User talk:Cabrils

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following:

Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page.
Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end.
Please specify a descriptive subject or headline for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed.
Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" if replying to a reply.

I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Draft: Cherryfield College Abuja

Hi Cabrils, I have added some more references, please kindly review.

Thanks. Salihu44 (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, good additions. Page accepted. Cabrils (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Exim Bank of India

you declined my article. please now check it can be moved to mainspace. DilipSpatel (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, good work progressing the draft.

Firstly, on my reading, many of the references are not considered reliable sources because they are from the website of the subject of the page (Exim Bank), or from sources that are not reliable, or from articles that are not substantial. Please audit the sources and remove any non-reliable sources; and try to add reliable sources. Please also remove duplicated sources and format correctly (please see referencing for beginners or the article Easier Referencing for Beginners).

Secondly, if you are being paid to create this page, or you are associated with the bank, you have a conflict of interest that must be declared.

Once you have implemented these suggestions please ping me here and I would be happy to reassess. Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitting Draft:Mark Litke

Hello, thank you for your feedback on my draft. I've just cleaned up the citations a lot and resubmitted for review. I reviewed other ABC news correspondents pages and I think the citations are similar both in number and substance, so please let me know if you have any other feedback. Renee.gholikely (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, well done, it's looking much better. There's still a couple of issues.

The following links don't seem to work:

Some evidence of the Emmy Awards would help them be verified.

The draft now only has a single source mentioning Litke (https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/more-abc-correspondents-out/16562/). The page really requires more-- please keep looking for at least one more article about Litke as a notable journalist. As Missvain commented on the draft:

"We need *significant* in-depth coverage (that is independent of the subject - meaning no promotional pieces, government websites, event websites, social media, press releases, paid coverage) in notable major media outlets or by notable publishers about Mark Litke. Examples: magazine and newspaper reviews and features about Mark Litke specifically; books or peer-reviewed white papers written ABOUT Mark Litke; television and radio features ABOUT Mark Litke."

If you are being paid to create this page, or you are associated with the bank, you have a conflict of interest that must be declared. Cabrils (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitting Draft:Sergio Rajsbaum

Hello @Cabrils:, Thank you very much for the feedback on my article. I have just corrected my draft. Could you, please, check it again? Au873aks (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, great work, huge improvements. Just 2 things:

Please remove all inline external links (in accord with WP:MOS) and where possible replace with a link to the relevant Wikipedia entry (use the 'link' icon at the top of the window to do this).
Secondly, if you are being paid or are associated with Rajsbaum you have an inherent conflict of interest that you must declare please.

Please let me know when you've implemented these suggestions and I would be happy to reassess the draft. Cabrils (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Cabrils:, I have just corrected my draft. Could you, please, tell me if it is correct?

Thank you very much! Au873aks (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's looking good.

However, you have not addressed the conflict of interest concern. For the absence of doubt, could you please confirm here that you are NOT being paid or have any association with Rajsbaum? It is curious how else you obtained his photograph and uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons? Having a conflict of interest does not exclude you from drafting a page, but it should be declared on your Talk page. I'll await you reply, thanks. Cabrils (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Cabrils: I am Rajsbaum’s student at the university. This is my relation with him. I hope this information helps the publication of my article. Could you, please, tell me if this information is enough?

Thank you very much! Au873aks (talk) 06:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that's all OK, you just need to formally declare that on your User Page (that you need to create): to see instructions on how to do this, please see the details at WP:COI. Let me know once you've done that and I'd be happy to accept the page. Cabrils (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cabrils: I have just created my User Page and added the template to show that I have a COI. I hope my article is ready to be accepted by you.

Thank you very much! Au873aks (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Cabrils:

I just want to make sure you got my previous message.

Thank you very much! Au873aks (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that's great, well done. Article accepted. Cabrils (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Cabrils:

Thank you very much! Au873aks (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

North Island little spotted kiwi

In the future, you can tag redirects that obstruct acceptance of an article with {{db-afc-move}} to request that the redirect be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Robert! Is there a way I can simply edit that re-direct myself so I can progress the process without having to shift that task to someone else? Cabrils (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with unconstructive talk page comments

Hello, I hope you're having a good day. I remember you asked me a few days ago how I revert vandalism so fast, and I will start by saying that I have answered your question on my talk page. I am letting you know that in the event you haven't seen it yet.

But primarily here, I want to recommend something to you going forward when you receive talk page messages on the order of what is above me. If a user gets especially rude, don't respond, just revert it and either warn them on their talk page or ignore them entirely. I understand that this is up to you, given that this is your talk page, but I just wanted to suggest this since I saw the conduct above by the IP user and it seems like the kind of thing I would remove from my own talk page.

