User talk:Isabel gauthier

Welcome

Hello, Isabel gauthier, welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are a few pages that you might find interesting and helpful:

Editing: The concise cheatsheet, or the short introduction guide
Overview: The Wikipedia:Five pillars, condensed philosophy and policies
Wikipedia:Featured articles, the standard that all articles are trying to achieve (theoretically, eventually)
Our Wikipedia:Manual of Style
Help:Contents, the main help menu

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages (the discussion tab) using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date.

Don't be afraid of making mistakes, as all changes are kept, and problems can be easily reverted with the "history" tab of each page.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Quiddity (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mark Wallace (neuroscientist)

The article Mark Wallace (neuroscientist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unclear what the claim is for notability.

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. Onorem (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Timothy P. McNamara. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Onorem (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wallace (neuroscientist) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Mark Wallace (neuroscientist), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Schwede 66 20:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Account status

You said "We are in the process of co-editing this page"; do multiple people have access to this account? 331dot (talk) 20:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no, other accounts will be editing it soon Isabel gauthier (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on that Isabel gauthier (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this part of a university or other group project? If so, you all will need to be very clear on your user pages that you are different people. 331dot (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond, is this part of some university project? 331dot (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Joseph S. Lappin

The article Joseph S. Lappin has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you wait a few days before it is deleted, or set it so I will have to ask for someone to review? I will populate it very soon Isabel gauthier (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have seven days to add at least one reference(as stated in the template) to avoid the deletion as proposed. Please review the Biographies of Living Persons policy. All information about living people must be sourced to a reliable source- this policy is enforced strictly.

If you wish to create a new article about a living person, but for whatever reason will not add the sources right away, it must be created in draft space or your sandbox. If this is a group project, it must be better coordinated. 331dot (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Mark T. Wallace (neuroscientist)

The page Mark T. Wallace (neuroscientist) has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done for the following reason:

work on the page at Draft:Mark Wallace (neuroscientist)

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Schwede 66 02:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the deal. You work on the page in draft space; it's located at Draft:Mark Wallace (neuroscientist). When you think it's ready, you ask for a review by clicking the big blue button on that page. Do not put the page back into main space. You've created it there twice, and twice is once too many. Any questions, please ask. Here's good. Schwede 66 03:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mark Wallace (neuroscientist) (June 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by 331dot 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:

All the sources you have provided are associated with him in some way, mostly being related to his employer. He is notable per WP:NACADEMIC as they hold a named chair, but there needs to be coverage of them in independent reliable sources, or evidence that their work is widely cited in scholarly journals.

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:Mark Wallace (neuroscientist) 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.

331dot (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I thought that linking to Google Scholar was clear evidence his work is getting cited. I also thought citing his books would be considered reliable. I need to read more on what sources people use to support biographies of living academic scientists I guess... Isabel gauthier (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see "Specific criteria notes" at WP:NACADEMIC. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

2 things: 1) I have the info on citations from Web of Science but cannot find a good way to refer to it (Google scholar provides an easy link). Do you know of an example on how to do this?

2) I see in criteria "The meaning of "substantial number of publications" and "high citation rates" is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in determining the qualifications for the awarding of tenure." In this case, we are talking about a FULL PROFESSOR at Vanderbilt University, where the criteria are extremely high for high impact on one's field. I don't understand why this doesn't fulfill criterion 1 on WP:ACADEMIC. Isabel gauthier (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of your edits deal with Vanderbilt University professors. Are you performing some sort of University project, either as a student or someone associated with the University?

Citing reviews of their work would be better. My knowledge of citing Google Scholar is limited but I was evaluating the citations as a whole. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am associate chair of the department of Psychology at Vanderbilt, and given the very high criteria for tenure and promotion to FULL Professors at my institution, and my experience for academics on wikipedia, it seemed that only some of our full profs had pages and not others, simply because they had not been created. I thought I would help rectify this. Does that make sense? thank you for getting back to me.

