User talk:Quaenuncabibis/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jean-Pierre Hubaux has been accepted

Jean-Pierre Hubaux, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

nearlyevil665 18:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear nearlyevil665, many thanks for the swift review! Much appreciated! Best, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Nearlyevil665! I have now added more secondary references. Would be so kind to have a look at the article again to see whether this suits the Wiki standards now better. Thanks! Best, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Giuseppe Carleo has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Giuseppe Carleo. Thanks! scope_creep^Talk 15:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, dear scope_creep. I did exchange the links to the videos. Please keep me posted. Cheers, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The links have been deleted as proposed, dear @Scope creep. Best, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Julia Schmale

The article you submitted to Articles for creation has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sadads (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks dear Sadads for the review! Best, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Carlotta Guiducci has been accepted

Carlotta Guiducci, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

scope_creep^Talk 08:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, @Scope creep! Best, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 06:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Biogeme

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Biogeme, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello@Onel5969. Can this article be recuperated into my userspace? Thanks and cheers, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 06:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Quaenuncabibis, hi. As it says in the above message, you need to contact the deleting admin, which you can find out by clicking that link above. Unless there was a copyvio issue (which I don't think this was), they should be able to draftify it for you. I would suggest you go through AfC, to help you with the tone of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Onel5969, for clarifying! I will do as you proposed. Thanks again and cheers, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mats J. Stensrud (July 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 Spicy was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Mats J. Stensrud 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:Mats J. Stensrud, 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.

Spicy (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Spicy for the review. I will rework this article on a later stage again. Best, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Matthieu Wyart has been accepted

Matthieu Wyart, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Cerebellum (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellent! Many thanks dear @Cerebellum for the swift review! Much appreciated! Best, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marc Gruber has been accepted

Marc Gruber, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Scorpions13256, thanks for the review! Cheers, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Diego Ghezzi (July 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheBirdsShedTears was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Diego Ghezzi 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:Diego Ghezzi, 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.

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, @TheBirdsShedTears. Please advise on how to proceed. Do references 23-32 count as "notebomb"? Would it help, that those references are use at other suitable places as well? He has mentions in three large national newspapers as well as in the Swiss national television. Thanks for your assistance. Best, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

If you go through Research section, you will find improperly cited content. For example, Joe Biden[1] is an[2] American[3] politician[4]. This way, it makes difficult for reviewing editors to review an submission. It should be cited with a few of great source(s). For example, Joe Biden is an American politician.[1]. Also, remove unreliable sources and add news, journal, national portal, or other relevant sources than loading with 100s of sources. Your submission's lead section is cited with two sources; 1) www.epfl.ch, and 2). www.ethrat.ch. The first source appears a reliable source, but second source appears unreliable. 1 reliable source is sufficient for an controversial sentence/paragraph. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, @TheBirdsShedTears. I will try to rewrite the article accordingly. Please be aware that the ETHRAT is the encompassing body of all Swiss federal research institutes reporting directly to the Federal council in Switzerland. It should therefor count a valid source. Cheers, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Once you done rewriting and referencing, you may ping me. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

as with the others, The relevant standard is not whether there are third party sources to meet GNG. The relevant standard is WP:PROF., and that is normally met by showing the person to be influential in their subject as demonstrated by citations to their work. But also, membership or minor offices in most societies, and service on editorial boards, do not count for much & are better omitted. Very sparse articles attract skepticism. as do those using vague claims and superlatives, or those that list all possible internal and external committes. DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @DGG. I shall focus on the essential in the future. Best, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Marc Gruber moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Marc Gruber, 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. Scorpions13256 (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Scorpions13256, may I inquire what made you change opinion suddenly? Thanks! I will try to bring more references. Best, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I misinterpreted the comment from the previous reviewer. See their talk page. Scorpions13256 (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Scorpions13256. I added and changed some references. Will have a look again, or shall I send it for review again? Thanks, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you. Everything was well-written, but the sourcing wasn't good. I would suggest replacing the primary sources with secondary sources. Simply adding secondary sources in a new paragraph won't cut it. Ask Scope Creep for more information. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Scorpions13256. I now cleaned redundancies and check for better references. Some content about his carrier can only be proven by referencing papers where his affiliation is mentioned. I can still omit those if you prefer. Thanks anyway for your help. Cheers, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Scope creep. Right around the time I accepted your draft, my health problems started acting up again. I don't feel like I can review AFC drafts for the time being. Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

