User talk:Astropolar13

Your submission at Articles for creation: Praxis Electronic Medical Record (August 23)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Tom (LT) were:

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:Praxis Electronic Medical Record 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:Praxis Electronic Medical Record, 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Praxis_Electronic_Medical_Record Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tom_(LT)&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Praxis_Electronic_Medical_Record reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tom (LT) (talk) 07:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Mandatory paid editing disclosure
Hello Astropolar13. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Astropolar13. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I do not have any financial relation with the company. A relative of mine knows someone from the company, and since I'm studying AI, they told me about them. When I started reading about Praxis online I could not find their Wikipedia article, which surprised me. As there are books and publications about Praxis, I thought it should have its own article, and that is when I ran into a draft that had already been submitted several times by an intern at the company (Sixarp25). I was not editing this article expecting any form of compensation, but rather trying to make information more easily accessible. I hope this clarifies the situation. Astropolar13 (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. Carry on then. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

, I just saw your reply on the Teahouse and I thought I'd tag you here to discuss the COI issue instead. My "anxiousness" was due to the fact that on previous submissions the reviews took less than a week, and that another user incorrectly rejected the article and then placed it back in the queue. As I'm not very experienced in Wikipedia, I worried that something might have gone wrong in the process (as I was not the one who resubmitted the article) so after three weeks I asked. Please, if you are still "suspicious" about why I'm editing this article in particular feel free to ask any questions and I'll happily respond when I get the chance. Astropolar13 talk 16:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. One of the core principles here is to assume good faith. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  22:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Praxis Electronic Medical Record (September 13)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Liance was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

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:Praxis Electronic Medical Record 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:Praxis Electronic Medical Record, 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Praxis_Electronic_Medical_Record Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Liance&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Praxis_Electronic_Medical_Record reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

-Liancetalk/contribs 16:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, would you care to explain how was the significant coverage in independent sources not demonstrated? In my point of view, which editors at the Teahouse shared, there are sufficient sources that meet all the necessary criteria. The main ones I used to edit were: Practitioner’s Guide to Health Informatics (Braunstein, 2015), Health Informatics on FHIR: How HL7’s New API is Transforming Healthcare (Braunstein, 2018), "Pattern Recognition to Automate Chronic Patients Follow-Up and to Assist Outpatient Diagnostics" (Simini, F. Chapter 8) and Enseñanza de un Programa de Ortesis Mental Clínica: Experiencia con Estudiantes de Medicina en Uruguay. Memorias Del Congreso Nacional De Ingeniería Biomédica (Garza-Galicia, M.). Astropolar13 (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey - I declined your draft because I felt that significant coverage was not demonstrated by the sources you cited. I now realize that I was not able to properly evaluate the sources due to inadequate access to the source(s) you cited since I do not have access to full texts of those sources and language barriers. You are more than welcome to resubmit the draft for a second opinion by another volunteer if you disagreed with my decision. Best, -Liancetalk/contribs 17:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Praxis Electronic Medical Record (September 20)
 Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Praxis_Electronic_Medical_Record Articles for creation help desk] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Chess was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Taking this out of the queue. Since the last submission, no new references have actually been added. Only the links themselves have been changed. I don't believe Praxis EMR is notable at this time.

Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 18:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, it is true that no new references have been added since the last submission. This is because the last reviewer did not even take the time to check the sources that were added. They argued that it was due to a lack of access to said sources and language barriers (one article is in Spanish). I took the time to provide links that anyone could access without having to pay for any books, and specifically explained the situation in the article talk page. I find it hard to believe that you checked the references and/or read the talk page, but if you did I ask you to at least give reasonable arguments to why none of the sources provide reliable, independent and in-depth coverage. As I understand it, the notability of a subject is not determined by what anyone 'believes', but rather established by including at least two (2) sources that meet the Wikipedia's guidelines.Astropolar13 talk 19:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * You're right; I was not aware that the other reviewer wasn't able to read the new sources as that wasn't a comment on the draft itself and the Articles for Creation reviewing process doesn't actually show me your talk page after I reject an article. Thank you for pinging me, I'm going to add a comment to the draft reflecting this and remove the rejection. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 19:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

thank you for the swift reply. Any suggestions on how to proceed? I don't want the same thing to happen with another reviewer.Astropolar13 talk 19:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * AfC is very backlogged, so in the interest of saving time there was a consensus to implement "rejection" of drafts, which removes them from the reviewing process entirely, rather than locking submitters into the "resubmit until you get bored" cycle. I generally do this if a draft is resubmitted without any improvement since the previous review once there are several declines "on" the draft; usually about 4-7 declines depending on how little improvement actually occurred. In this particular case, you made no actual changes to the draft before resubmitting and it had already been declined 6 times, which was why I rejected it. I wasn't aware of the full context behind the history of the draft and why you did what you did.
 * In terms of preventing this situation from happening again, I removed my decline as well as the previous reviewer's decline templates. I've also resubmitted it in a way that it looks like it was submitted on September 12th. This will mean that your draft should be treated by reviewers as if my rejection and the last decline "never happened", so to speak, although the details are still in the page history (I can't remove that). This should ensure that your draft is fairly treated by the next reviewer that sees it as they most likely won't be biased by the decline or rejection.
 * Have a nice day, Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 19:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Praxis Electronic Medical Record (October 28)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Robertsky were:

The comment the reviewer left was:

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:Praxis Electronic Medical Record 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:Praxis Electronic Medical Record, 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Praxis_Electronic_Medical_Record Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robertsky&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Praxis_Electronic_Medical_Record reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

– robertsky (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

thanks for the extensive feedback! It was by far the most in-depth review this draft has got, I really appreciate that you took the time to explain your position about each source. I'll remove "The top 100 EHR companies" and "Everything You Need To Know About Praxis EMR Software" right away. The problem I'm facing is that the best sources are books by Springer publishing (for instance, "Pattern Recognition" has an entire chapter dedicated to the software); I have access to them through my university library but are not freely available. I tried to link the Google book's preview but apparently the preview is very limited, I'll see if I find another option. Also, I'm curious if you got the chance to read the publication in Spanish, it is a great source but no reviewer could confirm that due to language barriers and I'm not sure how to go about that.Astropolar13 talk 01:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Spanish is not a language that I am familiar with, apologies. However, I suggest a rewrite to fit WP:NSOFTWARE criteria, if the software has enough academic sources to back the notability up. It is counterintuitive though as going down this path may take awhile before someone with an access to university library/libraries can verify the sources. – robertsky (talk) 07:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Praxis Electronic Medical Record (February 26)
 Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Praxis_Electronic_Medical_Record Articles for creation help desk] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by S0091 was: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: The NYT article added is based on their demonstration so not indepedent and not in-depth. At this point, it does not appear the company can meet the notability criteria.

S0091 (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)