User talk:Cybernavigator

Cybernavigator, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Cybernavigator! 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 AmaryllisGardener (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Oz Pearlman (March 30)

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

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment they left was:

You can have a section called "Personal life" that mentions that he runs marathons, but that isn't relevant to his notability as a performer. Next, he does not inherit fame from those he performs for, so naming celebrities he has performed in front of just indicates that he is not notable on his own - which he must be to have an article. Avoid promotional language - the article must take a neutral point of view. Language like "established Pearlman as a household name to tens of thousands of magicians" is superlative - it can be used in newspapers and journals, but this is an encyclopedia.

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:Oz Pearlman and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Oz Pearlman (April 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia 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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Oz Pearlman and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Oz Pearlman has been accepted

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

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

333 -blue 03:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Connection with Oz Pearlman

I noticed that you created the article on Oz Pearlman, and have been the most significant editor of this article. Besides this, you've made minimal contributions to Wikipedia.

Many aspects of this article sound very much like promotional advertising rather than an objective article, and numerous details included don't reflect the notability or objective content expected in an encyclopedia. Can you please indicate if you are Oz Pearlman, or if you have any kind of professional relationship with him?

I have made a number of edits to this article to make it more appropriate for Wikipedia; please don't revert these without legitimate justification. Gregorytopov (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am not Oz Pearlman.

Hi Gregorytopov. I am not Oz Pearlman. As evidence of this, anyone who checks my IP Address for all submitted posts (and submits whois queries to see the geographic locations of the IP addresses), will see that all edits came from Eastern Pennsylvania. Oz Pearlman (as cited in the article) lives in New York City. He has never directly or indirectly paid me any money, and therefore has no professional relationship to me. You can think of me as a mild version of a biographer of Oz. All statements I provided in the article were heavily supported by citations. I did not post any value judgments or opinions in his Wikipedia article. I kindly ask that you (or another editor) look at the sources that were cited, confirm that the content was not normative, and revert the Wikipedia article back to the robust resource it was.

In regard to notability, Wikipedia defines "notable" topics as "those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time." Oz is one of the only magicians or mentalists in the past few decades (in the USA) to have his own national TV series. He has well over 50 national and international TV appearances. Oz (as I cited in the original article) sold over 100,000 copies of a training DVD. Can you provide evidence of any other magicians, apart from a handful of other "notable" magicians with Wikipedia articles (e.g. David Copperfield), who sold that many training DVDs in magic? If you do, please notify us (editors) of who the person is and cite your sources (to support the claimed quantity of copies sold) here.

Wikipedia defines a notable person as "worthy of notice," "remarkable," or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." It states that fame and popularity are not irrelevant but are secondary. Is it "unusual" for someone to appear to predict the future in a seemingly realistic way? Is it "unusual" to sell over 100,000 copies of one of the most unusual art forms (magic)? (If that's usual, please share examples here.) Why did such an "unusual" number of performance artists want to learn from him? Is it "unusual" for a full-time show business career to start when the CEO of a Fortune 500 company hired his own employee (for entertainment) without realizing it? That story is purely "biographical" in nature and certainly "unusual."

I respectfully ask you to quote content from the article that you claimed was "promotional" in nature. When I mentioned that Oz won an award or was on a national TV show, those were well-cited facts that describe objective reality. If you believe readers will tend to have a positive opinion of those objective facts, that does not entail that the author of the article must be biased (nor is it a reasonable basis to remove the objective facts). Thank you for any help restoring the article. --Cybernavigator (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]