It still seems that there are too many listings and primary sources. My health problems are nasty, so there is a chance that I am not interpreting this properly. Focus more on books and news sources. Scorpions13256 (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Dear @Scorpions13256. So sorry to hear. Get well quickly! Thanks for you feedback. I shall go through it again and ping @Scope creep. Best, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 07:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Scope creep, would you mind to have a look at the article? As proposed by @Scorpions13256, I added now some references I found to books and deleted other, less reliable ones. Thanks and happy weekend! Best, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Quaenuncabibis: Thanks for updating it. I needs a block of secondary sources to promote it. I will take a look at it. Hi @Scorpions13256: How are feeling today? Get plenty of rest. Sleep is the great healer. scope_creep^Talk 14:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look at the article @Scope creep! And all the best to you, @Scorpions13256! Happy weekend to both of you, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Wow! That's quite the improvement! I have not checked all of the sources thoroughly, but I have noticed that it is a lot better than when I first saw it. I am still not feeling good (long term issues). I will delete my browsing history so I can determine exactly which sources were recently added, and if they are sufficient. If the article isn't publishable yet, we are getting closer. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

One thing I would recommend is replacing all of the distinctions with secondary sources. I also see that his literature has been cited directly, but I have not read into it enough to see if this is acceptable. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Scorpions13256. I hope you are better off again! I changed the references of the prizes won. However I doubt if that is feasible for the rest of the citation in the distinction section. The paper by Gupta is independently published. We can scrap the memberships, if you prefer. Many thanks for letting me know. Happy week ahead! Best and good luck, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I would go ahead and submit it. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Scorpions13256 thanks, I will go ahead! All the best to you! Cheers, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion the draft is satisfactory, and I moved it to mainspace. Further improvement can be done there. The criterion for accepting a draft is merely that it is likely to pass AfD--this can of course not be predicted exactly, so most reviewers interpret "likely" as about 70-80%; I'm very conservative and prefer to be at least 90% sure (but fewer than 5 % of drafts I've accepted have ever gotten deleted). If anyone thinks it won't pass afd, challenge it there, and the community will decide, but moving a draft back and forth is not helpful. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dolaana Khovalyg (July 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 TheBirdsShedTears was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Dolaana Khovalyg 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:Dolaana Khovalyg, 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.

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

TheBirdsShedTears. the research section describes the work whose importance is shown by the publications (tho it could be shortened) . The relevant standard, WP:PROF. is normally met by showing the person to be influential in their subject as demonstrated by citations to their work. The citations figures are what needs to be added. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Edoardo Charbon has been accepted

Edoardo Charbon, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, @Timtrent! Best, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Matthias Grossglauser has been accepted

Matthias Grossglauser, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, thanks for the review! Best, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 05:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marc Gruber (July 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bogger was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Marc Gruber 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:Marc Gruber, 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.

Bogger (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Bogger for the review. I edited the draft upon the comments above by @Scorpions13256 who told my to delete some primary sources. I have the impression that there are contrary expectations, which makes it hard to serve you both. Thanks for commenting! – Quaenuncabibis (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations on the accepted submission

I had a feeling that the improvements were sufficient, and I was right. Good work, and happy editing! Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Scorpions13256, thanks again for your help and advise! Much appreciated! Best, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Giuseppe Carleo (July 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chris troutman was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Giuseppe Carleo 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:Giuseppe Carleo, 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.

