User talk:Earthianyogi

Hello, Earthianyogi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

(Part of a larger guide on various issues new users face).

If you're going to write an article about anyone or anything that is not you or something you are connected to, here are the steps you should follow:

1) Choose a topic whose notability is attested by discussions of it in several reliable independent sources.

2) Gather as many professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources you can find. Google Books is a good resource for this. Also, while search engine results are not sources, they are where you can find sources. Just remember that they need to be professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources.

3) Focus on just the ones that are not dependent upon or affiliated with the subject, but still specifically about the subject and providing in-depth coverage (not passing mentions). If you do not have at least three such sources, the subject is not yet notable and trying to write an article at this point will only fail.

4) Summarize those sources left after step 3, adding citations at the end of them. You'll want to do this in a program with little/no formatting, like Microsoft Notepad or Notepad++, and not in something like Microsoft Word or LibreOffice Writer. Make sure this summary is just bare statement of facts, phrased in a way that even someone who hates the subject can agree with.

5) Combine overlapping summaries where possible (without arriving at new statements that no individual source supports), repeating citations as needed.

6) Paraphrase the whole thing just to be extra sure you've avoided any copyright violations or plagiarism.

7) Use the Article wizard to post this draft and wait for approval.

8) Expand the article using sources you put aside in step 3 (but make sure they don't make up more than half the sources for the article, and make sure that affiliated sources don't make up more than half of that).

Doing something besides those steps typically results in the article not being approved, or even in its deletion.

If you are writing about yourself, or someone or something you are connected with (such as a friend, family member, or your business), the following steps are different:

0) If the subject really was notable, you wouldn't need to write the article. Remember that articles are owned by the Wikipedia community as a whole, not the article subject or the article author. If you do not want other people to write about you, then starting an article about yourself is a bad idea.

8a) If the article is accepted, never edit it again. Instead, make edit requests on the article's talk page.

8b) If the article is rejected, there will be a reason given. Read it carefully and closely. If there are links in the reason, open them and read those pages.

Ian.thomson (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson:, Thank you for such a fantastic response. You just simplified all the policy jargon in simple words I could understand in no time. However, I am still struggling to get my head around 8a? Could you kindly elaborate? Earthianyogi (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's if you're writing about yourself, or someone or something you are connected with (such as a friend, family member, or business) -- in other words, if you have a conflict of interest. In that case, once you finish 7, wait until it's approved. If it's not approved, see 8a (read the reason for rejection and try to fix those problems if possible). Once/if the article is approved and moved from draft space into article space, you should not edit it directly and should ignore step 8 in the regular directions. Instead, you go to the article's talk page, and make a post starting with "{{request edit}}" followed with "please add the following material to the article" along with the material you would have added in step 8. That way, another editor without a conflict of interest will either carry out the edits or else explain how to what problems prevent them from being carried out in their current form. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson:, Fab! Thank you Earthianyogi (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:PET for Bone Imaging, from its old location at User:Earthianyogi/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Earthianyogi! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Suggestions for improvement, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was trying to send you the Zoom link for today's meetup but it seems you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia. Can you get in touch with me at thewub.wiki@googlemail.com and I'll send it over. the wub "?!" 12:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Accept my appologies, I could not attend. Hope the meeting went well. Cheers Earthianyogi (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PET for Bone Imaging, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

-- RoySmith (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Earthianyogi. 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 David Biddulph (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Hello, Earthianyogi. 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 DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:British Nuclear Medicine Society. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Do you work for, or have some association with the British Nuclear Medicine Society? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP I do not work for the British Nuclear Medicine Society. I am not paid to write this article about British Nuclear Medicine Society. I am not a member of the British Nuclear Medicine Society. I have published peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts in the Nuclear Medicine Communication journal. Earthianyogi (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for that. You are certainly dedicated to the task of editing their page. I would make these suggestions: when adding links and text, avoid promotion. Stay with neutral language. Seek out independent sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP It was never about them. I wanted to know what was I doing wrong? I think it takes time to learn anything.

