User talk:Marcvitz

Welcome!
Hello, Marcvitz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to  The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Schazjmd  (talk)  14:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You might find it helpful to review other biographies on Wikipedia to see how they are formatted and worded. The content you added to the article is written more like a glowing performance report or letter of recommendation. Schazjmd   (talk)  14:29, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear Editor,
 * I dedicated three hours to meticulously compiling and editing Dr. Pratt's Wikipedia page. My motivation stemmed from noticing that the existing content was rudimentary and failed to adequately represent her. Dr. Pratt's insights profoundly influenced my understanding of critical COVID-related issues, guiding me to make decisions that ultimately saved lives. Regrettably, since this personal experience isn't documented in any authoritative sources, it can't be included on the page—a fact I understand but reluctantly accept. I will propose establishing a testimonial section on her website, where I can express my gratitude and share my experience.
 * However, I'm perplexed by the current editorial process at Wikipedia. My contribution was removed without any specific guidance on the sources that needed verification. A simple email highlighting these areas would have allowed me to address the issues promptly.
 * I recognize the necessity of referencing data with appropriate HTML citation codes and sourcing. I appreciate that editing Wikipedia is a learning curve, a voluntary and unpaid endeavor. However, this approach isn't particularly encouraging or instructive for new editors. Immediate deletion of contributions that aren't flawless seems counterproductive.
 * I am aware that my edits were saved, and backups are retained. If you could access my original submission and indicate the sections that require proper accreditation, I would be grateful. This assistance would be invaluable, especially in these times where efficiency and time management are paramount.
 * Kind regards,
 * Marcos Zubieta Marcvitz (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedia article should provide a neutral summary of reliable independent sources on a subject. Most of the content that you added was not neutral nor was it supported by sources. If I were to point out each instance of subjective, unsourced language, I'd basically be reproducing the entire edit that you made. Let's just use the first section that you wrote as an example:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Objective and verifiable !! Subjective and unverifiable
 * Pratt received her AB degree in Computer Science from Dartmouth College and her Masters and doctorate degrees in Computer Science from Rutgers University.|| Dr. Lorien Pratt's educational background remain key foundations of her passion for technology and science. Her journey into the realm of computer science and artificial intelligence began with a strong academic pursuit in these fields.
 * }
 * To improve your efforts, I think you will find the advice in this essay helpful. Schazjmd   (talk)  15:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * To improve your efforts, I think you will find the advice in this essay helpful. Schazjmd   (talk)  15:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)