Chris Troutman (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Some further very important advice

I am prepared to assist you, but you must do you part. Please, before you do any further work her, and the citation figures from Google Scholar or Scopus or WebofScience for the publications you list for the various academics you have been writing about, If the "selected publications" you have chosen are not the 5 highest, add those also--and consider carefully the basis for including any that are not among the 5 higherst, such as most recent. This is the basic standard fgenerally used at AfD. You probably should also remove any prizes specified as an early career prize, and if an award is for the best publication of the year in a single particular journal, specify that clearly--or better, remove it. Including minor prizes tends to reinforce a suspicion thatthere are no major ones. .

You have been encountering a rreviewer who does not see to usderstand WP:PROF. I can instruct them, but I can only do it if you add the citation figures so I have a basis for the explanation. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed @DGG! Yes, I will comply with your advise and will go over the initiated articles again to correct it. Side remark: For some article I was in contact with the subject and they provided me with what they consider to be their most important work. Thanks again! Best, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

promotionalism

I removed a section of text from Lambert Sonna Momo that seemed very highly promotional, and in poor English. You started the article, and editor Yasminkaa , who has worked almost entirely on articles on people connected with EPFL added the promotional text as well as other editing of the article. Can you tell me if that editor has any. connection with you? DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi @DGG. Thanks for cleaning the article! Yes, I was contacted by Yasminkaa as she offered to translate biographies of women scientists that I have initiated into French, of which she translated quite a few. She then contacted me again to ask if I could help with the translation of the Lambert Sonna Momo and Jean-Luc Sandoz, as she said that she is not proficient in English. I just happened to see now that she states renumeration for those articles on ther French user page. I will write to her to tell her how to state her COI correctly on the English Wikipedia. She is a new editor active mainly on the French Wikipedia (fr:Yasminkaa) and working on diversity related projects like Projet:Noircir Wikipédia. She is however completely unrelated to the Wikipedia Project at EPFL. Please let me know if would like to have further details. Best and thanks again for all your work! – Quaenuncabibis (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

you may want to consider the extent to which you want to give assistance to coi editors. My basic feeling is that I'm not going to devote my efforts. to fixing up work that others are being paid for, and that's what I usually tell them when they ask. Nonetheless, sometimes I do fix them if it's one of my principal fields, very highly notable to the extent WP would have a noticeable gap if an article wasn't present, and--the main factor--if I'm interested in the article. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC).

Hello @DGG and @Quaenuncabibis, I confirm that I have never been paid to do any page on wikipedia. Neither by Lambert Sonna Momo, nor by Jean-Luc Sandoz, nor by anyone else. It has always been done outside my working hours and in my interest to enrich the free encyclopedia. --Yasminkaa (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Yasminkaa , I am very willing to credit this, but if they're employed by your own institution, it will always be questioned here. The best advice I can give is to work on people in your field with not connnected with EPFL. DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

DGG Thank you very much for these useful tips. It's true that I don't know many people who know my domains and also wikipedia. When I made the pages in French, I found it interesting to make them also in English but not knowing the language, I used a contact who knew wikipedia and English... and this person was Quaenuncabibis at EPFL. I write about many subjects and often it is because I know them and would like to share the information. I also like to write about women, minorities, sustainable construction because these subjects are close to my heart. In no way did I want to be too promotional. I see Lambert Sonna Momo as an inspiring example for many Africans and gives a new image of African scientists who are still too few, too little highlighted. Thank you for correcting me and allowing me to explain myself without completely erasing the pages. I am grateful to you. I think I will stay focused on wiki in French as I am more comfortable. Nice to have met you and learned new things.--Yasminkaa (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Giuseppe Carleo has been accepted

Giuseppe Carleo, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Quaenuncabibis. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Giuseppe Carleo has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, as follows: Chris troutman, what a person has published is verified by the independent sources that index the publications. That they meet WP:PROF is verified by the citations such sources complie. There is not and never has been a need for independent sources for WP:PROF. There does have to be sources for other material than the publication, but the person's CV is sufficient for that. I am not aware of an AfD in the sciences that has decided otherwise in the last 12 years at least.. I have consequently accepted the article. Thanks! ' DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