FYI, in science, and per the WP notability criteria for academics, how many peer-reviewed works have been cited a lot is typically evaluated through a citation report as done per Google Scholar. Wallace's work is widely cited in textbooks and in reviews on multisensory integration - is that what you mean by "reviews of his work"? Isabel gauthier (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to make the Terms of Use required paid editing disclosure. It is preferred to refer to the content of the encyclopedia as articles and not the broader "pages". It's fine to create these articles, especially if they are obviously notable(such as holding an academic chair as this person does) I'm just a lay person evaluating the draft as best I know how, I don't have all the answers. I'm going to just invite you to resubmit the draft and let someone more knowledgable than I evaluate it. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks again. I am not paid to do this, nobody has asked me to do it (sorry if that's not clear). In academia, scholars are intent on making sure that recognition of credit for scientific contributions is fair and complete. That's my motivation, just my own belief as an expert in my field that these people whose work I have seen evaluated through rigorous process should be recognized. I appreciate the difficulty of evaluating outside your field for sure. But I am just trying to go by the criterion you cited here (Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I'll look at other examples out there, revise, and resubmit. thanks for your help. Isabel gauthier (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are paid for your role as associate chair, that is sufficient to trigger the disclosure requirement. You do not need to be specifically paid to edit or asked to edit. Even if the paid disclosure requirement somehow didn't apply to you, you should formally declare your conflict of interest. (See WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok will do! Isabel gauthier (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As 331dot points out, your editing falls into the conflict of interest area. Not an insurmountable problem but it needs to be carefully handled. There are ways to do that; for example:

Only ever create bios of those who you work with in draft space, point out your conflict of interest and ask the reviewer to check that everything is written in compliance with WP:NPOV, and once those bios are in mainspace, only ever request changes made to the article via the talk page.
Never edit your own article (oops); request changes via the talk page

It's all manageable. It might be a good idea to liaise with more experienced editors who work in the science area. Jesswade88 and DrThneed come to mind. Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red might also be helpful. Schwede 66 19:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok, sorry and thank you, seems like a lot has changed since the last time I edited anything in WP.

So, I assume that re. draft: Mark Wallace (neuroscientist) I can just wait for someone to review the NPOV at this point? I have added a note in talk and secondary sources (reviews, handbooks). Isabel gauthier (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's the way to do it. If it gets declined, you do more work until somebody says that it's all good. That editor will, as part of the review, publish the article (i.e. move it to main space). Schwede 66 21:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Isabel gauthier! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 331dot (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Joseph S. Lappin

Hello Isabel gauthier,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Joseph S. Lappin for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.

If you don't want Joseph S. Lappin to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

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

- 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 21:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a bit confused, as I thought I had moved it to Draft:Joseph S. Lappin. Isabel gauthier (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You did. But when you moved the page, you left a redirect from the article space to the draft space. This isn’t allowed, but you’re new and didn’t know. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 22:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ha, thank you! Isabel gauthier (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COI Editing & Article creation

Hi! Editors with a conflict of interest (or paid editors, like you) should not directly create articles relating to the subject area affected by their COI. Instead, please go through the AfC process and indicate your conflict of interest to reviewers. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I am not a paid editor (just a faculty in a not for profit university). I am trying to document my COI in ways that have been advised in WP - I have found several kinds of recommendation on this. To be clear, I am trying to put in only factual info that clearly meets the criteria for notability (having a named chair in a major research institution) - and indicating the COI in the talk pages. I am trying to be as honest and upfront as I can here. Isabel gauthier (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all great. To be clear, "paid editor" does not mean that you are directly receiving financial compensation for specific edits. If you are editing as part of your work in the university, that is considered paid editing too. I appreciate your concern with the relevant policies and guidelines. As outlined by WP:PAID, you should submit new articles through the AfC process, even if you have the technical user rights necessary for directly creating articles. This is not technically considered policy, but it's good advice and generally considered appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll make sure to do this from now on, I appreciate the clarification. Isabel gauthier (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Isabel gauthier. Thank you for your work on Geoffrey F. Woodman. User:Actualcpscm, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, I had the following comments:

Please remember that all content on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, i.e. supported by a reliable source. This is especially important for biographies of living persons.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Actualcpscm}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Actualcpscm (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I need help here. On the Wikipedia:Notability (academics), it says it's enough if someone is a named chair ad a university. I was trying to use news from the university itself as verifiable proof of it. Not sure what else could be used. Would the University bio page help? https://www.vanderbilt.edu/psychological_sciences/bio/geoffrey-woodman Isabel gauthier (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Actualcpscm – Schwede 66 19:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Isabel gauthier The problem is that a university publication is a primary source, and biographies should not rely on such sources; independent secondary sources are significantly preferred. For example, a newspaper article about the article subject would be much better (and might mention their position as well). This is a tricky situation, because there doesn't seem to be much reporting of this type on these people. What is certainly inappropriate is just having the claim in the article without any source. Primary is better than none. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Thomas J. Palmeri

Hello, Isabel gauthier,

Thank you for creating Thomas J. Palmeri.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

FYI; when you have a conflict of interest, it's probably better to start the page as a draft.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Smasongarrison}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Mason (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

My advice to you is to quickly move all the articles you've created into draft space so that you can work on them until they are ready, and then submit for independent review. If you don't, it's likely that most of them will be deleted. Deb (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]