User talk:Uniprofessor

Welcome!

Hello, Uniprofessor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Best practices for editors with close associations
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style
The Teahouse, our help forum for new editors

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, visit the Teahouse, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! AntiDionysius (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when adding things to articles, you need to include sources as in-text citations rather than just mentioning them in your edit summary - most people never see the edit summary, and we'd like readers to know where info comes from. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AntiDionysius,

Thanks for your messages. Since I'm new to editing Wiki articles, I do have a clarifying question regarding the in-text citations, which you mentioned in your message from 27 August 2024 (19:06). Please note that all my edits were from the author's CV, and it would appear redundant if I were to cite a CV after every edit (besides, the CV pdf's do change regularly due to updates by the authors), so I am not entirely sure what is the best way to implement your suggestion. Please advise. Alternatively, one could refer to the Bio page of the researcher, which is less likely to result in a 'broken link'. What do you think?

Lastly, I would like to declare that I do not have any conflict of interest, nor am I affiliated with any of the four researchers, whose Wiki pages I have edited (Pol Antràs, Marc Melitz, Elhanan Helpman, and Alan Deardorff).

Thanks again for your support.

Kind regards,

Uniprofessor (talk) 19:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Uniprofessor[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Eloquenti (October 4)

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

You shouldn't write the article from what is said on the website itself and then list the institutions referencing it or using it, but see what people and groups independent from Eloquenti say about it, and use that as material to write the article. Wikipedia doesn't want in-depth references in reliable sources just so topics meet an arbitrary threshold of importance, but because these references are the material you should use to write the article to begin with.

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:Eloquenti 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.

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Uniprofessor! 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! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Chaotic Enby, thank you for your feedback—I appreciate it! Following your suggestion, I revised the draft using the wording from the cited references. Could you please take a look at the revised draft before I resubmit it for review? In particular, the article features a lot of external references to meet the notability requirement from the Wikipedia guidelines. However, since this is my first article on Wikipedia, I admittedly do not yet have a good sense of how many references meet the "arbitrary threshold of importance" (as you wrote in your message), or if I am erring on the side of too many references. Please feel free to remove any references if they are not needed. Thanks again for your feedback. Uniprofessor (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as I said, my point is that there isn't an arbitrary threshold of importance, but a question of whether reliable secondary sources give enough material to be able to write an article. A rule of thumb is to have at least two or three in-depth, independent, secondary sources discussing the topic – quality ultimately matters a lot more than quantity, and many name-drops won't help with writing the article. Article writing should be: finding quality sources, summarizing what these sources say, adding it to the article and citing the sources. Ideal sources would be, for instance, articles about the company published in media that have no financial stake in it or contracts with it. A short article with five such citations, each supporting paragraphs summarizing what the sources say about the company, would more easily pass AfC than a longer article full of "name-dropping" references which don't help write the article.

WP:42, WP:Your first article and WP:NCORP might have information that can help you. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply, @Chaotic Enby—I understand your point. I have a follow-up question regarding the Primary Criteria and, more specifically, the Source Assessment Table mentioned as an example in WP:NCORP:

The references that I compiled for this article are universities, scientific societies, and peer-reviewed journals, which I consider to be independent, reliable, and secondary. However, I could not find an independent, reliable, and secondary source that would also provide significant coverage. Can I still make the case for the notability of the organization at hand without this fourth criterion? And, would it be possible to ask a more experienced editor to help me with this draft? In particular, can I ask for this type of support in the Teahouse? Thank you. Uniprofessor (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can of course ask this kind of question at the Teahouse, that is what it is for! In terms of notability, it's a bit harder without significant coverage – if each source only says a few words about the organization, it is naturally harder to write an article about it. Ideally, imagine what the article would look like if you weren't allowed to reference the organization itself and had to rely entirely on secondary sources.

However, what counts as significant is subjective, and anything from one to a few paragraphs can be a grey area, although a simple listing usually isn't considered significant. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]