User talk:Gabriel.A.Wainer

This is Gabriel.A.Wainer's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gabriel Wainer (June 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Needs additional sources. Also also see the notability guidelines for academics.

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:Gabriel Wainer 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:Gabriel Wainer, 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 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.

S0091 (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gabriel.A.Wainer! 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! S0091 (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Gabriel.A.Wainer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you created or edited appears to be an article about yourself. Creating an autobiography is a common mistake made by new Wikipedians—as this is an encyclopedia, we wouldn't expect to have an article about every contributor. We require individuals to meet Wikipedia's definition of a notable person to accept articles about them.

The page you created about yourself may well be deleted from the encyclopedia. If it is deleted and you wish to retrieve its contents, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page. If your contributions to an existing article about yourself are undone and you wish to add to it, please propose the changes on its talk page.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! S0091 (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gabriel Wainer (November 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Needs a few more citations, but is notable. Feel free to ping me when you resubmit.

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:Gabriel Wainer 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.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I completed the addition of many more references; I'm pinging you as you requested (I hope this is the right way to do it). Thanks! Gabriel.A.Wainer (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gabriel Wainer has been accepted

Gabriel Wainer, 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!

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:17, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the article talk page where you have a conflict of interest

I have reverted your recent edit to Gabriel Wainer because of your conflict of interest. There have been legitimate concerns raised about the content of your edit, and some of the style issues are just outright contrary to the Manual of Style. E.g., there's no need to restate the subject's name in the first sentence without the middle name (unless it's not a middle name but a maternal name, and he goes by his paternal name?). For the items that should be added, you'll need to request the addition at the article's talk page; you may use the {{request edit}} template to draw attention to the request. —C.Fred (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that co-founding conferences and his editor in chief role at Simulation are supported by sources that do not come from Wainer directly, so I have restored those items to the bio. —C.Fred (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I needed help with this. I'm not an expert but the page was "vandalized" on October 3.

I was checking how to revert, and when I tried, the vandalized content (libel, insults) appeared again. Reading the info on how to revert, the suggestion is: "copy/paste the text of an old version".

The text I copied is the one of the last non-vandalized version:

23:09, 14 April 2024‎ Lynch44 talk contribs‎ m 9,646 bytes −3‎ Reverted 1 edit by 38.147.245.113 (talk) to last revision by Citation bot undothank Tags: Twinkle Undo Mobile edit Mobile web edit

I will copy it again, because the current version is incomplete and it has errors. The correct version is the one above, April 14, edited by Lynch44.

If there is anything I should change from that version, I will do it and I'm ready to do any modifications needed, but the version in April was correct and got destroyed on October 3/4.

Thanks a million for your help and any insights so I can get it right. Gabriel.A.Wainer (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to get independent sources for the material. Again, I have removed a lot of the unsourced and ill-sourced material. And you must follow the policies related to COI editing. —C.Fred (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help, please.

I don't know what is an "independent source"; this page was approved and the content didn't change until it was vandalized a few days ago.

I don't know what are the policies: I created the page myself as they asked me to do so; where can I find them?

Sorry for all the inconveniences; I thought the approved version and the minimal edits until April were OK, but I'll do whatever is needed.

Thanks a lot again Gabriel.A.Wainer (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "this page was approved": that it sat unchallenged for so long doesn't grant it any special status. Yes, the IP crossed the line in some places, but they also raised legitimate concerns. I've restored some of the material that is supported. Arguably, the paragraph about your undergraduate and doctoral degrees could be removed because it is unsourced.

Please see WP:Reliable sources for more information. Also please note that we need WP:Secondary sources whenever possible in articles. A self-published source is permissible for some things, but not for major accomplishments—and in some cases, even a self-published source about a date of birth may be challenged. —C.Fred (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help; your knowledge is appreciate. "Approved": I mean that when I originally edited, I was asked to do a lot of changes, I did them, and eventually somebody said "OK", and it got published; I didn't touch anything since then until the vandalized version yesterday.