Hi Earthianyogi! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, PhD thesis citation error, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Earthianyogi! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, I find an editor particularly rude. I am trying to ignore, but what else can I do?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Atlantic306 was:

Needs some references directly about her.

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:Angelika Bischof-Delaloye 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:Angelika Bischof-Delaloye, 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.

Atlantic306 (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Earthianyogi! 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! Atlantic306 (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angelika Bischof-Delaloye, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Atlantic306 (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ignac Fogelman, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Spicy (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Earthianyogi

Thank you for creating Ignac Fogelman.

User:Spicy, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Consider adding a "Selected publications" section with his 5 most highly cited papers/books.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Spicy}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Spicy (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spicy:, Hello, I have the section, as suggested. Thanks Earthianyogi (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Earthianyogi! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Some questions, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Earthianyogi, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Razavi, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Fiddle Faddle 16:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Nuclear Medicine Communications, 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. Randykitty (talk) 09:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randykitty, I see that you have added a speedy deletion tag to this page. I have removed advert material from Nuclear medicine communication after reading some content written by yourself as well. You appear to be a very experienced editor. Could you suggest improvements so that the page is not deleted? Thx Earthianyogi (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shanta Persaud, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

MurielMary (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Eternal Shadow 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sanjukta Deb 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:Sanjukta Deb, 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.

Eternal Shadow Talk 18:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Shadow Hello, The article was submitted based on Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Please see guidelines WP:NACADEMIC or WP:PROF. Verification references are provided.

• https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/sanjukta-deb
• https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/persons/sanjukta-deb(e9fa9bf9-d206-43c1-ac21-ce33fbef273a).html

Please let me know why is this not enough? Thanks Earthianyogi (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earthianyogi A large part of the article is a list and it just seems to be a resume, not a notable biographical subject. Eternal Shadow Talk 14:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Shadow, Did you read these guidelines WP:NACADEMIC or WP:PROF. It is a notable biographical subject. I think you may be missing something. Earthianyogi (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earthianyogi Yes, and it fails criteria 2 of WP:NACADEMIC The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. I didn’t see any major sources showing this. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Shadow, what about other criteria from 1 to 8? Did you read those? "Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." Earthianyogi (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earthianyogi, yes I’m familiar with them (which is a requirement to be an AfC reviewer). Eternal Shadow Talk 15:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, It fails most of the rest of the criteria as well. Please reread WP:NACADEMIC. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Shadow, How does the following fails most of the criteria? Please elaborate.

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. --She has 7 patents, published more than 162 scientific documents with 2487 citations, and an h-index of 26

2. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). --Fellow of Academy of Dental Materials (FADM). --Chair: Royal Society of Chemistry: Biomaterials Chemistry interest group.

3. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. --She has published more than 162 scientific documents with 2487 citations, and an h-index of 26

4. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. --She is a Professor at King's Collge London.

5. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. --Ex-president: UK Society of Biomaterials. --Secretary: UK Society for Biomaterials.

6. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. --She is an editor to various scientific national and international journals, for example, Journal of Biomaterials Application (Associate editor), Journal of Tissue Science & Engineering (Associate editor), and Journal of the American Ceramic Society (Guest editor).

Earthianyogi (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also concerned that some parts sound like a resume. Please turn the list like sections into sentences. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Shadow, that can be done. Thanks for the helpful advice. Earthianyogi (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Shadow, Updated! I am sure you can make the nessasary edits, if there is something missing. Earthianyogi (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes let me do clean up edits. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sanjukta Deb. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjukta Deb, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Archana Singh-Manoux. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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'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 for academics). 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:

What needs to be listed is the books she edited, and the peer-reviewed journal papers that have the highest citation figures. Chapters are secondary

It does not matter how many total publications or total citations; notability is from publishing papers which make an influence on the field, as shown by their very hgih citations: list them, with the individual values. h index discriminates between the weak and the medium level, not the medium and the exceptional. ,

President of a national society matters, but not in-house service.

