User talk:Cabrils

Draft:Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics
Dear @Cabrils,

Thank you for your feedback and suggestion to communicate on your user talk page. I am reaching out to discuss my draft page, Draft:Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics. Following your request to specify which criteria I believe the page meets, I will provide a detailed explanation here. Your recommendations for improving the draft, if needed, would be greatly appreciated.

The Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics was established in 1864. The society is responsible for the Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, which is also about to celebrate its 160th anniversary. The majority of the external secondary and reliable sources I have found predominantly reference the journal and its open-access publications on the SpringerOpen platform. However, the society itself, which is the driving force behind the journal and appoints its editorial team, may not be as prominently featured in the media.

Therefore, I would like to argue that the page meets the WP criteria #3 due to the following reasons:


 * It provides information about an association that unites all Swiss universities with Faculties of Economics.
 * It highlights the society's role in publishing the renowned Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics.
 * The journal's chief editor is Professor Marius Brülhart.

I would value your feedback on whether this meets the criteria for organizational notability.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Best regards,

KMerrigold KMerrigold (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi [@KMerrigold, thanks for the ping.
 * For clarity, I suggested you ping me here when you had implemented my suggestions. Discussion of the draft should best take place on the Talk page of the Draft itself so it is most easily visible to all editors and reviewers, so I'm copying this over to there, where I will reply in more detail. Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Janneke Parrish
I've recently been working on BLP issues involving another fired Apple employee, Ashley Gjøvik, and found Parrish's article there. Saw the comments between IP and you and was wondering if this page should be taken to WP:COIN, WP:Afd, or a merge discussion should be opened. It looks like the majority of the content is already at AppleToo. Say ocean again (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the ping! I was amazed to see that the page had been accepted. Investigating. Cabrils (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've nominated this for deletion | here. Cabrils (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure if the page is on your radar, but one of the voters made pretty substantial changes to the article I just undid using a newsletter to boost Parrish's role in AppleToo. Probably best to keep an eye on any shenanigans to sway votes. Say ocean again (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Looks like the deletion discussion will go the other way, but was certainly worth nominating. In my experience, Oaktree's votes are generally pretty sensible. Cabrils (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Revised Draft:Katherine_Elkins
Hello!

Thank you for so quickly reviewing the draft of this proposed Wiki article. I carefully read, researched, and revised the Draft to address your primary concern regarding 'Notable' and meeting the minimum threshold for several of the 8 academic criteria. To address the 'notable' and academic criteria, I had to be a bit more foward but tried to focus on an organized list of impact, results, and contributions rather than a laundry list of CV items. I hope I struck a balance - please advise if not.

The new draft has many more supporting details and authoratative secondary sources with notable academics, researchers, and thought leaders that Elkins has engaged with over recent years. Many of the details like upcoming papers and talks at Yale, Harvard, Reed College, and others did not have authoratative links so I left them out.

My main concern is being transparent about COI at this point. To avoid this, I initially engaged a service to navigate this issue. They turned out to be a scam, so I am trying to write the article myself. It's complex to communicate to a third party because there are so many details and subtle judgement calls. I flagged this article as a potential COI when submitting and tagged my user page with "". I hope the merits of article speak to the authenticity.

There are very few women who are thought leaders in AI and tech in general, so I hope this will be a service to the research community and beyond to add more voices to discussions around AI. It's a bit of a catch-22 and as academics, we generally are not very good at having a voice beyond the narrow confines of academic echo chambers. With the rapid advance of AI in everything from lethal autonomous weapons to potential large-scale disemployment, there is a urgent need to bring more informed humanistic perspectives to the public discussions on AI.

Please advise on any next steps.

Gratefully,

J J2000ai (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the ping. Discussion about the page is best posted on the Talk page of the draft, so it is most easily seen and accessible to all editors and reviewers, so I have copied your post over to there, and responded there. Cabrils (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Cabrils,
 * Thanks! I'm new to this so apologies as I learn the ropes. - Jon J2000ai (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries! Cabrils (talk) 07:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * That's very kind, thanks very much!

Draft:Mahi_R._Singh
Thank you for reviewing my article. Could you kindly tell me which part of the article doesn't meet the requirement of eight academic-specific criteria or cite independently? Is the Fulbright US-Canada Research Chair award not enough for the academic contribution or the research content cited from the professor's website unreliable? Thanks again for your time and patience.

Dmgy000 (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi. Some evidence of the Alexander von Humboldt fellowship and Fulbright award would be very helpful (as you note, the only evidence is that which is stated on the subject's own website).
 * Please also address the other issues I raise in my comment, including if you have any connection to the subject, including being paid, as you then would have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page. Your contributions history certainly looks consistent with being a paid editor. Cabrils (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Re-submission with WP:Three best references establishing notability on Draft: Siegfried Haase
Hi Cabrils,

I've looked over the feedback you've provided on my draft submission and made some changes for you to review. I've posted my WP:Three sources and some additional information on changes I've made on the draft's talk page. Let me know if these changes suffice the notability requirement.

Thanks. Grinkelton-wp (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

IAHE
Dear Cabrils,

As suggested, I have added more references. Also I confirm that I am linked to the IAHE as I work on Hydrogen and part of the Board of Directors of IAHE. I also confirm that I do NOT get paid to do this and for the being part of the IAHE. I am volunteering to the IAHE.

Many thanks.

Kind regards,

Prof. Dr. Bruno G. Pollet

Sunday 21 July 2024. Bruno G Pollet (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)