User talk:Quinternion

coi[edit]

Before I review your Draft:Karthik Ramani, since this is your only contribution under this user name, it is reasonable to ask whether you are a connected contributor, in which case you must declare the connection. Please see our rules on Conflict of Interest If you are writing this for pay or as a staff member of the organization, see also WP:PAID for the necessary disclosures.

It would also seem from the style that you have written articles here under other user names; this is not prohibited, but it might clarify the possibility of COI if you declared it. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Thank you for the follow-up. I added the COI of being related to Purdue University on the talk page for the article. I have edited other web sites using MediaWiki, so I am somewhat familiar with the markdown of the system. Looking forward to getting more involved in Wikipedia on the editing side of the community. Quinternion (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn;t quite say so, but what you have implied is that you are not employed by the universitywith part or all of your job being to write press releases, or university web pages, or wikipedia articles . DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Thank you again. I was looking at the rejection of the article. I am not sure how to just reply to that comment. When you state Give the number of citations to each of them, can you help explain what you are referring to? The statements made and where they are in the CV? I was modeling this article after other professor ones I found on Wikipedia. Do you have some others I could use for reference and guidance? I am reading through Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) and did not see guidance on awards given, for instance. I will also work on researching the specific editorial positions. Thank you again. Quinternion (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At WP , the written guidelines usually lag behind practice. The only way to learn what's considered acceptable is to keep track on discussions in the area at WP:CSD and the many discussion boards. This tends to put a premium on experience, which can handicap newcomers, but it also gives flexibility.

There are two questions always--what an editor can manage to get away with, and what makes a high-quality article.

High quality articles are particularly important for beginners, who need to overcome the current feeling that a newcomer who writes a biography is likely to have a conflict of interest (and I think most of our longer academic bios both now and earlier, do in fact have a coi from the university or the department or the subject—or the commercial organization the subject is affiliated with. )

For someone who is truly notable, an encyclopedia article is much more satisfactory if it highlights the truly important parts of the career. Inclusion of minor detail tends to give the impression that perhaps the major material isn't all that impressive--and, sometimes, obscure the major material entirely. This is totally different from the current standard academic CV , which includes everything. It's also different from what tends to be written on faculty web pages, which is often inexact about specifics.

Here's my three informal complementary explanations of the meaning of promotionalism :

(1) Promotional writing tells the audience what the subject would like them to know. Encyclopedic writing tells the audience what they would reasonably want to know and expect to find in an encyclopedia .

(2) Promotional writing is directed towards the subject's current or prospective colleagues or students or sponsors or supporters. Encyclopedic writing is directed to the general public who might come across the subject's name and want to find some objective information.

(3) Promotional writing tells how good or important the subject is. Encyclopedic writing gives the subject's objective accomplishments, and lets the reader draw their own conclusion. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG:: Thank you again for all of your help, feedback, and information. Until I have more in-depth information about the Professional Service roles, I removed this section from the Draft, along with the Purdue awards. I have added a link to the CV as a reference for the opening sentence. Based on your previous declined commentary, your issues should be addressed. Can you provide any other additional feedback before I submit for consideration again? Quinternion (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Karthik Ramani (February 9)[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 DGG was:

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:

The article needs a reference for the basic bio--this can be the formal CV-- please if possible add the full CV , not just the personal page at the university ,which needs to be less exact. Give the number of citations to each of them . Include only national level awards-- awards from their own university. Specify the editorial positions -- editorial board does not count for much. Neither does most commitee memberships.

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:Karthik Ramani 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:Karthik Ramani, 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.

DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Quinternion! 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! DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Karthik Ramani has been accepted[edit]

Karthik Ramani, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-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. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sulfurboy (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]