User talk:Padelacruzfernandez

This is Padelacruzfernandez's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Roger Horowitz (April 13)[edit]

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

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 (see the guidelines on the notability of people). 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:

Sources are only WP:PASSINGMENTIONS of the subject and nothing in-depth.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Roger Horowitz and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

Jamiebuba (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Padelacruzfernandez! 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 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! Jamiebuba (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Roger Horowitz has been accepted[edit]

Roger Horowitz, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

asilvering (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Journal of Industrial Relations, you may be blocked from editing. Randykitty (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add any promotional information. This page already contained most of the text you deleted. Padelacruzfernandez (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did with this edit to Journal of Industrial Relations. Adakiko (talk) 11:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring notice[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Journal of Industrial Relations. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Adakiko (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to express my deep disturbance and frustration regarding the recent interactions and messages from the Wikipedia editing community, particularly those from Randykitty. And now you assume I have started an edit war. The lack of clarity and specificity in your critiques of my contributions has left me perplexed and disheartened. How is it to add encyclopedic information about JIR any advertising material? As someone with a doctoral degree, I have a firm grasp of the requirements for in-depth, reliable, and independent sources. However, your feedback lacks concrete examples or guidance on what exactly constitutes 'in-depth' coverage that goes beyond mere passing mentions. This vagueness makes it challenging to understand your expectations and how to meet them.

Moreover, I assure you that all the sources I have used in my articles are reliable, and I have made a conscientious effort to include secondary and independent sources wherever applicable. It is perplexing to see other articles on Wikipedia that exhibit similar characteristics to mine, yet do not seem to undergo the same level of scrutiny or criticism. This inconsistency in editorial standards is concerning and undermines the credibility and uniformity of Wikipedia as a resource. See for example the Academy of Management page.

I urge you to provide more detailed and constructive feedback, with explicit examples, so I can better understand your concerns and address them appropriately. A more collaborative and transparent approach would be beneficial for all parties involved and would enhance the quality and reliability of the content on Wikipedia. Padelacruzfernandez (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions to Journal of Industrial Relations [edit]

You appear to have a conflict of interest here. You should declare your conflict of interest on your talk page, and and should stop contributing to the Journal of Industrial Relations article. If you have suggestions for improving the article, you should give details on its talk page. Claims about the subject's "vision" and "mission" are not wlecome here. What the article needs is reports of what has been written about the Journal in reliable independent published sources. Maproom (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Have a look at our journal article writing guide to see what is acceptable content for an academic journal. But make no mistake: the next time you add promotional language to this article you will be blocked from editing. --Randykitty (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iberoamerican Academy of Management moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Iberoamerican Academy of Management, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Randykitty (talk) 12:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Iberoamerican Academy of Management (November 13)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Stuartyeates was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. 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:

Wikipedia articles require independent secondary sources which cover the subject in depth.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Iberoamerican Academy of Management and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

Stuartyeates (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]