User talk:Victoria7yu

Welcome Victoria7yu!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 48,305,587 registered editors!

Hello, Victoria7yu. Welcome to Wikipedia!

I'm S0091, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

To help get you started, you may find these useful:

The Five Pillars (fundamental principles) of Wikipedia

A Primer for Newcomers

Introduction to Wikipedia

Wikipedia Training Modules

Simplified Manual of Style

Creating a new article via the Article Wizard

When editing, follow the 3 Core Content Policies:

1. Neutral point of view: represent significant views fairly

2. Verifiability: claims should cite reliable, published sources

3. No original research: no originality; reference published sources

Brochures: Editing Wikipedia & Illustrating Wikipedia
Ask a Question about How to Use Wikipedia
Help

Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.

Sincerely, S0091 (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC) (Leave me a message)[reply]

I know Michael, so I may have a conflict of interest; but I am not a paid editor.Victoria7yu (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing?

Hello Victoria7yu. 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 serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

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. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged 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:Victoria7yu. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Victoria7yu|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. Theroadislong (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help with this. I am not being paid to do this. I know Mike and wanted to try my hand at Wiki. Please let me know next steps or anything I need to do on my end. Thanks so much.Victoria7yu (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

In the Hole article, you have many reference errors. In general the reference should immediatley follow punctuation, as in this example. Also, the article strongly looks like paid editing, so let us know if it is.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah got it. I see the difference between the references and your punctuation versus mine. Should I go back and fix that? No, this is not paid editing. I know Mike and am doing this with no payment to better understand Wiki edits and contributions. Victoria7yu (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of MK Hole

The photo description states you took the photo. Please confirm. David notMD (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: I am guessing the photo used in the article came from the same photo session as this one.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the help. I did not take the photo of Mike Hole. The photo was taken by Jay Godwin of the LBJ Library for broad use. I struggled to figure out how to upload and insert it into the article. I uploaded it, lost it, and recently figured out how to add it back. Victoria7yu (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes same photo shoot session! Thank you! Victoria7yu (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed photo, as you did not take it. How about the other photo? You also claim that as your own work. Option for getting the first photograph back is for Jay Godwin to contribute it directly, with the knowledge that by doing so it is available for any and all reuse at Wikipedia and elsewhere. David notMD (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Am I able to upload it on behalf of Jay Godwin? I worked with him on the photoshoot. The other photo for PLS Scholars? Screenshot of live stream. Victoria7yu (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you worked on the photo shoot, then you presumably have some sort of connection to the article subject?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even though you have declared not paid, your involvement is at level Wikipedia defines as conflict of interest (you know the person), and should declare COI on your User page. However, "I worked with him on the photoshoot" implies paid. Please reconfirm not paid or otherwise compensated. Jay Godwin can upload the photograph, which would include his relinquishing all copyright. The screenshot should probably be deleted, as I am guessing that the 'live stream' is copyright protected. David notMD (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am reconfirming that I am not paid or otherwise compensated to work on this. The screenshot was a live stream from PLS Facebook and I have no indication it is copyright protected. What remains for this to be approved? Victoria7yu (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Victoria7yu! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, How do I publish a draft?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Michael K. Hole (March 5)

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 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:

Subject might pass via WP:ACADEMIC, but this article would require an entire haul over. The article is an exhaustive, line by line brag on the subject that comes across more like a CV than an actual Wikipedia article. We're not interested in every little non-sequitur and achievement by the subject. Condense to what makes the subject notable and how his research has contributed to his field.

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:Michael K. Hole and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Michael K. Hole, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Sulfurboy (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Victoria7yu! Having an article 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! Sulfurboy (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Michael K. Hole has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission,:

Does not need a complete rewrite, just

1. Remove the details about his early life. Nothing beforethe doctorate is really significant. 2. Make sure the article contains, the full sequence of degrees and positions, with dates. 3. Add a complete list of books published, with year, date, publisher, ISBN (referenced to WorldCat), and links to published reviews of the books; and the 5 or so 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; any national level awards--(not junior awards or awards from their own university). Omit others. 3. Include only major outside positions, such as president of major national organizations, and any positions of editor-in-chief ; Membership or minor offices in most societies, and service on editorial boards, do not count for much & are better omitted. 4. The entrepreneurship section is trivial. Greatly condense it 5. None of the awards except possibly no.3. means much. Remove them. 6. The advocacy section gives no indication that any of this was significant or widely reported. Condense or remove.

The reason we suspect paid editing is that most of this is the sort of things a PR agent would think important, but not an encyclopedia

Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Michael K. Hole

Hello, Victoria7yu. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Michael K. Hole".

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. 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!} 04:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]