A referencing recommendation

A short-cut that results in reference format that is more standard (Vancouver Style): go to https://tools.wmflabs.org/citation-template-filling/cgi-bin/index.cgi Once there, enter a PMID number. This generates a complete ref, with names as vauthors= rather than having to do last= and first= for each author. It also sets up authors as surname and initials (no periods), rather than including given names. (If a person has three given names it balks at creating three initials, so need to reduce to two.). To limit the number of names shown as the Wikipedia reference, there is an option to add display-authors=6. David notMD (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Excellent, many thanks @David notMD! Your advice is much appreciated. I usually include lists of publications with the citation expander or by including them one by one first automatic by citing them and deleting the ref tags afterwards. Best, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

EPFL update

Dear @DGG and @Kj cheetham. I have partly rewritten the EPFL article and would like to inquire if you would be willing to move at least certain section of my draft to be used there. I do not dare to make such changes on my own as I have a conflict of interest. All sections except the one on student life and the galery have been updated. Many thanks for your kind assistance. Please let me know should you need further information from my side. Cheers, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 10:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I tend to only deal with biographical articles for the most part, so I'll probably leave this to DGG to take a look at. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Kj cheetham, I just pinged you as I saw that you were involved in the article before as well. – Quaenuncabibis (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

b==coi== efore I preceed with reviewing, I would appreciate it if you would clarify your statement that you " have been paid by École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne – Mediacom for their contributions to Wikipedia." I gather Mediacom is a PR agency ? (It can't be the cable TV company in our article Mediacom) Does it have a standing relationship with EPFL to write publicity about faculty and graduates of the school? Is this similar to the way in which the communications department of a US university writes publicity articles about their students and faculty?The departments I am familiar with here in the US tend to write about people when they've been appointed or promoted, or receive a significant public honor, and it's generally possible to easily see this from the WP articles. Many of your contributions seem more general--I can often not tell why you've chosen to write about a particular one. Are you being retained to write bios of all the faculty who can justify a wp article? of all the alumni? If there's some system, tell me, and maybe I can help with some suggestions. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello @DGG. Thanks for getting back to me as well as your offer to help. To answer your questions: Mediacom is the internal communication unit of the EPFL and no external PR agency. Mediacom is engaged in the internal and external communication of the school. I will try to clarify my COI better, please advise if you see a more suitable solution. I am employed in an attempt to promote open science and shared knowledge on the campus. We have organised open workshops, editathons, and hackatons to introduce new editors to WP. The later two, we have been cohosting with Wikimedia CH and further partners. Apart of this education projects we try to bring more of the faculty members to WP by writing biographical articles. The list of potential notable subjects is long and we went first for those whose vitas are best documented online, and those that showed interest and provided us the base material in a structured manner. Further we aimed at updating articles of people related the school: faculty, former faculty, alumni, honorary PhD, etc. Part of this being also the update and potential improvement of the school's main article. I hope this clarifies the situation. Please advise if you see more suitable approaches. And thanks again for your interest and your offer to help! Quaenuncabibis (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Please excuse the quality of my typing--I am recovering from a hand injury. I see I have guessed fairly well, and I want to commend you for the clarity of your explanation here and for the general good work you and your students have been doing. Working in the field that I do here, I am quite familiar with the practices of the internal PR departments of academic institutions. Some of them are excellent; others not. In the US, some of them are notorious for not understanding what they are writing about , and they all tend to focus on the work done by the subject at their particular institution. The institutions of which I have been associated with have 1 of them an excellent, 1 a quite good, 2 a fair, and 1 a rather poor article here, and I have made a point at of avoiding working on them . Even though 2 are universities where every tenured faculty member is likely to meet our standards, and for some fields their doctoral graduates are likely to dominate their subject fields, as a volunteer I mostly leave them for others. (I have made a few careful exceptions). If I as merely a graduate or a former faculty member, and a volunteer, am reluctant to risk even the chance of coi, you as an employee should certainly be careful.