She's notable , so revise and resubmit

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:Vicky Goh 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:Vicky Goh, 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 ) 02:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please do not add very broad categories to articles, as you did at Ilina Singh, Shanta Persaud, Sanjukta Deb, and others. Categorization on English Wikipedia is governed by several guidelines: Wikipedia:Categorization, Wikipedia:Overcategorization. —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :Andrybak, thanks for pointing out and introducing me to the guidelines. I will read and try to follow. Thank you Earthianyogi (talk) 10:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

I intend to accept this in the future, but if possible could you expand the sections “books edited”, “chapters edited” and “publications”? Also try to add more refs. Thanks.

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:Vicky Goh 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:Vicky Goh, 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.

Eternal Shadow Talk 16:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to get an article accepted through AfC is by sourcing every sentence with a citation from a reliable source and expanding the article so that the sourcing is adequate. Also on a side note please do NOT use extra headers at the bottom for notifying the reviewers that you improved the article as suggested and use the talk page if need be. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Goh, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Eternal Shadow Talk 17:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Earthianyogi! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Just a thought, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Earthianyogi! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Adding counter tags to my talk page, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. Stuff the subject wrote doesn't count for notability. Websites from the subject's employer don't count. Most people are never notable and those that become notable aren't written about until after they die.

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:Kawal Rhode 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:Kawal Rhode, 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.

Chris Troutman (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)‎, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Draft talk:Kawal Rhode does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Chris Troutman (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many/most of the articles you have created about academics suffer the same weaknesses at the one for Rhodes. Even though most have been accepted, in my opinion they do not confirm notability, and if I was in a mean mood I would nominate all of them for deletion. How much a professor was awarded in grants, how many grad student degrees they oversaw, their articles being cited - none of that conveys notability. Academics doing what is expected of academics is not Wikipedia notability. David notMD (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:David notMD, but I was suggested to add citation by other reviewers (WP:PROF: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account. "), also they meet the awards criteria, and edited many books, or chief-editors as explained in the WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Also, I have seen many articles on Wiki, which are much weaker than these I have created. Should I start nominating these for deletion? How can I do that? Also, to be Wiki notable, do people need to do what is not expected of them - isn't this odd? Earthianyogi (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone in academia should be focused upon being a good academic. That an encyclopedia writes about them should not be their goal. You might be misled by folks like Eppstein who are inclusionists: they tend to see notability in broad terms. However, those of us that read the criteria more strictly don't see it that way. Some of this is subjective. Some admins even choose to keep articles ignoring what our guidelines say. You won't always get a single answer on these questions. Please also avoid making a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I did like it when you said, "Wikipedia hasn't determined if 300 is high impact. We don't have objective numbers. Maybe that's a lot; maybe it's not. Maybe it varies by field. I don't know. Ultimately, you think the subject is notable and you refuse to admit that N:PROF doesn't support your claim" and that is why I pinged you earlier.

I have been discussing the ideas with others on the notability's talk page, and feel that maybe I can present a slightly less biased view of the two sides, which I will as soon as I get time.

Also, concerning Kawal's draft, I found a few media-articles talking about him, which I have referenced within the article. Please note that I do not care if the article gets in or not, but I struggle with situations when an article appears to meets the criteria, but I am told that it does not.

IN regards to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I am not saying that include this article on the basis that other non-sense exits on Wiki. On the contrary, I am saying, if this draft is non-sense, it should go, and so do the other articles that are one-liners, and not satisfy the Wiki notability criteria.

I hope you read David notMD ideas, which I beg to differ with, as the other people meet the awards criteria, or the chief-editor criteria, or edited books that are used in university criteria within WP:PROF. If you negate the whole WP:PROF guidelines itself, then I am left with nothing to talk. Earthianyogi (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, let me clarify that i my opinion, Earthianyogi, your view is generally in accord with long standing and consistent consensus here. Every few years, there's an attempt to deprecate WP:PROF, by those who either consider GNG policy without exceptions --a view repeatedly rejected by the community -- or who do not realize WP:PROF has a different status than some of the other Special notability guidelines--It is an alternate to the GNG of equal standing, not just a guide to what might be presumed

That said, it is not wise to submit articles on academic people or on anything else that meet onl the bare minimum. There should be some attempt to do what an encyclopedia is supposed to do, which is to provide information. .One-sentence bios are more suitable for a bigraphical dictionary than an encyclopedia.

