Informatics Educational Institutions & Programs

Reference User talk:Publicrelationr:

• User talk:सीमा कश्यप blocked as sock and doing promo creations/editing appears to be using the same AI generated type reply and activities.

It seems like there is a lot of interest to pay (esp in India) to be put on Wikipedia. In my recent hunting on Indian business/people, I have found most articles were created by experienced or such appearing editors with good knowledge of Wikipedia policies to understand that the subject won't be notable, but using that knowledge to bypass basic checks/scrutiny by others. Mentioning: @331dot @Flux55 @Jeraxmoira for their information. User4edits (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 07:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC) - User talk:Rajeshthapaliya was noticed through Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard with similar AI/LLM powered promotional editing pattern. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T)
• Previously, User talk:Gurmeetchahal was noticed writing long paragraphs on their and mine talk page. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T)

Interesting... (list)

• User talk:Publicrelationr
• User talk:सीमा कश्यप
• User talk:Rajeshthapaliya
• User talk:Gurmeetchahal and at at my talk page

Interesting... (list 2)

• Usanas Foundation Page History Creation

Hi User4edits, thank you for your feedback on my recent draft discussing the career of Draft:Pankaj Mehta. On my own talk page, I have responded to your criticisms and would appreciate any more particular guidance on how to proceed you might provide. I'm writing you here because I am not certain if your or my own talk page is the more appropriate setting for this discussion.

Thank you again for your feedback.

Magenta.lily (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at the appropriate venue. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 04:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User4edits. I see you have removed my recently created article from the main article namespace. I have addressed your previous comments by adding several more sources about Mehta from other highly reputed science publications, Wired and Quanta magazines. You have requested that I not move the article myself if the article is in AfC, but the article is no longer in the AfC process. Could you please explain further why you have reverted this article?

If you again take issue with the quality or nature of the sources referenced, I would like to emphasize that in the comments on the draft page, it says:

“In summary, the draft needs to

meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria OR cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth

Make sure your draft meets ONE of the criteria above before resubmitting”

Mehta's page certainly meets criterion 3 of WP:NACADEMIC, so fulfilling the latter is

not strictly necessary; although, I would argue it is met. This is because Mehta has been elected a Fellow of the American Physical Society. The equivalence of being elected an APS Fellow and establishing notability has been agreed upon elsewhere, including on the talk page for APS Fellows. I would appreciate if you would more fully and specifically justify your actions and undo your reversion. I am not aware of any policy that prevents me from creating a page by moving, even if it has previously been in AfC. I am a confirmed user and have already created multiple pages through AfC. If you doubt the page I have created satisfies the criteria for being a Wikipedia page, a more appropriate process might be WP:PROD, not reversion of creation without discussion.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your response.

Magenta.lily (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magenta.lily Hi, I have given the reason for revert in edit summary. (Bypassing AfC). I have also left comments on your talk page, asking you to wait patiently if you have submitted the Draft. You submitted the draft for AfC review and then moved it yourself. If he meets C3 of NPROF, a reviewer will accept the draft. Please be patient. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 05:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I am not aware of a policy that prohibits creating an article myself even if I have previously submitted the draft to AfC. If such a policy exists, I would greatly appreciate a link. Autoconfirmed users who have already created a page through AfC are not required to go through AfC again (see Wikipedia:Drafts#Publishing a draft). A relevant page and policy might be WP:DRAFTIFY which specifies that draftification should not be used as a proxy for deletion and one of the reasons outlined on that policy page must be specified when draftifying. On that policy page, it additionally states that draftification should not be used during new page review if “the topic is plausibly notable”. I would additionally review WP:DRAFTOBJECT.

