User talk:Nightenbelle

User:Nightenbelle

User:Nightenbelle/Userboxes

User:Nightenbelle/Awards

User:Nightenbelle/Tools

User:Nightenbelle/Sandbox

User talk:Nightenbelle/Archive

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 021120x (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:00:54, 22 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Rainer2020

Rainer2020 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Peter Dadam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Nightenbelle,

Please help me to understand your statement "Primary/subject authored sources do not establish notability. Please include WP:RS independent, secondary sources that give significant coverage to the subject to establish notability."

The proposed article is a biography describing the scientific career of Peter Dadam. The scientific fields of his work mentioned in the article were verified by references in the article to peer-reviewed scientific publications by him. I thought, this is exactly what one wants to see to avoid simple claims without any substance.

Please give me some concrete examples what is disturbing you in the current form of this contribution.

Many thanks in advance for your support.

Rainer2020 (talk) 09:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you need to read wp:rs this is the policy on sources. Because we are an encyclopedia- we cover things that are notable enough to have already received significant coverage. If all you have are things he wrote and his bio from where he works- how do we know that his peers and the world at large think his work is important? Read the page I linked- it explains in great detail. Nightenbelle (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:22:33, 28 October 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Rainer2020

Rainer2020 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Peter Dadam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My impression is that we some kind of "chicken and egg problem" here with the proposed biography. Unfortunately, there is no entry in Wikipedia for the research direction "database support for complex objects" (also known as "non-standard database management systems"), which was very important in the 1980s. However, it is precisely in this research area that Peter Dadam and his department at the Heidelberg Science Center have made significant contributions and helped it achieve a high level of visibility in the scientific community. (Expressed through appointments to program committees of top-class scientific conferences, taking over PC chairs and conference management, co-editor of scientific journals, etc.)
When it comes to "Business Process Management" (BPM), which is even more important for his academic career, things hardly look better. There is an entry here, but topics such as "Adaptive process management (i.e. ad hoc deviations from the instantiated process template at runtime), process scheme development (changing process schemes and propagating these changes to running process instances") are not even mentioned. However, these are precisely the areas in which Peter Dadam and his group have made truly fundamental contributions and thus achieved a very high personal visibility in the scientific community. Membership in the steering committee of BPM (probably the most important scientific conference series in this field), participation in a large number of program committees, PC co-chair positions, conference chairs, presentation of the Test of Time Award from BPM and appointment as a Fellow of the German Society for Computer Science (GI) are just some of the indicators for this.

I could imagine writing Wipedia articles on these as yet untapped research areas and on the projects "Advanced Information Management Prototype (AIM-P) and ADEPT / Aristaflow" in the near future. The publication of the biography in Wikipedia would of course help to establish the cross-reference (The "chicken and egg problem," as mentioned above.)

To elaborate these articles will need a considerable amount of time. I do not hope that their publication is a pre-requisite to publish the biography. Rainer2020 (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate- those articles will be rejected just like this one was unless you can find reliable secondary sources- IE not published by the subject- even if they were peer reviewed and published in reputable journals. We need evidence that other people thought his work was worth studying/writing about. So he needs to have been cited in other journal articles or had news articles writen about him (not press releases- but independent articles). It has nothing to do with other wikipedia articles- but on proving that the world at large thought he and his work was notable. This is not my rule, its a WP policy. So, again- I strongly recomend you read WP:RS and WP:notability before you continue. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nightenbelle, thank you for the clarification: "So he needs to have been cited in other journal articles or had news articles writen about him (not press releases- but independent articles".

My proposed article contains a link in section "External Links" to the Google Scholar Page of Peter Dadam. I include it here once again for conveniency reasons: https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=uHVjcoQAAAAJ - Is this what you want to see or do you think the number of citations listed there are too small?

Rainer2020 (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rainer2020 - Do you have a connection with Peter Dadam? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know him pretty well.

Rainer2020 (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing DRNs

Thank you for closing three (I think it was three) DRN threads that no one responded to. Maybe we need a more or less standard second sentence saying to resume discussion at the article talk page. Anyway, thank you. I am going to ask who maintains the bot that does the archiving. More accurately, I will ask who maintains the bot that isn't doing the archiving. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC) 021120x comes off block in about eight hours. We shall see whether they have learned.[reply]

I will start adding a comment about continuing talks on the article page and an invitation to reopen if necessary.

Yeah I’ve been wondering how that is gonna go. I’m hoping with time to cool off- they’ve rethought some things. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marian Dymalski

Hi. Could you please explain what else should be done within biography of Marian Dymalski? As far as I can see the coverage is prettu strong - both polish and english. I'd be grateful with further assistance. All best, Kamila Kamila071 (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well since the overwhelming majority of your sources are primary sources- no. There is not strong coverage. Please review WP:RS. Unless the sources are independent, secondary sources giving extensive attention to the subject- he is not notable enough for a page. No matter how extensively pages run by people he works for, or boards he is on, document his outstanding service to them. That is wonderful- but does nothing to establish notability. Publicity releases also do not count. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: IVEPOS Point of Sale (October 30)

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

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.

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. 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:

In addition to a highly promotional nature- many of the sources are publicity, primary sources, or mention the subject in passing only.

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:IVEPOS Point of Sale 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:IVEPOS Point of Sale, 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.

Nightenbelle (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nightenbelle! 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! Nightenbelle (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]