User talk:Tuckerbaba

Welcome!

Hi Tuckerbaba! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! ThanosYourGod (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Anantanārāyanan Rāman

Hello, Tuckerbaba. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Anantanārāyanan Rāman, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anantanarayanan Raman (May 27)

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

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Every statement needs a reliable source or needs to be removed, e.g. the entire "Early life" and "Invited lectures" sections, a large portion of the "Awards and Notable mentions", etc.

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:Anantanarayanan Raman 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:Anantanarayanan Raman, 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.

Pbrks (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tuckerbaba! Having an article 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! Pbrks (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Anantanarayanan Raman

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 Draft:Anantanarayanan Raman, 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. Randykitty (talk) 09:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Anantanarayanan Raman

Hello, Tuckerbaba,

Did you mean to tag this page for speedy deletion? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, Yes, I requested that /* Draft:Anantanarayanan Raman */ be permanently deleted because I created another page with same material titled "Draft:Anantanarayanan Raman(2)" which is currently in review thank you for your question

Hi again Liz, I just received a message from another reviewer that "Anantanarayanan Raman" is under review. So, could we please leave it without deleting please? Sorry about the confusion.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anantanarayanan Raman (2) (July 29)

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

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Anantanarayanan Raman, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

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:Anantanarayanan Raman (2) 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:Anantanarayanan Raman (2), 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.

Dan arndt (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anantanarayanan Raman moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Anantanarayanan Raman, is not suitable as written to remain published. There appears to be either a WP:UPE or WP:COI issue. (?) 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 it can remain while you address the UPE/COI concern. When you have made the necessary steps regarding COI/UPE, and the article meets WP:GNG and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Do not re-add to mainspace yourself. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anantanarayanan Raman (September 2)

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 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 for academics). 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:

The sources cited are mostly primary and close; the few secondary ones offer only passing mentions. Therefore general WP:GNG notability is not established. I cannot see anything in the article text which indicates obvious academic notability per WP:PROF. (In fact, the whole thing reads very much like the CV of a rank-and-file researcher going about doing their job.) Google Scholar gives h-index of 37, which may or may not be enough to satisfy criterion #1 of WP:NACADEMIC. Note: if academic notability is being asserted, please point clearly to what this is based on, and what evidence supports the assertion.

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:Anantanarayanan Raman 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:Anantanarayanan Raman, 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anantanarayanan Raman has been accepted

Anantanarayanan Raman, 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!

DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Piletsky moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Sergey Piletsky, 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. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Hello Tuckerbaba. 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 compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. 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 very 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 extremely 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:Tuckerbaba. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Tuckerbaba|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. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Praxidicae,

Thank you for your note and for taking time to review this article.

I can confirm that I am not Sergey Piletsky and therefore, I am not writing about myself. I can further confirm that I do not have any financial stake whatsoever. I am not compensated directly or indirectly for this contribution. I will not get compensated for this work in future.

Thank you again for your note.

Kind regards Tuckerbaba (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your connection to the subjects you've written about? PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am a student and interested in STEM. I like to read about people who specialize in different areas. Tuckerbaba (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So if you've got no connection, how is this and this your own work? PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Praxidicae,

These people are well known in their fields and their pictures were taken from the University Websites (Charles Sturt University, Australia and Leicester University, UK). Tuckerbaba (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where specifically did the Piletsky photo come from? Please provide a link. And why did you upload it as your own work, if it is not in fact your own work? PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I obtained it from google scholar. The link is provided below

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=pe9fDHsAAAAJ

Sure, I will provide a link on the write-up. I uploaded it on the Wiki-commons and only then used it up for the write-up. If this is not the right way, I will provide a reference. Please let me know where the reference should be provided. I can even take the photo off, if you suggest that this is the right thing to do.

Kindly let me know. Thanks Tuckerbaba (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not where the photo came from - there is no high quality version like the one you uploaded and it lacks the metadata that the one you uploaded has. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Praxidicae, To my best knowledge, google scholar is where I took the picture from. I live in the US (and you may want to look into the IP address if you think I am the person that the article talks about). Sergey (the person I wrote about) is a Professor at Leicester University and with over 20,000 citations to his work, he is one of the experts in the field. The picture is also on the Wiki commons. I will remove the picture from the write-up. Thank you Tuckerbaba (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is you uploaded a photo that is not publicly available - that image did not come from google scholar, so where did you get it in order to upload it to Commons? And how is the photo of Anantanarayanan Raman your own work? PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Praxidicae, I relied on most of what I wrote about from the google scholar site. I also read a lot of abstract. I reviewed a number of sources to see where I took the picture from. The only place I believe I took it from is the google scholar. The difference is the clarity of the picture is something that is prompting me to think that I probably took it of some other site. I am reviewing going back into other webpages to further verify. Either way, I am reading the wiki policy of uploading pictures and realize that public domain images are not permitted and therefore, removed it from the article

Yes, Anantharanayanan Raman's picture is "own work". (After writing the article, I wrote to the person asking for a picture and also to see if there is anything factually incorrect, because this was very first article). Anantharanayanan used to live in Australia 2 years ago when I wrote about him. Tuckerbaba (talk) 14:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sergey Piletsky (August 17)

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

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Citation numbers shouldn't be included. See WP:OVERCITE. 10 items per list is too many. Should have an awards and honours section where they are referenced.

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:Sergey Piletsky 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.

Gusfriend (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time to review. Please find below the changes that were made.

Instead of 10 items per listing, I have reduced it to 5 items per listing, though to be honest with you, the items do not adequately represent the overall contributions, therefore not providing a overall perspective. I am afraid that we are compromising on content over brevity. However, I did make the change suggested by the reviewer.
A separate section on Awards has been included provided references. Though the University of Leicester was the only reference provided for all the individual awards. (Sergey Piletsky | People | University of Leicester)
I removed the British Council award, because, I could not find the mention on the university website, though some other third party sites mention this
Citations for publications have been removed as suggested by the reviewer
There was a mistake on the reference section that was highlighted by the reviewer and this has now been corrected

Thank you @Curbon7, @Gusfriend, and @Praxidicae for your time and efforts

Best regards Tuckerbaba (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sergey Piletsky (December 14)

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

There are still some WP:OVERCITE issues pointed out by previous reviewers that haven't been fixed.

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:Sergey Piletsky 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.

BuySomeApples (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sergey Piletsky (February 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Praseodymium-141 was:

Overciting issues still remain in the Research section.

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:Sergey Piletsky 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.

¹⁴¹ Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 18:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sergey Piletsky has been accepted

Sergey Piletsky, 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!

InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 11:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks InterstellarGamer12321.

Really appreciate your comments. I will continue to make improvements as you suggested.

Thank you Tuckerbaba (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Hi Tuckerbaba! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Kj cheetham (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awright @Kj cheetham: Cheers for letting me know. Thanks also for helping me make continued improvements. Best regards - Tuckerbaba (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Chandrashekarendra Saraswati, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]