433:
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
212:
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?
298:
571:
95:
536:
248:
I also have a question and is about
Knowledge's impact on notability. Since Knowledge 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
244:
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
445:
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
432:
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
240:
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
211:
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
264:
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
245:
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.
241:
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.
185:'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
441:
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.
249:
notability believe the article does meet
Knowledge's criteria for it as well as objectivity, detailed and sourced information and all of these can be independently corroborated.
99:
329:
of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in
Knowledge, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
507:
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.
354:
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
26:
393:
25:
216:
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
43:! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Knowledge and get help from experienced editors like
386:
318:
186:
594:
488:
As for reliable, Lobato is a blog, Lodish did not appear to support the text, I doubt
Skyhorse Publishing is reliable, ditto press releases.
446:
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.
368:
If you now believe the draft cannot meet
Knowledge's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
583:
321:, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Knowledge's
473:
for proper formatting, and learn how to indicate the use of a ref multiple times rather than each time being a separately numbered ref.
103:
369:
362:
289:
261:
552:
314:
304:
285:
170:
470:
150:
112:
413:
192:
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.--
117:
578:, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
349:
73:
110:(COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the
322:
307:
has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Dodger67 were:
575:
563:
542:
527:
512:
493:
478:
451:
274:
137:
385:
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and
605:
437:
of the draft itself by another experienced editor because it affects notability so I am changing the
326:
225:
221:
197:
193:
182:
107:
423:
57:
40:
127:
articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
102:
your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things
310:
382:" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
587:
508:
489:
474:
447:
270:
236:
Response Sept 28 2021: August 2021: Your conflict of interest regarding
Jennifer Robi's case
601:
50:
546:
376:
345:
160:
579:
541:
I've left a comment on your
Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at
523:
419:
252:
If you could give me specific examples of my litigation bent or lack of notability.
333:
313:
than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a
229:
201:
341:
266:
217:
297:
207:
Response: August 2021: Your conflict of interest regarding
Jennifer Robi's case
609:
574:
Hello, Effectivenow. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
556:
516:
497:
482:
455:
427:
278:
570:
94:
89:
August 2021: Your conflict of interest regarding Jennifer Robi's case
535:
149:
your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see
361:
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to
68:
396:
associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the
534:
296:
45:
372:, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "
461:
Thank you so much. I am sorry I am screwing up royally!
414:
Knowledge's real-time chat help from experienced editors
133:
on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the
406:
398:
159:
to your organization's website in other articles (see
365:
and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
392:
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any
151:
Knowledge:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI
220:
requrements? If not, then no article is possible.--
344:. If you need help with referencing, please see
340:sources are required so that information can be
332:This submission is not adequately supported by
593:If the page has already been deleted, you can
370:Draft:Jennifer Robi From Athlete to Wheelchair
363:Draft:Jennifer Robi From Athlete to Wheelchair
262:Draft:Jennifer Robi From Athlete to Wheelchair
17:Effectivenow, you are invited to the Teahouse!
8:
600:Thank you for your submission to Knowledge.
582:, so if you wish to retain the page, please
319:independent, reliable, published sources
290:Jennifer Robi From Athlete to Wheelchair
37:! Thanks for contributing to Knowledge.
120:for more information. We ask that you:
187:Knowledge:Paid-contribution disclosure
7:
590:that it be moved to your userspace.
597:so you can continue working on it.
269:rather than a stand-alone article.
303:Your recent article submission to
14:
317:, and should refer to a range of
569:
93:
24:
400:Articles for creation help desk
311:read more like an advertisement
557:11:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
498:03:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
483:21:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
471:Help:Referencing for beginners
456:21:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
428:21:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
279:21:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
230:06:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
113:conflict of interest guideline
1:
106:on Knowledge, you may have a
356:when they have been resolved
55:
517:00:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
309:This submission appears to
169:to comply with Knowledge's
625:
610:19:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
202:06:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
63:We hope to see you there!