I will check other articles and submissions of yours, and also any academic bio articles that have been deleted or declined by some of the other people in the discussion. If any of your work is challenged on these grounds please let me know--if I think the notability is clear enough I will try to help. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kawal Rhode, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

TJMSmith (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Earthianyogi! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Draft talk:Kawal Rhode, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I wanted to take a moment and explain at a little more length why I removed the citation counts from the H. Ray Dunning article. As I said in the edit summary, one reason is that they don't help establish notability in this case. As areas in the humanities tend to have low citation rates, WP:NAUTHOR tends to be more relevant than WP:NPROF. I don't think exact numbers belong anyway, since they're likely to be out-of-date. And the counts were not referenced.

In a case where someone is mainly notable for a few works, and you don't have another assertion to notability in the article, then I'd suggest including in the article text something like "This work has been cited over 100 times", with a citation to their Google Scholar (or in a pinch, to the GS identifier of the article). Note that you're not supposed to include references to searches in Wikipedia articles, but I think looking an article up by ID is ok.

An additional comment on your edits to that article. I'm not sure it adds very much to have a book in the list of books, and also in the references. I'd suggest cutting out the citation there. (As long as you include the ISBN number, the book is self-verifying.) As it's also not doing any harm, though, I left it alone. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Woodroof, Thanks for explaining it in detail. I am fairly new to Wiki and still have a lot to learn. I was about to leave a comment for you. I am interested in the subject but do not understand why this person is notable? Is it the [WP:NAUTHOR#C2]] or [WP:NAUTHOR#C3]]. I mean that a person could write several books, but when can they be considered notable? It may be due to my lack of knowledge in the area of theology. Cheers. Earthianyogi (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't !vote keep on this one, but I also didn't vote delete. Generally, WP:NAUTHOR requires multiple reviews on multiple books -- say, 4 reviews, not all on the same book. We've got 2 reviews, plus a "critical response" (which appears much more substantive than a review). So that's a little weak, but since he was working pre-internet, it's likely that we're missing some reviews c theology has 308 worldcat copies , it is in many or most theological seminary libraries and a good number of other medium and academic libraries

1. The second coming : a Wesleyan approach to the doctrine of last things has 73 holdings, similar mixture
2. Abraham : the tests of faith , 219 siilar

I conclude he's an important writer of academc books in theology.I consider this enough for notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Barrington, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

MurielMary (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reads like an auto-biography, declining until author can explain their connection with the subject per WP:COI

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:Archana Singh-Manoux 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:Archana Singh-Manoux, 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, 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.

Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 11:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Earthianyogi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Copulas in signal processing".

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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Earthianyogi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "EJNMMI Research".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Earthianyogi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Medical Physics Expert".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Earthianyogi. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Anna Tarkowska".

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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Earthianyogi. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Archana Singh-Manoux, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

accepted DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission: I see this has already been revised by an expert. I think the merge will be best done after the material is in mainspace, and so I intend to accept it.

. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copulas in signal processing, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archana Singh-Manoux, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This reads like a resume

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:Catharine West 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.

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i have updated the page Draft:Catharine West. If you still think it does not satisfy the criteria then please provide specific examples from the text to improve the article for acceptance. thanks Earthianyogi (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Catharine West. Thanks! DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again. I made all changes you suggested accept "Please remove all inline external links from body text." As I recall from my previous posts, this was highly encouraged or may be I just got it wrong, not sure? My question is why/how removing inline external links from body text could improve the article presentation or style? Cheers Earthianyogi (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CS:EMBED and WP:ECITE for example. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:Catharine West 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.

Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Catharine West. Thanks! scope_creep^Talk 07:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]