User talk:Stephenpetrina

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the [ reviewer's talk page] . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get | live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the [ reviewer's talk page] . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get | live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Mephistophelian  (contact)  03:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the [ reviewer's talk page] . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get | live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Mephistophelian  (contact)  03:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the [ reviewer's talk page] . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get | live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! CharmlessCoin (talk) 06:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the [ reviewer's talk page] . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get | live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Rushbugled13 (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the [ reviewer's talk page] . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! WylieCoyote (talk) 07:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC) be

some actual assistance
Hi!. I'm one of the Wikipedia administrators who work most frequently of academic people's biographies, so perhaps I can tell you more precisely what is needed. I apologize for the cryptic and sometimes unhelpful advice you have been given. But one item in the advice was very good advice: we very strongly discourage writing an article about oneself, or people with whom one is closely affiliated. The reason is that, while it's not impossible to do it properly with a conflict of interest, it's relatively more difficult: you are automatically thinking in terms of what you wish to communicate to the public, but an uninvolved person will think in terms of what the public might wish to know.

I've worked with articles written by a good number of faculty (or written for them); many are much too expansive and far-reaching and pompous, whereas some are   too barren and uninformative;  many repeat every last committee assignment and similar minor detail from their CV; some don't explain themselves in a suitable non-technical style, some are confused in organization; a few do get it right, usually by imitating the style of our better articles on similar people.

First of all, our guideline for notability is WP:PROF, and it fortunately seems quite possible that you will meet it. But you will need to rewrite the article almost completely to Wikipedia style; a good place to start learning it  is    our guide to writing Wikipedia articles. As applied to this class of articles:

Start by giving the basic information--the source can be the CV-- birthplace and date, degrees--including years,  thesis adviser, title of thesis, previous positions. Don't draw conclusions from the early life about how it led to the subject's academic interests--just state them.

Then, publications: You have a published book: give it in formal bibliographic style. Link to the entry in WorldCat, not to the publisher's web page. The book is in over 300 libraries according to WorldCat--say that & list Worldcat as the reference. You list two  published reviews of it--  the Marc DeVries review is helpful, but the quotation should be much shorter. The one in BJET needs an exact reference, including the author. It is less than a page long, I think: is it more than a brief notice? If there are others, librarian can help find them. Only actual published reviews--not blurbs, not blogs. List them. You could even quote a short sentence.

Then list the 3 or 4 most influential articles similarly, getting citation figures from Scopus or Web of Science or Google Scholar, or some other appropriate source. The way we now look at things here, the citation figures are critical to showing notability. They're the sort of thing which can be judged by non-specialists, and they at least appear objective. A good deal of your work seems to be in book chapters; you can list them. but do not include all the nice things people say about them. Do not include conference presentations, unless they are to major conferences known to have strict peer-review standards, such as the IEEE conferences. Don't even mention lectures, presentations, media appearances, and other minor published work. Such a list d belongs in the CV, not an encyclopedia. Do not include work that is not yet published.

Include major national level offices and awards, but not minor ones. The awards are a problem, for they are minor-- awards for best paper in a field by a professional association. You can list them with the publication for which they were given, but do not emphasise them, unless   you can show them important by having references (more than just an entry on a list) to where it was reported & discussed in a major independent publication, not just a list: not one from you college, and preferably not just one from the society that gave it. Be sure to list editorships (but not mere editorial board membership) --we consider it very important, and you should add it to the articles for the relevant journals also, with a link to the bio. If they are co-editorships, give the exact title, and reference it from the publication.

You have very carelessly included at least one paragraph from the description of the award or abstract of the paper or the conference listing in the "published works" section--such material would need to be exactly quoted and sourced in any case, for otherwise it is copyvio--and is much better not included.Similarly, you cannot include such opinion as "His teaching orientation is often toward critical pedagogy " unless someone else has publisbhed this in a reliable source. The statement "Petrina is critical" is not supported by the quote given--it is used in your own special sense, and we would call this puffery.

You need to show that the "How We Learn Media & Technology (Across the Lifespan)" project is significant, by including sources discussing it by other people. Having just received a SSRC grant is not sufficient. Similarly for "Workplace"

It is not necessary to cite the basic information in detail to other than the official CV. However, give any actual references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. For any part you quote directly from a published bio, include quotation marks and a reference.

Pay particular attention to the way we make links to other Wikipedia articles. Avoid WP:Peacock terms: do not use words of praise, ofr state that the person is important: the contents of the article will show it.

Include only material that would be of interest to a general reader coming across the mention of the subject and wanting the sort of information that would be found in an encyclopedia. Do not include material that would be of interest only to those associated with the subject, or to prospective students--that sort of content is considered promotional. Keep in mind that the goal of an encyclopedia is to say things in a concise and plain manner, which is not the style of  press releases or  web sites, or CVs,  which are usually more expansive.

If I can help you with any of this, let me know. When you are ready to have it reviewed, let me know on my talk page. In practice, you've made too many unsuccessful efforts--you have one more chance to do it right, & you can count on me to tell you fairly if you've managed it. (If you are a little surprised at the detail here, I've done some professional editing,& have reviewed hundreds of similar articles here in the last 6 years).  DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stephen Petrina concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stephen Petrina, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stephen Petrina concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stephen Petrina, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stephen Petrina


A tag has been placed on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Stephen Petrina, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.
 * It is a rejected submission at Articles for creation, and it has not been edited in over a year. (See section G13 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here.  DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)