Why is the "new" version so different from the one that existed from 2022 until yesterday? What kind of content can be included? I don't understand why 2/3 of the page disappeared (we're trying to set up the page of the Journal I edit, and they asked me to put a detailed bio; that's why I added a Wikipedia page in the first place).

BTW, is there any way to locate the source of the vandalism? My University wants to take action.

And thanks again! Gabriel.A.Wainer (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, who asked you to do the changes? If the university asked you to, then not only do you have a conflict of interest, but you may be a paid editor per our guidelines.

Second, it was "published" when you hit submit. I don't see where the article was either moved from draft space or had pending-changes protection on it at any point.

Third, as noted, what was removed is information that cannot be verified in independent sources.

Fourth, please define "take action". The IP has been warned for their vandalism, and if it recurs, they will be sanctioned on-wiki, likely by having the page protected to prevent edits by new and unregistered editors. If the university is considering off-wiki actions, that puts you, as an editor, in a very awkward position. Per WP:No legal threats, any user who has threatened to take, or is taking, legal or other off-wiki action against an editor is to be blocked from editing while the threats stand or the action is ongoing. Based on your earlier statements that you have edited at the direction of a third party, which I'm assuming is the university, that would require your account to be blocked as a related party to the off-wiki action, if that's what the university is contemplating. —C.Fred (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All that said, I have taken unilateral on-wiki action to revision-delete two versions of the article that contained the most egregious WP:BLP violations, and I have also revdel'ed an edit summary that included the section name. —C.Fred (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!

Sorry; I might have a "language" issue (I do not know the lingo of Wikipedia and I apologize if I use the wrong terms).

I will do whatever you tell me to; you are the expert and I'm learning; thanks a million for your quick responses and all your feedback.

I just wanted to know what could be done; I'm really not planning to do anything, to tell the truth; I'm tired and overwhelmed by this, but I wanted to know if this happens and if it's possible to identify who vandalized; if that's not the case, that's OK.

Nobody asked me to do anything; I misspoke; sorry.

Initially, I had edited the page, and it went back and forth until it was finally published; I was asked to add a few things that now are gone. The original editor (an expert like you) asked me to do all the changes, and I did.

Thanks Gabriel.A.Wainer (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm far from an expert, but hopefully I can be a bit helpful anyway. Re: your question about what an "independent source" is, here's a discussion. For example, the following are not independent sources for your page: your CV, papers you've published, and webpages for which you've written the contents.

More generally, if you have a question about what's meant by some term used on this back end of Wikipedia, if you put "wp:" or "Wikipedia:" (but without quotation marks) in the search bar, and then after the colon add the term(s) that you're trying to understand, it will give you search results from Wikipedia's editing policies/guidelines. And if you need additional help, you can ask at the Teahouse, use a "help me" template on your own talk page, or leave a message on the talk page of the editor who first welcomed you above.

If you look at the top of this page, you'll see links to some other important guidelines (e.g., where it says that you need "published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject"). Biographical pages also have some special restrictions. For example, Carleton's website can be used as a source to confirm that you're a professor there, but because it's a self-published source, it cannot be used to confirm that you received an award, unless it was awarded by Carleton itself. Also, the source has to confirm the statement for which it's used as a citation; for example, you cited https://scs.org/annsim/ as evidence for your claim that you co-founded the ANNSIM conference, but that webpage doesn't actually confirm that claim.

I recognize that a lot of these rules seem strange for someone who works in academia, but Wikipedia isn't academia, and the rules here have to apply to diverse topics/editors. I imagine that it also seems strange that you can't just recreate the contents of your page that were there since 2022, but you have a conflict of interest, so you now need to ask on the talk page for your article. There's no guarantee that whoever responds will assess the request in the same way as the editor who first approved your page. For example, I'm surprised that that editor allowed you to cite so much of your own work; then again, that editor is more experienced than I am, so perhaps there's something that I don't understand about that.

I don't think that there's any way to determine the identity of the person who vandalized your page, but you could ask about that at the Teahouse. Hope this helps -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is very clear and extremely helpful; thank you very much! I'll try to follow the guidelines and your suggestions. 181.111.255.5 (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]