122:"The novel has been recognized with a coveted 5-Star review by Clarion, an 'Editor’s Choice' selection by BookLife/Publisher’s Weekly, and a prestigious starred review from Kirkus. It has also received a 'Starred Review' from Blue Ink Reviews, an 'IR Approved' rating from IndieReader, and unanimous 5-Star reviews from a panel of reviewers at Readers’ Favorite." Do you think this is enough to have that Knowledge reviewer re-consider?
234:
165:. The articles on Planview and Mik Kersten are pretty obscure and your comment is unlikely to be seen by anyone otherwise. No one gets notified unless you make a properly formatted edit request. The only reason I'm talking to you is that I periodically check up on what you are doing, because I expected you would need help. I've added a paid editing notice to
199:
Very helpful, Un assiolo. Thanks for that guidance re
Planview and Mik's article...and thanks for that caveat about Mik's article being potentially in danger of deletion. I will work on those next steps for those. And yes, I will add the newest reviews to my novel's draft article and re-submit that.
114:
Thanks for looking at those updates to the list of
Planview products and services. Yes, it is pretty long. They have made a lot of acquisitions over the years which led to the addition of so many products (each of those acquired companies had flagship software products that became part of Planview's
121:
Thank you for asking about that. Yes, I would love to have the reviewer reconsider. I now have eleven professional book reviews for the book, and all of them have been stellar. I was waiting to have as many as possible before re-contacted that
Knowledge editor again, but here's the current tally:
146:
To suggest those edits, is the best first step to use the Talk page and explain my connection to
Planview and Mik...in order to start a dialogue with the Knowledge editor who will be my contact? I'm guessing I should do that first rather than jumping in and suggesting edits, but wanted to check.
180:
is poorly referenced and it may well be deleted if you draw attention to it. I'm not saying it will, but it might. Again, see the notability and reliable sources guidelines. If it gets nominated for deletion, you will have a week to get it up to
92:
are sufficient to establish notability. Your article has three reviews, but do they meet the criteria? It is possible the reviewer made a mistake. If you are certain at least two of these reviews are good, we can ask the reviewer to reconsider.
184:
Regarding your novel, you can add the reviews and then resubmit. If you've read the notability and reliable sources guidelines carefully and you truly believe it meets them and it still gets rejected, I can ask what's going on.
143:. He gave me a batch of updates he would like me to suggest for his page. Currently, the article about him focuses on the early part of his career, but it's missing his more recent work. So he asked me to add that.
29:, you are generally only supposed to use one account at a time. As this seems to be a good faith mistake, I would suggest just picking one account and abandoning the other. At the bottom of your userpage, add
73:
and they seem OK. I'm not sure if having such an extensive list of products is appropriate, but it's borderline at worst – not the kind of blatant spam that would need to be reverted promptly.
376:
374:! 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
139:
Un assiolo, can I get your guidance on one more thing while I'm thinking of it: One of
Planview's senior executives is Mik Kersten. The Knowledge article about him is here:
285:
298:
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
409:
Thank you for reviewing this, asilvering. I didn't realize those reviews don't qualify. I will work on getting more media reviews that will qualify. Take care.
364:
320:
313:
161:
If you want your comment on the talk page to be seen by anyone, you need to make an edit request, following the instructions at
240:
221:
268:
340:
275:
115:
offering). But I will ask if there are any we can remove as part of updating that section. That way we can streamline it.
390:, a friendly space on Knowledge where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
85:
306:
261:
225:
89:
77:
63:
410:
243:
has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by
Asilvering was:
201:
162:
148:
126:
26:
288:
when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for
Knowledge.
395:
350:
254:
246:
190:
98:
81:
49:
386:
22:
170:
391:
346:
293:
186:
94:
45:
312:
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and
284:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about
166:
418:
399:
354:
209:
194:
156:
134:
102:
53:
363:
177:
40:
Note that your two accounts have different COI disclosures. You should disclose
233:
70:
59:
384:
questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
249:. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
305:
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to
323:
associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the
232:
140:
292:
Sorry, these are paid reviews, which don't count towards
341:
Knowledge's real-time chat help from experienced editors
333:
325:
309:
and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
245:
This draft's references do not show that the subject
173:, so you can just go ahead and make the edit request.