As a gesture of good faith, I have resubmitted the page to AfC, and I would appreciate if you evaluate whether C3 of WP:NPROF is satisfied yourself as you previously rejected and then draftified the page, justified by it allegedly not meeting one sufficient but not necessary criterion. When making this consideration, I encourage you to read this talk page. I am requesting that you do this yourself. Thank you for your consideration. Magenta.lily (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your hard work to save innocent public, specially students from paid promotional articles. I had not expected anyone will take it upon himself. Awsib (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Awsib, I am doing nothing. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 05:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I see that you have tried to open a multi-page move discussion, putting the discussion on both Talk:Royal Enfield (India) and Talk:Royal Enfield talk pages. However, this is not required and just one discussion at one location is sufficient. A bot will come by to put the RM banners on both pages, and as well as adding a notice on the other talk page. I have taken the liberty to undo one of the discussions so that the bot does not trip up any further. – robertsky (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I waited for a few seconds to see any change on the other talk page, but there was none. So I put it. Nonetheless, Thank you. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 11:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. The bot runs every 30 minutes or so. Next time wait for an hour. If it is not there still, you can check with other editors at WT:RM. In a grand scheme of things, 1 hour for the bot to put up the notices is relatively small compared to the minimum 7-day discussion period. Cheers! :) – robertsky (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Seeking absolute truth (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Sandip Sinharay ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, regarding your decision to not accept the article on Sandip Sinharay submitted by me, I would like to explain why the article is worth being included in Wikipedia. Your message indicates that the article should meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria. If you look carefully, the article meets three or four of the eight academic-specific criteria. So I request you to reconsider your decision of not accepting the article. One of the eight academic-specific criteria is "8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." In my article, I provided links to prove that this person, Sandip Sinharay, is the current chief editor of Psychometrika that is a well-established journal in this person's field. If you have any doubts, please search the journal holdings at a university of your choice and you will find the journal Psychometrika there. Please also do another search to verify that Sandip Sinharay is indeed the editor of the journal. I also provided links to prove that he was editor of two other journals in his field---Journal of Educational Measurement and Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. Again, please feel free to do your own search about the importance of these journals and to verify that he was indeed an editor of these journals. Criterion number 1 is "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." and I provided the Google scholar link to prove that the person's h-index is 38 and i10 index is 113. Again, if you know an academic, please ask that person what these numbers mean and you will find out that these numbers mean that Sandip Sinharay had a significant impact in his scholarly discipline. Criterion number 2 is that "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." and I provided links to prove that Sandip Sinharay received multiple awards from a well-recognized organization (National Council on Measurement in Education) in his field. Criterion number 6 is that the person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society and Sandip Sinharay is a Distinguished Presidential Appointee at Educational Testing Service that is known all over the world. Thus, I request you to reconsider your decision after doing a little more homework on your part. While you want to be rigorous in your selection criteria, you surely want to include people who deserve to be included in Wikipedia. Regards, Seeking absolute truth

Seeking absolute truth (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seeking absolute truth Hi,

I left this comment on the draft Also do not use SPS such as ORCID..

h-index of 38 and i10-index of 113 may be very impressive for you, but that is not. I am somewhat of an academician myself, and I know that there are far more people with far better indices, and they are not on Wikipedia, and that is fine. Further your other points are answered below:

Please see WP:NPROF:

• Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others.
• For the purposes of Criterion 2, major academic awards, such as the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc., always qualify under Criterion 2. Some less significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige can also be used to satisfy Criterion 2. Examples may include certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts (e.g., the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize), etc. Significant academic awards and honors can also be used to partially satisfy Criterion 1 (see item 4 above in this section).
• Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others.

For C6, you said Sinharay is a Distinguished Presidential Appointee at Educational Testing Service. ETS is a private company, not an academic institution, and does not arise the question of a major academic institution or major academic society.

Hope this helps! Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 05:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see your points about criteria 1 and 2. It is true that Sandip Sinharay will never win anything like the Nobel prize. However, you avoided commenting on my first comment--what about criterion 8? Sandip Sinharay is the editor-in-chief of a major journal in his field (Psychometrika) and has been the editor of two other major journals in his field. These facts seem to qualify his biography for Wikipedia. Or please explain how they do not. I removed the mention of ORCID from his bio. To a question from you, I am an early-career researcher and receive occasional advice from Sandip--so I have no conflict-of-interest about this matter and I just wrote some plain facts about his career in the bio---there is no promotion, selling etc. And he is not paying me. But interestingly, I was chatting with him after your decline and he said that he received an email from some Laura Walters who offered him to rewrite and include his bio in Wikipedia for $380. Of course, he is not going to pay anyone for this. Seeking absolute truth (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply,

early-career researcher and receive occasional advice from Sandip along with I was chatting with him after your decline indicate that you clearly have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You should declare it.