Since this is part of your position requirements, you are unambiguously by our definition a Paid editor. Whether or not it would ideally be necessary, by our rules you must declare on your user page a full list of all the articles do which you have contributed in this capacity, and each one of them must display a paid editor label and, on the talk page, an explanation such as you are giving here. You may think this unnecessary because of the quality of your work--and it is indeed generally of a high level. But nobody can really judge that about their own work, and the reader deserves an alert. I'm aware some other WPs, including the excellent deWP, have somewhat different rules, and may well have less stringent requirements; although all of the different WP project rules are based upon the Terms of Use, each project has the right to interpret them differently, and the specific rules at deWP and enWP have each been separately endorsed and accepted by the WMF as valid interpretations within their respective domains. (I have considerably less familiarity with of the fr or itWPs, but i would assume similarly).

There are two separate situations:

Here in the US, I have as part of the NYC Chapter helped lead and develop editathons at a number of universities, similar to those you describe here. Some years back, two of them were at a university where I had previously worked as a librarian. I confined my role to giving general advice to the participants, and we did not work with articles on current faculty or living graduates. I shall have to check back, but if I had made any direct participation or approved any of the articles , I would have specified my involvement. In those I work with at other places, my role again is giving advice, not writing, and primarily in order to screen articles to ensure that the ones submitted do in fact meet our standards. (Before the pandemic, the NYC chapter has had an excellent record here--almost nothing submitted has ever bee removed from WP. During the pandemic , I admit we are not quite as successful with on-line editathons). In earlier years, a few editathons elsewhere had quite poor performance, and a number of articles needed to be rewritten or deleted, but the overall level had in general risen. Articles written during editathons should be identified, both for the information of the user and the purposes of WP in developing such projects, and I assume you are familiar with the various methods--I'll give you contacts if necessary.

Articles you or your staff may write directly about your own faculty , or alumni, with or without their involvement, are much more problematic, because you (and they, if they write all of part of their own) have the sole responsibility. (I point out as a aside that if it is not you personally but a staff member, they themselves must be responsible for their own edits, and sign and declare them appropriately--the deWP accepts group authorship under specified conditions, but the enWP does not--though a good case could be made that we ought to follow their lead). Looking at your articles, they avoid most of the major faults done by less skilled writers. (There is, of course, no shortage of either faculty or alumni from your famous institution who will be unambiguously notable, and that does help considerably). Since this particular situation is my exact special interest here as an administrator, and I have in cooperation with others interested in both academic bios and coi editing developed a good many of the current practices over the last 14 years, I shall over the next few months make a point of gradually looking over the previous work. I'm not planning to specifically mention problems here, but I will correct them, and you can look at what I shall be doing. If there's something I don't understand , I shall ask you. (I have a fair reading knowledge of scientific German, and some knowledge also of the present and past academic organization and relative standings there, but if I should make an error, do not hesitate to instruct me . I am less secure of the practices and distinguishing honors of industrial scientists in Germany and other European countries than I am in the US, and if I should make errors in evaluation or judgment, I really want to learn better.

I will take a look at the immediate article you asked about here in the next week or two. If I can help you further, ask. Unlike some enWP editors, I am very willing to work cooperative with good faith declared coi editors. DGG ( talk ) 10:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Dear @DGG, thanks for your detailed answer and all the clarifications provided. Much appreciated indeed! I wish you also quick recovery with your hand!

Upon your input, I have updated the COI declaration on my user page and will do the same for the talk pages of all articles I have been involved as a payed editor. In our training we made all new editors aware that they have to include the COI statements on both user and article talk pages.

We also made the experience that writing articles from scratch might be challenging for new editors, but still we had some nice results. True the pandemic did not help make those online gatherings socially successful. I would have preferred doing workshops and editathons in person on site, but all had to be done online in the end...

Many thanks for going over my previous article. Please advise if you find major errors, inconstancies, or potential improvements. I am eager to learn, to improve and to stick to the WP rules.

