User talk:Sarste01

Welcome!

Hello, Sarste01, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Randykitty (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Academy of Marketing Science (June 14)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:Academy of Marketing Science 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.

S0091 (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sarste01! 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) 18:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear S0091, Thank you very much for your feedback. I will try to find some other references to support the write-up. I assume that the references to the AMS website are problematic, not the peer-reviewed academic articles. Is this correct? Having said this, I'm somewhat concerned about your observation that the text sounds like an advertisement. This is not intended at all. Could you offer a sample statements that you deem problematic in this regard? Thank you very much! Sarste01 (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft should summarize what reliable secondary independent (no affiliation) sources say about AMS. Primary sources are fine to use for very basic facts, like when it was established, founders, etc. but should not serve as the foundation. Basing a draft/article on non-independent publications inherently, at the very least, fails Wikipedia's WP:Neutral point of view policy and doing so is generally considered promotional as it is regurgitating what those affiliated say. Take every statement and ask yourself according whom? Some examples: "Berkman successfully focused a great deal of his attention early on engaging Canadian scholars with the AMS", "The AMS WMC brings similar convivial fellowship to locations around the world fostering fellowship, collaboration, and networking across borders.", " Jay Lindquist was instrumental in developing the AMS WMC then managing it for decades afterward as the Director of International Programs.", "AMS Review is the preeminent marketing journal focusing on theory development in marketing" and so on. If no secondary independent sources support such claims based on the author's own evaluation/analysis, they should be removed. Also see WP:Words to watch. S0091 (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your detailed feedback - much appreciated. I see your points and will revise the text accordingly. Sarste01 (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Academy of Marketing Science (June 24)

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

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:Academy of Marketing Science 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Theroadislong, Thank you very much for your review of the page. While I appreciate your feedback, I have trouble understanding where the revised submission reads like an advertisement. The references provided to support the descriptions stem from academic peer-reviewed articles. I would very much appreciate if you could point out text elements that you deem inappropriate. That would help me adjusting the text such that it meets your standards. Thanks again & all the best! Sarste01 (talk) 08:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The overall impression when reading the draft is that you are trying to promote the academy, you are free to re-submit and let other reviewers take a look. Theroadislong (talk) 08:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I take your feedback seriously as I would really like to avoid any such impression. If you could name any section that created this impression, this would help. I assume that the references are not the problem, right? Thanks! Sarste01 (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The very first sentence is promotional marketing "an international, scholarly, and professional organization dedicated to the advancement of marketing knowledge and practice." Theroadislong (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I revised the sentence and several other formulations that could be judged as advertisement. I also added a further reference to support the positioning of the journal JAMS.

Should I submit the article for another round of review now? How should I deal with the note that the article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments? Note that I have not and will not receive any payments whatsoever from this association.

Thanks again for your critical assessment. Sarste01 (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing

Hello Sarste01. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Sarste01. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Sarste01|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Theroadislong (talk) 08:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Theoradislong, I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for any of my edits on Wikipedia. I just included some brief details on my user profile and am happy to add more if that helps. I wasn't aware that not having a user profile may suggest that I get paid for any of my edits. Sarste01 (talk) 09:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least you appear to have a conflict of interest having been "actively involved in the AMS since 2009" please be sure to disclose your affiliation. Theroadislong (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for highlighting this. I was not aware that my membership and involvement could be seen as a potential source of conflict of interest. As per your request, I added this information to my user page. Sarste01 (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Academy of Marketing Science has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Academy of Marketing Science. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The JAMS reference was a direct quote from the webpage, showcasing the journal's positioning. In response to your comment, I removed the statement regarding the journal's positioning. The other citations are from double-blind peer-reviewed articles published in JAMS and AMS Review. Sarste01 (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Academy of Marketing Science (July 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by SafariScribe were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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:Academy of Marketing Science 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.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SafariScribe,

Thank you very much for your review of my article draft. I'm sorry to learn that the revised version of the draft doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. If possible, I would kindly ask you for some guidance on how to improve the draft. Alternatively, I will reach out to the help desk, of course.

I have revised the draft such that the primary sections exclusively rely on peer-reviewed academic journals. The awards section refers to the AMS website. Is this the point of concern?

I have solicited feedback from fellow professors to ensure that the article is written in a neutral tone. Could you please point to formulations that you deem inappropriate in this regard?

Thank you very much for your help! Sarste01 (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarste01, I am not SafariScribe but I have added a citation needed tags for the portions for which you need to add sources. I also suggest removing the Awards and Recognition section as it comes across as what we call 'list cruft' and just add a sentence in the prose listing the awards given, not the awardees. S0091 (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear S0091, Thank you very much for your message and comments - much appreciated! I added supporting citations and removed the awards and recognitions section. A senior editor previously noted that the section is ok, but I see your point regarding "list cruft." Please let me know in case you see any further issues. Thanks gain for your help! Sarste01 (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Academy of Marketing Science (July 21)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. 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:

Per WP:ORG, we need to see significant coverage, directly of the subject (and not some related matters such as their journal, or code of ethics, etc.) in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and entirely independent of the subject. I don't believe any of the sources cited meets this standard.

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:Academy of Marketing Science 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]