22:
346:Referencing for beginners
125:avoid editing or creating
79:16:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
98:Hello, Effectivenow. We
595:request it be undeleted
539:
301:
104:you have written about
538:
315:neutral point of view
305:Articles for Creation
300:
286:Articles for creation
177:In addition, you are
118:FAQ for organizations
408:reviewer's talk page
323:verifiability policy
235:
206:
183:Wikimedia Foundation
108:conflict of interest
88:
576:Draft:Jennifer Robi
564:Draft:Jennifer Robi
543:Draft:Jennifer Robi
528:Draft:Jennifer Robi
284:Your submission at
562:Concern regarding
540:
302:
58:Visit the Teahouse
530:has a new comment
465:Learn referencing
394:untoward behavior
86:
85:
80:
76:
72:on behalf of the
616:
573:
549:
420:Roger (Dodger67)
411:
403:
381:
375:
334:reliable sources
171:content policies
142:
136:
97:
78:
71:
65:
60:
48:
39:Be our guest at
28:
21:
20:
624:
623:
619:
618:
617:
615:
614:
613:
567:
559:
555:
547:
532:
467:
430:
405:
397:
379:
373:
353:
330:
294:
258:
238:
209:
140:
134:
131:propose changes
91:
82:
81:
67:
61:
56:
44:
19:
12:
11:
5:
622:
620:
580:may be deleted
566:
560:
551:
533:
531:
526:notification:
521:
520:
519:
503:Thanks again!
501:
500:
466:
463:
459:
458:
418:
417:
390:
387:may be deleted
383:
366:
350:Citing sources
331:
308:
295:
293:
292:(September 28)
282:
257:
254:
237:
234:
233:
232:
208:
205:
175:
174:
164:
161:Knowledge:Spam
154:
144:
128:
90:
87:
84:
83:
74:Teahouse hosts
62:
38:
31:
29:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
621:
612:
611:
607:
603:
598:
596:
591:
589:
585:
581:
577:
572:
565:
561:
558:
554:
550:
544:
537:
529:
525:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
505:
504:
499:
495:
491:
487:
486:
485:
484:
480:
476:
472:
464:
462:
457:
453:
449:
444:
443:
442:
440:
436:
429:
425:
421:
415:
410:
409:
402:
401:
395:
391:
388:
384:
378:
371:
367:
364:
360:
359:
357:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
328:
324:
320:
316:
312:
306:
299:
291:
287:
283:
281:
280:
276:
272:
268:
263:
255:
253:
250:
246:
242:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
214:
213:
204:
203:
199:
195:
190:
188:
184:
180:
172:
168:
165:
162:
158:
157:avoid linking
155:
152:
148:
145:
139:
132:
129:
126:
123:
122:
121:
119:
115:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
77:
75:
70:
66:Delivered by
59:
54:
52:
47:
42:
36:
30:
27:
23:
16:
599:
592:
568:
502:
468:
460:
438:
434:
431:
407:
399:
355:
337:
259:
251:
247:
243:
239:
210:
191:
178:
176:
167:do your best
166:
156:
146:
138:request edit
130:
124:
111:
92:
64:
41:the Teahouse
35:Effectivenow
34:
32:
509:David notMD
490:David notMD
475:David notMD
448:David notMD
271:David notMD
267:HPV vaccine
260:Your draft
602:FireflyBot
545:. Thanks!
327:notability
256:My opinion
222:Quisqualis
218:notability
194:Quisqualis
143:template);
586:again or
548:WikiDan61
404:, on the
553:ReadMe!!
342:verified
338:Reliable
325:and the
179:required
147:disclose
588:request
584:edit it
439:subject
435:subject
412:or use
181:by the
100:welcome
69:HostBot
377:Db-g7
46:78.26
606:talk
513:talk
494:talk
479:talk
469:See
452:talk
424:talk
348:and
275:talk
226:talk
198:talk
116:and
51:talk
524:AfC
53:).
33:Hi
608:)
515:)
496:)
481:)
454:)
426:)
380:}}
374:{{
358:.
336:.
288::
277:)
228:)
200:)
189:.
163:);
153:);
141:}}
135:{{
604:(
511:(
492:(
477:(
450:(
422:(
416:.
389:.
352:.
273:(
224:(
196:(
173:.
49:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
