User talk:RichMillerPortland

Multiple accounts

Are you the same person as User:RichMillerPDX? Per Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppetry, you are generally only supposed to use one account at a time. As this seems to be a good faith mistake, I would suggest just picking one account and abandoning the other. At the bottom of your userpage, add I formerly edited as [[User:XXX]] or I have abandoned this account and now use [[User:XXX]], as the case may be.

Note that your two accounts have different COI disclosures. You should disclose all COIs on whichever account you choose. --Un assiolo (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Planview and Draft:It Rhymes With Truth

I've looked at your changes to Planview and they seem OK. I'm not sure if having such an extensive list of products is appropriate, but it's borderline at worst – not the kind of blatant spam that would need to be reverted promptly.

Have you given up on Draft:It Rhymes With Truth? If not, you may want to read up on Wikipedia's general notability guideline and the more specific guideline for books. The latter says two reviews published in independent, reliable sources are sufficient to establish notability. Your article has three reviews, but do they meet the criteria? It is possible the reviewer made a mistake. If you are certain at least two of these reviews are good, we can ask the reviewer to reconsider. Un assiolo (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Un assiolo!

re: Planview products/services

Thanks for looking at those updates to the list of Planview products and services. Yes, it is pretty long. They have made a lot of acquisitions over the years which led to the addition of so many products (each of those acquired companies had flagship software products that became part of Planview's offering). But I will ask if there are any we can remove as part of updating that section. That way we can streamline it.

re: It Rhymes with Truth

Thank you for asking about that. Yes, I would love to have the reviewer reconsider. I now have eleven professional book reviews for the book, and all of them have been stellar. I was waiting to have as many as possible before re-contacted that Wikipedia editor again, but here's the current tally: "The novel has been recognized with a coveted 5-Star review by Clarion, an 'Editor’s Choice' selection by BookLife/Publisher’s Weekly, and a prestigious starred review from Kirkus. It has also received a 'Starred Review' from Blue Ink Reviews, an 'IR Approved' rating from IndieReader, and unanimous 5-Star reviews from a panel of reviewers at Readers’ Favorite." Do you think this is enough to have that Wikipedia reviewer re-consider?

Thanks again for your time! RichMillerPortland (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Un assiolo, can I get your guidance on one more thing while I'm thinking of it: One of Planview's senior executives is Mik Kersten. The Wikipedia article about him is here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mik_Kersten. He gave me a batch of updates he would like me to suggest for his page. Currently, the article about him focuses on the early part of his career, but it's missing his more recent work. So he asked me to add that.

To suggest those edits, is the best first step to use the Talk page and explain my connection to Planview and Mik...in order to start a dialogue with the Wikipedia editor who will be my contact? I'm guessing I should do that first rather than jumping in and suggesting edits, but wanted to check. RichMillerPortland (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want your comment on the talk page to be seen by anyone, you need to make an edit request, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Edit requests. The articles on Planview and Mik Kersten are pretty obscure and your comment is unlikely to be seen by anyone otherwise. No one gets notified unless you make a properly formatted edit request. The only reason I'm talking to you is that I periodically check up on what you are doing, because I expected you would need help. I've added a paid editing notice to Talk:Planview and Talk:Mik Kersten, so you can just go ahead and make the edit request.

I will add that Mik Kersten is poorly referenced and it may well be deleted if you draw attention to it. I'm not saying it will, but it might. Again, see the notability and reliable sources guidelines. If it gets nominated for deletion, you will have a week to get it up to standard.

Regarding your novel, you can add the reviews and then resubmit. If you've read the notability and reliable sources guidelines carefully and you truly believe it meets them and it still gets rejected, I can ask what's going on. --Un assiolo (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful, Un assiolo. Thanks for that guidance re Planview and Mik's article...and thanks for that caveat about Mik's article being potentially in danger of deletion. I will work on those next steps for those. And yes, I will add the newest reviews to my novel's draft article and re-submit that. Thanks again! RichMillerPortland (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: It Rhymes With Truth (August 21)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. 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:

Sorry, these are paid reviews, which don't count towards WP:NBOOK.

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:It Rhymes With Truth 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.

asilvering (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RichMillerPortland! 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! asilvering (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing this, asilvering. I didn't realize those reviews don't qualify. I will work on getting more media reviews that will qualify. Take care. RichMillerPortland (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Razat Guarav article (October 17)

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

The references are insufficient to establish notability. Part of the problem is you have used LinkedIn (which is self published with no editorial control), two references to the company website (not reliable or neutral) and two to a blog (same problem). You need at least a couple of independent reliable sources - like serious newspapers or 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:Razat Guarav article 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.

MarcGarver (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, MarcGarver. That feedback makes sense. I will work on updating the references to make sure they come from those types of sources. I will add those to the draft shortly. Thanks! 2601:1C2:700:E0D0:B565:A58:96D3:7228 (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MarcGarver! Thanks for your suggestions above. I found media articles that are better citations for the information in the article. Those include articles by Inc. Mag, Medium, etc. One question: I got a message that one of the citations is for a source that is "depreciated," but I couldn't see which one the message refers to. I will look for a better source once I know which one that message relates to. Thanks again! RichMillerPDX (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:MarcGarver. I'm re-sending this reply because I didn't tag you the right way for you to see my prior note. Thanks for your suggestions above. I found media articles that are better citations for the information in the article. Those include articles by Inc. Mag, Medium, etc. One question: I got a message that one of the citations is for a source that is "depreciated," but I couldn't see which one the message refers to. I will look for a better source once I know which one that message relates to. Thanks again! RichMillerPortland (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]