Jump to content

User talk:Andcentra/Archives/2020/November

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Welcome!

Hello, Andcentra! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! DMySon 12:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Andcentra, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi Andcentra! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


Draft:Angel Alberich-Bayarri

Hi, I appreciate your want to contribute, but please note specific requirements need to be met to approve AfC drafts and it seems at the time you do not meet them. I have moved the page back to the draft space. Please review Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/ParticipantsSulfurboy (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Editing with a possible paid conflict of interest

Information icon

Hello Andcentra. The nature of your edits 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 egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, 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:Andcentra. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Andcentra|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. --SamHolt6 (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Douglass Whitfield Bailey (February 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy 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:
The chair position is enough to make this person notable under WP:PROF standards, however we need a non-primary source to confirm this.
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.
Sulfurboy (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Draft:Cathy O'Neil declined

Hello,

I have declined your proposed deletion of Draft:Cathy O'Neil, as PROD is only eligible for articles. Drafts are deleted at WP:MFD. Hog Farm (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Michael Fredericson (February 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy 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:
Not shown how subject passes WP:NPROF standard
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.
Sulfurboy (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John A. Ambrose (March 8)

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:
This is a press release, not an encyclopedia article \ 
 Marquis Who’s Who and Best Doctors in America. are not awards--they're promotional gimmicks anddo not belong in an encyclopedia .

Here's wat does belong: Make sure the article contains the full sequence of degrees and positions, with dates, and, the 5 most cited peer-reviewed articles, given in full with coauthors, full name of journals, and links, with the number of citations to each of them . And any national level awards--not junior awards or awards from their own university)

Putthe political part in a separate paragraph
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.
DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Information icon Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Draft:Angel Alberich-Bayarri. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Another editor has previously reverted your move of Draft:Angel Alberich-Bayarri to the mainspace; I have done so again. Please respect the AfC process, and note WP:DISRUPTIVE. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Iris Law has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Iris Law. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Iris Law (March 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon 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:
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iris Law. The deletion discussion determined that she was not notable in October 2019. This draft does not indicate any new notability between October 2019 and March 2020.

Do not resubmit this draft without explaining on the draft talk page how she is now notable or why the AFD should be ignored. An argument that the AFD was wrong can be made to Deletion Review.

There is currently a redirect for Iris Law to Jude Law.
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.
Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Michael Fredericson (March 18)

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.
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.
DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Angel Alberich-Bayarri (April 19)

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:
WP:PROF depends upon impact in the field, and the publciations do not show sufficient impact.
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.
DGG ( talk ) 15:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. 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.
1292simon (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dimitri A. Christakis has been accepted

Dimitri A. Christakis, 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) 21:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John A. Ambrose has been accepted

John A. Ambrose, 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. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Catherine L. Ross has been accepted

Catherine L. Ross, 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!

Gbawden (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Control copyright icon Hello Andcentra, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Catherine L. Ross have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) 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) 14:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

--My apologies. I will try to not do these kind of mistakes again. Andcentra (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Daniel F. Roshan

Hello, Andcentra. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Daniel F. Roshan".

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! —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 01:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi - I just reviewed your new article Dracontium pittieri, and I noticed that some of the content seemed to be copied directly from the source. I see that this has been raised with you before - please try to be more careful. I appreciate that, when you are working from a single source, it can be tricky to get things different ways to say things; however, it's important to make the effort to do that. I've rephrased the content so that it's got a little bit more detail, and the wording is different from the source - see what you think. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 11:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

-- Thank you so much Andcent (talk) 07:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Craniofacial Fellowship

Notice

The article Craniofacial Fellowship has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

dictionary entry

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 07:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

-- Hello DGG,I have fixed the content and updated the page and talk page. Hope it is fine now. Andcent (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Douglass Whitfield Bailey

Hello, Andcentra. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Douglass Whitfield Bailey".

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! 23:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC) -- Thanks Andcentra talk 09:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Help me!

Is it okay if i remove citations in a page that were cited multiple times? For example ref [1] has been used more than 3 times in the same article. Andcentra talk 11:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Andcentra talk 11:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. As I am not sure what article you are talking about exactly, I would not be able to answer the question perfectly. But in short: it depends on context, and where in article the citations have been used. For example, lets say a Forbes article on businessman says: "XYZ was born on MM-DD-YYYY, in sampletown. He got his degree from Princeton university in YYYY. XYZ started business in YY, became millionare in YY, and became billionare YY." If this information is broken down in wikipedia article in sections, lets say birt, and birthplace under "Early life", degree under "Education", and rest under "Career". According to wikipedia policy, all the statements need to have WP:VERIFIABILITY. As these statements are under different sections, no citations would look like the statements are lies. If you look under "Citations" section of Albert Einstein, you can see that the citation #3 has been used for five times, and #5 has been used for 4 times. I hope this helps. I will leave the "help me" template as it is, so that someone else can weigh in. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
          -- Thank you for your help. Appreciate it. Andcentra talk 11:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aarklash: Legacy has been accepted

Aarklash: Legacy, 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!

ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 13 Cameras has been accepted

13 Cameras, 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!

Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andcentra/Archives/2020/November&oldid=1043839635"