I just wanted to offer this advice. Thank you for your contributions! JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff, thanks for the sensible advice! Cabrils (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I just wouldn't want a well-intentioned user to invest too much time into indulging trolling and other things that just aren't worth it. There are certainly good faith editors on Wikipedia whose unintentional disruption is worth discussing with them, but that description most certainly does not apply to that conduct. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, agree. Cabrils (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Draft: Peter F. Barth

Please forgive the delay, but I have carefully reviewed the collective feedback and finally have done a major rewrite and update based on that.

You kindly offered to review it upon my edit before I resubmitted it, and I would welcome that, if still possible. Thank you. Thapkhay (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, well done progressing the draft. I've looked at the revised draft but still feel that notability has not been established for neurophysicist, engineer and educator. Author may potentially have been met (see WP:AUTHOR) but you need to assess that criteria specifically. The draft still contains far too much fluff and reads like a CV, which Wikipedia is not. Far too many references are to works by the subject--these do NOT contribute to establishing notability. Please review and amend the draft accordingly and then get back in touch, but it would help if you could list, with specificity, the notability criteria you see as being met. Cabrils (talk) 01:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. So glad to hear back from you - and so quickly too! If there is any “progress in my Draft, it is in largely thanks to you.

Some “first questions”(Q)/“first thoughts)(T), if I may, to help me prioritize my efforts…

Q1) Do you think I may/should just not mention “engineering” at all? (T1: what I can say in engineering just isn’t “Wikipedia worthy”, seems to me, even with 2-3 decades very active in it…indeed more CV stuff, the wrong direction I fear..)

Q2) Is it not right to assume it is sufficient that “education” fully goes along with my “authoring” guide books to meditation (to cultivate a person’s self-understanding) and teaching people /groups how to meditate (for countless years!), so perhaps it really doesn’t need more extra emphasis on notability?

(T2: On the other hand, education can not be dropped..so..If I try to address this with my navigating what may be called the old “circle of yogis approach in light of the new, Carl Rogers humanistic educational approach, which I certainly was involved in, it might be worth bringing out?)

Q3) Doesn’t paragraph with Reference 12 establish notability’s in “physics” (in that my work is the final reference in 12, in its string of other references, which helped provide the starting point for their work, which resulted in new methods in theoretical physics and produced numerous new exact solutions for them. Similarly, Reference 13, reaffirms the notability of my original conclusion that the Ising model may play an important role in the “neurophysics” of neural networks in neuroscience, establishing the why it should be studied further? (T3: btw, these were based on your advice and I credit you that I found these!)

Q4) I am assuming not all references/citations have to add to notability, and that I may use them to improve the “reader experience,” (e.g. for those who want to see the book referred to, or want more information on a point being made), is that correct? (In many ref/citations I am doing this when I think notability is already established or will become clear and established later on in the page and other references included in it.)

Finally, the 4 points on “author” are very helpful..yet, my first read, is that these were covered “a bit or more” in all 4, but I certainly will revisit this in light of the link.

Thank you very much!!! Any answers/thoughts on the questions/comments would be appreciated!

Peter

Thapkhay (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cabrios.. Oops..I somehow missed your last sentence until after I sent you my note.

I will proceed with a more detailed review and amend things accordingly …indeed specificity, “with respect to the notability criteria I see as being met”,” is an excellent request, and will largely help determine the outcome to my questions.

And.. I will do my best to be more succinct with my list for both our sakes!

Thanks again.

Thapkhay (talk) 05:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good one Peter! Cabrils (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In starting with a detailed (“specific”) analysis via GNG Notatability criteria (non-trivial Significant Coverage, editorial Reliability, secondary Sources, and Subject Independence), I think the path to updating my draft became quite straightforward for the Page’s subject descriptors, as you suggested (4. July.) The current draft (11. July) reflects my updates, for which the following is noted: (A) For “neuroscience,” only one reference to a 100%-authored work remains ([2], the M.S. thesis, signed by the Thesis Committee at UVM and published by UVM) which is provided for the purpose of context and facilitating verifiability (of its existence and scope); in addition, one 33%-authored work is referenced ([8], with 1 of the 2 co-authors; Glasser, is entirely unaffiliated with both Barth and UVM), provided for the purpose of setting the context to the remaining referenced neuroscience works ([9],[10],[11] are 100% independent)and provide notability in stemming directly from the author’s original findings. (B) Regarding, “author,” all references are now independent of the subject. Notability can now be fully established via WP:AUTHOR’s creative professional categories 2 (via the new concept of “making the mind teachings of Tibet totally accessible to readers, based the Tibet’s most important classical texts and their associated oral instructions“) and/or 3 (similarly via, the first “authoritative presentations, by a westerner, of the most advanced forms of mahamudra and dzogchen, as taught in their most highly-regarded classics and by the associated oral instructions.”) In addition, a significant new notable reference has been provided [Ref. [17] for “author” of Tibetan Buddhism books. Interestingly, it seems Category 2 for authors also may be claimed as an additional basis for notability of the neurophysics thesis and the co-written article, due to “originating” for the general physics community “a significant new theory, model and technique” and “establishing the Ising model and closed Cayley tree models as a noteworthy candidates for neurophysics”, as confirmed in Ref. [11] and which “paved the way for further exact solutions in statistical mechanics” as shown in Ref [10]. (C) Regarding, “engineering and education,” based on a similar analysis, only one item easily meets the notability requirement, which is the award-winning LearningKeys.com web service, developed and offered at no cost by the subject via an innovative use of Internet technologies applied to math education. This section was restored to the Page accordingly, in abbreviated, but notable form based on references [29] and [30]. In summary, I am now feeling the draft is finally there (or, at least, getting close, thanks very much to your help!!) and hope you will agree with that assessment. - Peter