Last but for sure not least, many things for your help with the EPFL article. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I could help in some way. Best regards from Switzerland, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Our experience in NYC is that we usually try to prepare a list of articles that need expansion, especially by adding references, and suggest this to participants. This is especially successful when we hold a session in a library, which we do as frequently as possible (in considerable part because more than half the active members of the NYC chapter are active or retired librarians or workers in allied professions) . Our most successful regular session at least in terms of the number of participants and the amount of enthusiasm, is an annual session in the library of New York's Museum of Modern Art, but we have also held repeated sessions in the library of the Pratt Institute, the Fashion Institute of Technology, the NYU main library, the Princeton University Library Archives, Columbia's Barnard College Library, the libraries of the Frick Institute and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the New York Public Library's Donnel Center, Schonbrun Collection, and Library and Museum of the Performing Arts, the Brooklyn Public Library and the New York Public library's local history collections, and the New York Botanic Gardens Library, as well as several independent labor history collections and archives. . We have not yet been able to establish a satisfactory relationship with any of the commercial special libraries in NYC, or any commercial firm. This is one area where the German chapter certainly does better. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

We did also provide lists of articles to be updated and missing articles. To my knowledge, Wikimedia CH has also been collaborating with many libraries and collections around Switzerland with quite some success, some sharing substantial amount of material to commons.

Would be nice to try to do some on site editathons after the current health crisis. Potentially even a transatlantic one.

Thanks for your enthusiasm! So nice to see! Quaenuncabibis (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @DGG. I hope your hand is all right again! I just wanted to inquire if you will have time to be bothered with the migration of sections to the EPFL article. Else I can also make a comment on the talk page of the EPFL article to potentially attract other users to the task. Many thanks and nice week ahead! - Quaenuncabibis (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'm fully available. Where's the version you want? I don't promise to make exactly the adjustments you suggest but I'll certainly pay close attention to what you want. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, excellent, nice to hear, dear @DGG. Many thanks for your offer to rework the EPFL article. Please find my draft here. And for sure, please feel free make any changes you think would beneficial. I tried to write the article as neutral as possible. Please note that all sections and the infoboxes except the section on student life and the gallery have been updated. I will provide a further section with notable people. Thanks again! Happy weekend to you! Quaenuncabibis (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @DGG. Please let me know if I can assist you in what ever form. Thanks so much! Best Quaenuncabibis (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi @DGG. Did you find time to have a look at the proposal for the new and updated sections for the EPFL main article. Please let me know, should you be too busy, so I could ask user on EPFL's talk page for help moving certain sections. As always thanks a lot for your enthusiasm for Wikipedia! Cheers, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Friedhelm Hummel (July 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Clearfrienda were:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:Friedhelm Hummel 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:Friedhelm Hummel, 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.

Clearfrienda ^💬 11:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks@Clearfrienda. I will rework the draft accordingly. Best, Quaenuncabibis (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Clearfrienda, The relevant standard is not whether there are third party sources to meet GNG. The relevant standard is WP:PROF., and that is normally met by showing the person to be influential in their subject as demonstrated by citations to their work. The citations are what need to be added. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know. However, some criteria of WP:PROF still does require independent, reliable sources. Clearfrienda ^💬

Clearfrienda, the only one that does is qualified by saying that the independent sources are such things as citations. But he's holder of a named professorship, and this just requires a reliable source andwe accept an official university source for that.

The purpose of afc is to improve article. to the standard that they are likely topass AFD. No article on a holder of a named chair in a university has ever bene deleted at AfD for lack of notability in a least the last 12 years. Whether or not you agree with curent practice at AfD, your obligation as a reviewer is to follow it. If you're in doubt how articles in a particular field are judged at AfD, not jufge them as a reviewer. For example, I do not understand how we actually judge sports figures at afd, (it sems to be in a state of dispute, and I don't keep track of the changes) and I therefore skip over those drafts. DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)