319:
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any
258:(not just passing mentions about the subject)
8:
88:. The latter says two reviews published in
35:I have abandoned this account and now use ]
82:Knowledge's general notability guideline
44:COIs on whichever account you choose. --
86:the more specific guideline for books
80:? If not, you may want to read up on
7:
141:https://en.wikipedia.org/Mik_Kersten
290:The comment the reviewer left was:
239:Your recent article submission to
27:Knowledge's policy on sockpuppetry
14:
247:qualifies for a Knowledge article
362:
377:Articles for creation help desk
327:Articles for creation help desk
69:I've looked at your changes to
111:re: Planview products/services
1:
300:after they have been resolved
90:independent, reliable sources
125:Thanks again for your time!
419:00:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
400:02:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
355:02:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
210:20:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
195:21:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
21:Are you the same person as
435:
307:Draft:It Rhymes With Truth
157:23:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
135:23:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
78:Draft:It Rhymes With Truth
64:Draft:It Rhymes With Truth
103:15:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
414:
205:
152:
130:
118:re: It Rhymes with Truth
54:21:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
163:Knowledge:Edit requests
237:
37:, as the case may be.
31:I formerly edited as ]
241:Articles for Creation
236:
222:Articles for creation
76:Have you given up on
335:reviewer's talk page
226:It Rhymes With Truth
220:Your submission at
411:RichMillerPortland
380:. If you have any
372:RichMillerPortland
238:
202:RichMillerPortland
149:RichMillerPortland
127:RichMillerPortland
23:User:RichMillerPDX
406:
405:
321:untoward behavior
286:mistakes to avoid
17:Multiple accounts
426:
366:
359:
358:
338:
330:
176:I will add that
171:Talk:Mik Kersten
36:
32:
434:
433:
429:
428:
427:
425:
424:
423:
402:
357:
332:
324:
297:
289:
280:of the subject
230:
67:
34:
30:
19:
12:
11:
5:
432:
430:
422:
421:
404:
403:
369:
367:
345:
344:
317:
314:may be deleted
310:
291:
283:
282:
281:
273:
266:
259:
250:
244:
231:
229:
218:
217:
216:
215:
214:
213:
212:
200:Thanks again!
182:
174:
144:
137:
123:
119:
116:
112:
109:
108:Hi Un assiolo!
66:
57:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
431:
420:
416:
412:
408:
407:
401:
397:
393:
389:
388:
383:
379:
378:
373:
368:
365:
361:
360:
356:
352:
348:
342:
337:
336:
329:
328:
322:
318:
315:
311:
308:
304:
303:
301:
295:
287:
279:
278:
274:
272:
271:
267:
265:
264:
260:
257:
256:
252:
251:
248:
242:
235:
227:
223:
219:
211:
207:
203:
198:
197:
196:
192:
188:
183:
179:
175:
172:
168:
167:Talk:Planview
164:
160:
159:
158:
154:
150:
145:
142:
138:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
117:
113:
110:
107:
106:
105:
104:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
74:
72:
65:
61:
58:
56:
55:
51:
47:
43:
38:
28:
24:
16:
385:
381:
375:
371:
334:
326:
299:
276:
269:
262:
253:
75:
68:
41:
39:
20:
277:independent
228:(August 21)
178:Mik Kersten
392:asilvering
347:asilvering
187:Un assiolo
95:Un assiolo
46:Un assiolo
331:, on the
270:secondary
181:standard.
387:Teahouse
294:WP:NBOOK
263:reliable
255:in-depth
71:Planview
60:Planview
370:Hello,
339:or use
25:? Per
382:other
415:talk
396:talk
351:talk
206:talk
191:talk
169:and
153:talk
131:talk
99:talk
84:and
62:and
50:talk
42:all
33:or
417:)
398:)
353:)
302:.
224::
208:)
193:)
185:--
155:)
133:)
101:)
52:)
413:(
394:(
349:(
343:.
316:.
296:.
204:(
189:(
151:(
129:(
97:(
48:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.