Thapkhay (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter. Apologies for my belated response.

This is good, we are getting to the nub of it. Firstly, well done again, the amendments are all in the right direction, however I do still have some concerns, which I'll detail below. I am an inclusionist though, so I'm trying to help to see if we can get the draft into acceptable form.

Firstly for clarity, I'll just point out again that I am not the arbiter of right and wrong, I'm just another editor (and reviewer), albeit with more experience than you, but I'm just expressing my interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines based on my experience, so minds may differ. Helpfully, your draft is sitting in the New pages for Review list so it's available for any reviewer to assess and accept (or reject), and, once accepted, pages are perpetually open to amendment as they are not the property of any individual.

OK, so into the details:

-Claim(s) of notability: "neurophysicist, engineer, educator and author specializing in the "mind teachings" of Tibetan Buddhism". So there are 4 claims we're wanting to meet: (A) neurophysicist; (B) engineer; (C) educator ; (D) author specializing in the "mind teachings" of Tibetan Buddhism".

-General Notability Guidelines (GNG): Excellent citing of GNG, which is what each claim of notability in the draft needs to meet: "non-trivial Significant Coverage, editorial Reliability, secondary Sources, and Subject Independence".

(A) neurophysicist: Given its academic field, in addition to GNG, the criteria for meeting notability in neurophysics is WP:NACADEMIC.

While an M.S. thesis is obviously a serious work, for the purposes of establishing notability (as defined) it is not considered reliable.

The citation to the Petaluma Argus Courier (a community weekly newspaper with a circulation of 7400) is informative but really doesn't meet the GNG criteria, certainly not on its own; let alone WP:NACADEMIC. It can however contribute to WP:AUTHOR (discussed below).

Phase transitions for the Ising model on the closed Cayley tree is co-authored by you (thus failing subject independence). The Ising model on a closed Cayley tree appears to only mention you in private correspondence (I didn't access the full article). Cardinality of phase transition of Ising models on closed cayley trees and Highlighting the Structure-Function Relationship of the Brain with the Ising Model and Graph Theory do not cite you. None of these papers are widely cited.

On my reading, none of these references would appear to meet any of the criteria in WP:NACADEMIC; and in order to meet the criteria you would need to establish, at least, that your "research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" (Criteria#1).

(B) engineer and (C) educator: Your position as adjunct professor in Information Systems Management for the graduate and undergraduate programs at University of San Francisco from 1997 until 2008 carries weight, but does not automatically confer notability (unlike, for example, holding a named professorship chair) so again, on its own does not meet WP:NACADEMIC.

(D) author: As you correctly note, the relevant criteria here is WP:AUTHOR. I feel there is arguably sufficient evidence of notability to meet at least one of the criteria (which is normally established by multiple, substantive, independent book reviews published in reliable publications).

In summary, my advice would be to amend the draft, making the focus of the page your work as an author (for which, as explained, I believe there is arguably sufficient evidence of notability). Your background in neurophysics, engineering and education justify being mentioned but should be trimmed given the reasoning above.

I would reemphasise that none of this is a criticism or belittlement of your achievements Peter, rather that Wikipedia is not a site that hosts CVs like LinkedIn: it is foundered around the principle of notability. It is also worth re-mentioning the justifiable concerns Wikipedia holds for pages drafted by the subject and the inherent issue that entails relating to conflict of interest.

If you are agreeable and amend the draft accordingly, please ping me and I will be happy to re-assess. Cabrils (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent comments/advice and I agree with your assessment, offering only one minor corrective note – the Krizan-Barth-Glasser paper (not alone establishing notability), is referenced directly and prominently at the outset of Berger-Ye’s work and serves as its “spring point” (I discovered a typo in their citation of the author’s name, as is now noted in the reference quote, which is the likely the cause of any oversight on this.)

