User talk:User4edits

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article.

Archives (Index)

User4edits/Archives/

Draft:Sandip Sinharay

I see your points about criteria 1 and 2. It is true that Sandip Sinharay will never win anything like the Nobel prize. However, you avoided commenting on my first comment--what about criterion 8? Sandip Sinharay is the editor-in-chief of a major journal in his field (Psychometrika) and has been the editor of two other major journals in his field. These facts seem to qualify his biography for Wikipedia. Or please explain how they do not. I removed the mention of ORCID from his bio. To a question from you, I am an early-career researcher and receive occasional advice from Sandip--so I have no conflict-of-interest about this matter and I just wrote some plain facts about his career in the bio---there is no promotion, selling etc. And he is not paying me. But interestingly, I was chatting with him after your decline and he said that he received an email from some Laura Walters who offered him to rewrite and include his bio in Wikipedia for $380. Of course, he is not going to pay anyone for this. Seeking absolute truth (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply,

early-career researcher and receive occasional advice from Sandip along with I was chatting with him after your decline indicate that you clearly have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You should declare it.

Next, as for C8, head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area. I do not think journals with impact factor of 1 or 2 will be called major well-established. Lastly, please ask Sandip to report such emails as per Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning. He (and you too) may also want to read this article -- An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Anyway, the draft is open, you can work and re-try. By the way, it is still full of WP:SPS sources such as GoogleScholar, own journals, primary sources. Thanks, Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 05:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Where does it say that Google scholar is a WP:SPS source? On the other hand, the text "On many topics, there are different interpretive schools which use the same documents and facts but use different frameworks and come to different conclusions. Useful access points include: scholar.google.com and books.google.com, and (through libraries) ABC-CLIO’s two abstract services, American: History and Life (for journal articles and book reviews dealing with the US and Canada), and Historical Abstracts (for the rest of the world.) Research libraries will hold paper guides to authoritative sources." on Wikipedia:Reliable source examples seems to imply that Google scholar is a good source. Unfortunately, there is no independent source listing all the research work of an academic in our field. Also, you do not think journals with impact factor of 1 or 2 are "major well-established", but do you know of "It has been stated that impact factors in particular and citation analysis in general are affected by field-dependent factors which invalidate comparisons not only across disciplines but even within different fields of research of one discipline."? (Source: Journal Citation Reports). What in your opinion is a good impact factor in our field then? Also, even if we agree that impact factor of 1 and 2 are bad, Psychometrika's 2022 impact factor of 3.0. But anyway, now you will write that 3 is not much better than 2. I am increasingly getting the impression that you will keep rejecting each time because you are probably running a racket where you will decline articles and your buddies will contact the persons, offering to have their biography accepted in exchange for money. In this case, you are also clever enough to have a buddy with a U.S. name and email account (of Laura Walters). If you do not mind, what is your share in the $380 that Laura asked from Sandip Sinharay? And your plan is good. Some people will pay up. For example, I see a Wikipedia article on Alina von Davier, one of the biggest self-promoters in our field. You can verify that Alina von Davier's h-index and i10-index are less than Sandip Sinharay's; the two of then worked in the same company (ETS) for 10 years and their career trajectories are very similar. So it is amazing that her article is up and you are working so hard to reject Sandip Sinharay's. It must be that Alina von Davier paid to have her article accepted (who knows, maybe, you got a cut for her article). I will try to bring this issue to the attention of others at Wikipedia. In the meantime, I added a COI statement in my article on Sandip Sinharay (but that does not matter, because Sandip Sinharay won't pay your buddy--so his bio will never be accepted). Seeking absolute truth (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you please show me any page to support your statement that Google scholar is a WP:SPS source? On the other hand, on Wikipedia:Reliable source examples, the text "On many topics, there are different interpretive schools which use the same documents and facts but use different frameworks and come to different conclusions. Useful access points include: scholar.google.com and books.google.com, and (through libraries) ABC-CLIO’s two abstract services, American: History and Life (for journal articles and book reviews dealing with the US and Canada), and Historical Abstracts (for the rest of the world.) Research libraries will hold paper guides to authoritative sources." seems to imply that Google scholar is a good source. Unfortunately, because Sandip Sinharay is not at a university, there is no independent source other than Google scholar or ORCID that list all of his research work. Also, you do not think journals with impact factor of 1 or 2 are "major well-established", but you must know of "It has been stated that impact factors in particular and citation analysis in general are affected by field-dependent factors which invalidate comparisons not only across disciplines but even within different fields of research of one discipline." (Source: Journal Citation Reports). What in your opinion is a good impact factor in Sandip Sinharay's field then? Also, even if we agree that impact factor of 1 and 2 are bad, Psychometrika's (that he is an editor of) 2022 impact factor is 3.0. Also, in educational measurement or psychometrics (his field), impact factors of 3 or h-index of 38 and i10-index of 113 are not bad at all. For example, Alina von Davier, who has a Wikipedia page, is in a similar field as Sandip Sinharay and has an h-index of 37 and i10-index of 100 (both less than Sandip Sinharay's). Finally, I added links to his getting funded by prestigious U.S. Federal agencies like National Science Foundation and Institute of Education Sciences--hope they convince you of his notable academic criterion. Seeking absolute truth (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Hasan Pirkul

Hello User4edits, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Hasan Pirkul, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Jitesh Singh Deo

Hello User4edits, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Jitesh Singh Deo, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sanjay Srivastava (academician)

Hello User4edits,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Sanjay Srivastava (academician) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Wikisteveb4 (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

About your edits to Draft:Vipin Bainsla

Hey User4edits, thanks for tagging this page for deletion. AfC receives a lot of submissions that should be speedily deleted, and of you see one in the future, I would recommend simply tagging it without engaging in an AfC review. Taking steps like moving the page to draftspace creates additional cleanup for the deleting administrator, and rejecting the submission adds unnecessary bloat to the user's talk page. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 06:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)