User talk:Inkian Jason

Archives

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Current requests:

• none

I've created this list for personal tracking and in case any Talk page watchers are interested in assisting.

Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk)

V Pappas, 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

C F A 💬 21:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the draft! Inkian Jason (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne Peek-Asa, 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 21% 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 14:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johannes Maximilian Thank you for reviewing! Inkian Jason (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Medina (political advisor), 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Star Mississippi 19:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Adolf Peretti. Thanks! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby Thank you for the suggestion. I will look into identifying different source links. Meanwhile, I've identified some Wikipedia entries linking to Adolf Peretti at Draft talk:Adolf Peretti. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby I am still reviewing the citations, but I noticed this diff has provided some alternative URLs for readers, if this helps to address any of your concerns. If there's a specific citation link you'd like to see replaced before a move to the main space, I am all ears. Thanks again for your feedback! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's great! Article looks pretty fine, although I am not sure about having making Peretti the only living person to have both an animal and a mineral named after him in the lead, which might be WP:UNDUE emphasis. Are there sources not focused on Peretti (perhaps focused on animal or mineral nomenclature, or on things named after researchers, etc.) that make mention of this distinction? It would be interesting to see how widespread the claim is. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby Thanks! I thought the claim was particularly interesting and unique, but of course I am comfortable with letting others decide what's lead-worthy. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just realizing that citation 8 still links to ResearchGate. The articles could be linked to the journals that published them (preprints aren't considered reliable by themselves), but the ResearchGate profile should be removed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby I have removed the ResearchGate profile and updated the URL for "Occurrence and stabilities..." as requested. I am struggling to find an alternative URL for "Geologie und Petrographie der Fornoserie". Might you be able to check for an alternative option in this instance? If so, I can attempt to update the citation appropriately. Inkian Jason (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Peretti, 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Superboilles (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! Inkian Jason (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, following your recent edit request at Julie Sweet, I was wondering if you could clarify for me how a source [1] on a website where companies embed press releases as news is, in your words, stronger [...] sourcing than a citation to Fortune magazine, a respected piece of print journalism that has been running since 1929.

As far as I can see, the former is, at best, non-WP:RS compliant, non-independent WP:SPONSORED material and the latter is an obviously reliable source.

For example, my impression is that Fortune does not run testimonials from happy clients saying, for example, We had a fabulous experience working with BizClik [owners of Technology Magazine]. They were collaborative, worked hard to align with our marketing plan and shape the article accordingly, and were very accommodating to change requests. We were very happy with the outcome and plan to leverage this story in our global marketing & communications plan. Thank you so much!. [2]

I'd be grateful for your input here as I feel that some form of explanation is required in relation to why a paid COI editor would have tried to replace a high quality source with a low quality source that contained a statistic apparently favourable to their client. Evidently the fact that the low quality source is, in your words, more recent is not relevant here.

Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 04:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I was attempting to replace an outdated figure based on a quote by Julie Sweet herself. I have no problem waiting for better secondary coverage to update the claim if the source I provided is insufficient. Thanks, Inkian Jason (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the fact that the source is "more recent" is clearly not relevant here. Please provide the requested explanation on why you attempted to replace a high quality source with a low quality source that contained a statistic favourable to your client. You have been active on Wikipedia for eight years so it reasonable to assume that you were aware that the sourcing would be very problematic. This is a serious issue and your cooperation would be appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have yourself previously claimed that it was 'stronger [...] sourcing' which, on the face of it, is a serious misrepresentation of a source which is very clearly non WP:RS compliant. Therefore please support your own prior statement. Axad12 (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said I thought it was a stronger source in this instance because the figure was not included in a quote from Sweet, like the original, older source did. If there is not consensus on that, that's fine. I will accept consensus and move on. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of consensus, it is a matter of a straightforward attempted WP:RS policy breach. Please clarify that you appreciate why the source in question was non-independent and entirely inappropriate. I do not agree with your estimation of that's fine. For an eight year paid editor to be attempting to use that sort of sourcing is very much not fine and I do not intend to move on until you signify your understanding and acceptance of that point. Axad12 (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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:Ravi Kumar Singisetti 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.

Thilsebatti (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Inkian Jason! 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! Thilsebatti (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "non-free" file has several issues that perhaps you can resolve within the company or satisfy with the copyright policies of Wikimedia Commons, explained here. If not resolved, at worst (as I've witnessed before), the file will be automatically removed. Zefr (talk) 23:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]