User talk:Effectivenow

Effectivenow, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Effectivenow! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

August 2021: Your conflict of interest regarding Jennifer Robi's case

Hello, Effectivenow. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Response: August 2021: Your conflict of interest regarding Jennifer Robi's case

Hello Quisqualis. I was out of town and wasn't able to get to your feedback. The references are based on the APA 7 format. If there are any of them wrong please let me know. I have re-edited the 37 sources, removed the one blog and the one you labeled antiVaxx. My line of thinking was to indicate injuries due to Gardasil. I have no conflict of interest with the subject. I am not related by blood, association nor beliefs to the subject. I am neither a competitor, nor an organization. I have no website, blog on the subject nor article. This study was strictly as part of pharmacology 101. I just did a factual and evidential study of the case base on online sources. Is a librarian research required?

Librarian research is not required. However, what your draft consists of seems to be a litigation of the ongoing case. Does the subject pass basic notability requrements? If not, then no article is possible.--Quisqualis (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Response Sept 28 2021: August 2021: Your conflict of interest regarding Jennifer Robi's case

I have read the notability requirements and I believe the subject was dealt appropriately. I am not a lawyer. Thus, I was not litigating anything but presenting a subject that I dealt with in pharmacology 101. I took two sources out based on your suggestion. Two out of 37 reliable original sources including books, newspaper articles, etc. These two were replaced with 2 other sources that established the same detail so the original two were secondary sources albeit based on your input not good.

For the litigation aspect you mention please explain. There is significant coverage that is unique in 22 sources. Of these two deal with 2 cases and the other 8 cases are mentioned in one short sentence to fulfill the requirement of completeness and enough detail in the draft. Is this what you call a litigation? How many more unique sources are required by wikipedia? There is no other article dealing with the injuries of these people who are mostly paralyzed, mostly of them women. Only two sources of 22 deal with the case legal case information.

I also have a question and is about Wikipedia's impact on notability. Since Wikipedia is ubiquitous it automatically gives notability. So how can one restrict an article for lack of notability if it is not put out there to the world in order to be noted? From what I could gather on the guidelines for notability believe the article does meet Wikipedia's criteria for it as well as objectivity, detailed and sourced information and all of these can be independently corroborated.

If you could give me specific examples of my litigation bent or lack of notability.

My opinion

Your draft Draft:Jennifer Robi From Athlete to Wheelchair is an example of content that is true and referenced and not notable. The vaccine is notable. Evidence that the vaccine may have severe adverse effects in some people is notable. Trying to create an article about one such person is not notable. Consider adding a litigation subsection to HPV vaccine rather than a stand-alone article. David notMD (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jennifer Robi From Athlete to Wheelchair (September 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Dodger67 were: 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:Jennifer Robi From Athlete to Wheelchair 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:Jennifer Robi From Athlete to Wheelchair, 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.

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Dodger67! I need some clarification on the specifics. Thanks for the links they were very helpful. From where I stand the sources are reliable. Can you tell me which ones are not and why. This way I can determine better sources for you. Previously on the draft, you had mentioned one that starts with "Children..." which is where the information about the legal aspects of the article were drawn from. These reference is from articles by the lawyers that took the cases but it occupies a short paragraph of the draft. So if it can't be from the legal entity that is conducting the case what should I use? In terms of the advertising aspect: What is the vernacular you view as advertising or spam. It was not my intent so I am at a loss. If you can point to a specific sentence I will correct it. I got feedback on the subject of the draft itself by another experienced editor because it affects notability so I am changing the subject forthwith. The explanation was very helpful. It help me get insight on the intent of the feedback for notability. If you could help me a bit more I think I could do better. Regards.

Your above query to Dodger67 did not 'ping' that editor, so very unlikely that Dodger67 will see it. There are many draft reviewers who taken it upon themselves to judge scores of drafts, so they rarely revisit. (If you resubmit, likely you will get a new reviewer). One way to 'ping' someone is to bracket their user name with two curly brackets { and u| before and two curly brackets after. Or you can leave a message on their Talk page. David notMD (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I am sorry I am screwing up royally!

Learn referencing

See Help:Referencing for beginners for proper formatting, and learn how to indicate the use of a ref multiple times rather than each time being a separately numbered ref. David notMD (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

As for reliable, Lobato is a blog, Lodish did not appear to support the text, I doubt Skyhorse Publishing is reliable, ditto press releases. David notMD (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again!

Most experienced editors were once newbies. The learning curve is steep, and can feel obtuse. For this reason, common advice is to learn via editing existing articles. David notMD (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Jennifer Robi has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Jennifer Robi. Thanks! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Jennifer Robi

Hello, Effectivenow. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Jennifer Robi, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)