and Advice[edit]

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 from Scopus or Web 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. Avoid WP: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 also Close 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]

Your submission at AfC Mabel Hokin was accepted[edit]

Mabel Hokin, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sionk (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Hello, Sammyjava. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by LukeSurl^{t c} 15:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Edit-a-thon in Madison[edit]

I saw that you live in Madison (based on your userpage), so if you're interested, I wanted to invite you to a humanities edit-a-thon in the Madison Public Library on Friday, 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 the 2014 UW Conference on the Public Humanities website. Let me know if you have any questions czar ♔ 04:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024[edit]

Hello Sammyjava. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:Gohar Vardanyan, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, 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 serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk 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 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: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 I am not in any way being compensated either directly or indirectly for my edits to this page. I am merely an editor who was rather surprised to discover that Vardanyan did not have a Wikipedia artist bio page. In fact, I intentionally did not mention her sponsorships, as that would appear to be advertising. I have no relationship with Vardanyan other than as a fan of her work. I appreciate the concern, and it's certainly worthy of noting. Sammyjava (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing clarification. Have you ever had any professional or personal contact with her? GSS ^💬 16:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have, via comments on her performances on YouTube. Nothing unusual or close - standard fare these days with performers on social media. I have never met her in person, talked to her, or seen her perform in person (although I certainly hope to some day!). Sammyjava (talk) 17:21, 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!

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. GSS ^💬 17:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gohar Vardanyan (February 21)[edit]

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

Well done on creating the draft, and it may potentially meet the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NMUSICIAN) but presently it is not clear that it does.

As you may know, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent 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, which Wikipedia is not. Also, if you have any connection to the subject, including being paid, you have a conflict 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 the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject. It would also be helpful if you could please identify with 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 on my talk page and I would be happy to reassess.

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:Gohar Vardanyan 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.

Cabrils (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 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! Cabrils (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]