As recommended, the Page has been updated to deemphasize “neurophysics,” and shift its focus to “author” (incl. by removal of (a) discussion of neurophysics from the introductory section and (b) the neurophysics image and the separate subsection divider.) Also, a reduction to its volume and “CV presentation style” was implemented for it and for the USF professor details under “Engineering and Education.” Finally I collated another repeat reference (as suggested by you in a recent Page edit), one for the original corporate website for the meditation center, still maintained by its members.

I would very much welcome any more thoughts before I click on the resubmit button (and thereby open the floodgates to a wider range of editorial review!)

Thank you very much for your incredibly insightful and helpful guidance. Thapkhay (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well done Peter. I've taken the liberty of making some minor editorial changes that I think help. At this point, if you are happy, please feel free to submit the draft and I will be happy to accept it into mainspace.

As I've previously noted, Wikipedia pages are no one's property so are open to being amended, sometimes radically, by other editors. The page may also be challenged for potentially not meeting various requirements, usually notability (WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR etc) (but for the reasons explained above I believe the draft now meets the relevant requirements). For both these reasons I would encourage you to 'watch' the page and set up alerts on your editing account to send you email notifications of any changes made. I would also encourage you to continue contributing to Wikipedia (especially given your experience (expertise??) in Tibetan Buddhism)--such activity on your account would dispel any potential allegation of a single purpose account, which is an issue you would prefer to avoid, no doubt.

Finally, thank you for your patience and willingness to amend the draft to what I at least feel makes an appropriate and meaningful contribution here--it was worth the effort! Cabrils (talk) 08:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great advice and edits. Once again, thank you. I also feel that the journey was fully worth the effort, but that it was only possible thanks to your kind patience and to your steadfast commitment to ensuring that the contribution is indeed both “appropriate and meaningful.” My last read feels many miles (or kilometers) closer to achieving that…which also feels “kind of awesome!” Here it goes.., best, Peter

Thapkhay (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Peter. Page accepted. Cabrils (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitting: Draft:Arctic_Basecamp

Thank you so much for your helpful feedback! I've added a further reference that I think meets all the notability guidelines. I hope that along with one or two other references already there, this shows there are multiple sources that meet all notability guidelines. I know that some of the references don't meet them - for example I have included some links to the charity's own website - but I felt these would still be helpful and informative. Let me know if I should remove these. Thank you again! Roamingbeacons (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your response and thoughts, and my apologies for such a belated reply. I will have a further look at the draft and come back to you. Cabrils (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, I think that helped a lot. I have removed 3 references to YouTube as it is not considered a reliable source. Draft accepted. Cabrils (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Front Row Insurance

I don't have any connection to the subject, so it is not necessary to declare anything.

Regarding: "have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable"... well, I thought there was significant enough coverage, especially after the Rust shooting incident and seeing Front Row Insurance mentioned in the TMZ article (https://www.tmz.com/2021/10/26/rust-insurance-policy-6-million-hutchins-souza/) and other sources referenced in the draft. Do you have any specific suggestions as to what else can be done? Front Row is a company that is significant in the US/Canada film industry. Turner.john60 (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your helpful response. I will have more of a look at the draft and come back to you. Cabrils (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked again at the draft. As I said in my comment there, the draft needs to meet the criteria set out in WP:NCORP, including:

"A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

And

"An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries. The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable."

Please peruse WP:NCORP and familiarise yourself thoroughly with the criteria.

Many of the current citations are to sources that are not considered reliable: please see the links I included in my comment. Such unreliable sources include press releases, blogs and self-authored promotional articles.

As a start, please remove all such citations, and then trim the draft accordingly to only include information that is verifiable from reliable sources. The draft currently appears extremely promotional in nature. Simply being "significant in the US/Canada film industry" is not a valid criteria: the draft must meet WP:NCORP.

I trust this helps. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Cabrils (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched and I don't believe Front Row has received "significant coverage" in the sense of being a profile piece that is focused only on Front Row. The company has received many mentions, however, in various reliable secondary sources over the years. So, based on this, do you think approval is hopeless? Do we need to wait for some big profile piece about Front Row to be published somewhere? Please advise. Turner.john60 (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Rob Torres (Race Car Driver)

Hello Calibris, Thank you for the feedback on Draft:Rob Torres (Race Car Driver) I added references from multiple racing media websites, I hope this helps. All the best, - Mljj176224 Mljj176224 (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, good work. Now you need to format those references correctly: as I wrote in my comment on the draft: "To properly create such a draft page, please see referencing for beginners or the article Easier Referencing for Beginners. Please note that many of the references are not formatted correctly (see Wikipedia’s Manual of Style for help)." Please see those linked pages to explain how best to format the references. Let me know when you've done that and I'd be happy to have another look at the draft. Cabrils (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]