Next, as for C8, head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area. I do not think journals with impact factor of 1 or 2 will be called major well-established. Lastly, please ask Sandip to report such emails as per Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning. He (and you too) may also want to read this article -- An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Anyway, the draft is open, you can work and re-try. By the way, it is still full of WP:SPS sources such as GoogleScholar, own journals, primary sources. Thanks, Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 05:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that Google scholar is a WP:SPS source? On the other hand, the text "On many topics, there are different interpretive schools which use the same documents and facts but use different frameworks and come to different conclusions. Useful access points include: scholar.google.com and books.google.com, and (through libraries) ABC-CLIO’s two abstract services, American: History and Life (for journal articles and book reviews dealing with the US and Canada), and Historical Abstracts (for the rest of the world.) Research libraries will hold paper guides to authoritative sources." on Wikipedia:Reliable source examples seems to imply that Google scholar is a good source. Unfortunately, there is no independent source listing all the research work of an academic in our field. Also, you do not think journals with impact factor of 1 or 2 are "major well-established", but do you know of "It has been stated that impact factors in particular and citation analysis in general are affected by field-dependent factors which invalidate comparisons not only across disciplines but even within different fields of research of one discipline."? (Source: Journal Citation Reports). What in your opinion is a good impact factor in our field then? Also, even if we agree that impact factor of 1 and 2 are bad, Psychometrika's 2022 impact factor of 3.0. But anyway, now you will write that 3 is not much better than 2. I am increasingly getting the impression that you will keep rejecting each time because you are probably running a racket where you will decline articles and your buddies will contact the persons, offering to have their biography accepted in exchange for money. In this case, you are also clever enough to have a buddy with a U.S. name and email account (of Laura Walters). If you do not mind, what is your share in the $380 that Laura asked from Sandip Sinharay? And your plan is good. Some people will pay up. For example, I see a Wikipedia article on Alina von Davier, one of the biggest self-promoters in our field. You can verify that Alina von Davier's h-index and i10-index are less than Sandip Sinharay's; the two of then worked in the same company (ETS) for 10 years and their career trajectories are very similar. So it is amazing that her article is up and you are working so hard to reject Sandip Sinharay's. It must be that Alina von Davier paid to have her article accepted (who knows, maybe, you got a cut for her article). I will try to bring this issue to the attention of others at Wikipedia. In the meantime, I added a COI statement in my article on Sandip Sinharay (but that does not matter, because Sandip Sinharay won't pay your buddy--so his bio will never be accepted). Seeking absolute truth (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please show me any page to support your statement that Google scholar is a WP:SPS source? On the other hand, on Wikipedia:Reliable source examples, the text "On many topics, there are different interpretive schools which use the same documents and facts but use different frameworks and come to different conclusions. Useful access points include: scholar.google.com and books.google.com, and (through libraries) ABC-CLIO’s two abstract services, American: History and Life (for journal articles and book reviews dealing with the US and Canada), and Historical Abstracts (for the rest of the world.) Research libraries will hold paper guides to authoritative sources." seems to imply that Google scholar is a good source. Unfortunately, because Sandip Sinharay is not at a university, there is no independent source other than Google scholar or ORCID that list all of his research work. Also, you do not think journals with impact factor of 1 or 2 are "major well-established", but you must know of "It has been stated that impact factors in particular and citation analysis in general are affected by field-dependent factors which invalidate comparisons not only across disciplines but even within different fields of research of one discipline." (Source: Journal Citation Reports). What in your opinion is a good impact factor in Sandip Sinharay's field then? Also, even if we agree that impact factor of 1 and 2 are bad, Psychometrika's (that he is an editor of) 2022 impact factor is 3.0. Also, in educational measurement or psychometrics (his field), impact factors of 3 or h-index of 38 and i10-index of 113 are not bad at all. For example, Alina von Davier, who has a Wikipedia page, is in a similar field as Sandip Sinharay and has an h-index of 37 and i10-index of 100 (both less than Sandip Sinharay's). Finally, I added links to his getting funded by prestigious U.S. Federal agencies like National Science Foundation and Institute of Education Sciences--hope they convince you of his notable academic criterion. Seeking absolute truth (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User4edits, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Hasan Pirkul, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User4edits, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Jitesh Singh Deo, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User4edits,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Sanjay Srivastava (academician) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can , but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Wikisteveb4 (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]