User talk:Animalparty

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Limulus darwini listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Limulus darwini. Since you had some involvement with the Limulus darwini redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

:) BigSugarDaddy 07:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review

Hey, thanks very much for reviewing Erica Henderson. That was extremely fast and thorough! It looks great. --Culix (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Misbehaving Science

I have just moved the article in accordance with your suggestion on my talk page. Ugh, there's so many guidelines here even after over 5 years I still often catch myself not knowing about things like WP:CONCISE and WP:SUBTITLES that you pointed out to me. Ah well, I'll just have to keep learning and being careful. Every morning (there's a halo...) 03:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Chilembwe's motivation

I have already had good cause to post about you spending only five minutes looking at the article I wrote on Leroy Vail on 2 April and adding the misleading tag that it relied too much on primary sources, which I demonstrated on 3 April was simply incorrect, as you apparently misunderstood the differences between primary, secondary and tertiary sources. You did not chose to respond to this or my follow up of 4 April.

You did however start looking at another article I wrote on Chilembwe's motivation at 19.06 on 15 May and started making comments at 19.11, five minutes later. The article is about 8,000 words long which at normal reading speed would take some 30 minutes to read, so it is patently obvious you couldn't have read it in any detail. Whether you could have read it with any understanding is a different question, but as it appears from you comments that you think the article relates to Christianity and Biography rather than Historiography, there must be doubt,

I am struggling to assume good faith on your part, but the almost unbelievable brevity of your review process before the comments started and the earlier issue relating to the Leroy Vail article make me wonder if this is your attempt at payback. So far, I have taken the following action:

1. I have reverted your deletion of seven categories as this is not a biography.

2. I have deleted the message "A Belated Welcome" you posted on my Talk Page, as I don't accept the need for it.

Going forward, I would like you to accept, on the basis of what I have said above, that your neutrality is fatally compromised. I would therefore like you delete all the comments you made inrelartion to the article, to leave it for someone about whom there can be no suggestion of bias. Sscoulsdon (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sscoulsdon: Greetings, fellow editor. It's very late where I am so I will apologize for any insult I may have caused you, and point you to the well-established policies and guidelines that informed my actions, even if they were too hasty. In addition to the core content policies of Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability:

• Primary, secondary and tertiary sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.
  • Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.

The article Leroy Vail has large sections sourced to works by Vail himself.

• Regarding categorization: Wikipedia:Categorization (especially Wikipedia:Defining) and Wikipedia:Overcategorization. We generally categorize articles in the narrowest and most appropriate of multiple category trees. Categories shouldn't be used as keywords or to lump broad, tangentially related articles. For example all of the categories of James Cameron are "people categories", and none of the "people categories" are at James Cameron filmography. Similarly, Inspiration of Ellen G. White is an article about historical events and, aside from the eponymous category, has no overlapping categories with Ellen G. White. John Chilembwe was a Malawian Baptist. His historical motivation was not a Malawian Baptist, but it is a subject pertinent to History of Malawi.

You are a talented writer, and may even be an academic, but please note an academic style of writing doesn't always work for Wikipedia. If you have questions on any policies or guidelines, you might ask at the Teahouse or Help Desk. If you'd like to get more formal, in-depth evaluation and feedback of any articles you've worked on, you can request a Peer review. I have no further desire to edit any of your articles, but please note that no one "owns" any content on Wikipedia. All the best, --Animalparty! (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. However (to be as neutral as possible) we are still not on the same page, as it is not the existence of Wikipedia policies that is in point, but your interpretation of them. You quote "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them" which is fair enough, and also say "The article Leroy Vail has large sections sourced to works by Vail himself", which is also true: the missing link, as I inferred in my e-mail of 3 April is that you think that, simply because Vail wrote something (other than his autobiography), that makes it a primary source. It does not and Wikipedia does not say otherwise.

While I'm sure that you are well meaning and acting in good faith you are simply wrong. No ifs, no buts, no twisting words to make them fit: wrong. I even troubled to quote for your benefit the relevant Wikipedia comments that primary sources offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history or are historical documents such as diaries, whereas secondary sources are an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. I added that this would make the bulk of the quoted articles secondary sources, or books that are general summaries, which are tertiary sources.

The definitions of primary, secondary and tertiary sources comes, as Wikipedia acknowledges from Historiography. Without wishing to be impolite, this seems well away from your probable area of experience or expertise, although it is one I have long been involved in. I am (or was before retirement), as you infer, an academic and my first university post was in 1973. I don't think it's arrogant to say that, after 45 years I have a good grounding in this issue.

I could similarly comment on what what you say on the other policies and guidelines you mention. I am aware of their existence and believe I'm compliant with them. However, as to whether you are in that position, I was certainly taken aback by the comment you left that "...the policy of No original research means that we cannot selectively use or synthesize multiple sources to infer statements or conclusions not present in the original sources" as though this might applied to something I had written. In the few minutes that you saw fit to spend on reading the article, you would not possibly have had time to read the sources, even if you could access them, never mind deciding if they were accurately reflected in the piece. To make such a comment intentionally without any supporting evidence is gratuitously insulting, and if unintentional and you didn't have the evidence you shouldn't have made it.

You say no-one owns Wikipedia articles, which I don't disagree with, but it is surely in line with the principles of Wikipedia to respect the effort that a fellow Wikipedian may have put into drafting an article by taking the time and using the necessary skill in undertaking a review.

Finally, two parting messages. Firstly, if you do continue to review articles, could I suggest that you actually read them through before adding comments (your first comment on Chilembwe's motivation was made within three minutes of starting to read it). Doing it in what appears to be your way of commenting as you go can lead to forming false impressions early on that it's difficult to shift later. Secondly, I note you have no further desire to edit any of your articles, which is fair enough, but would you kindly put it back in the position it was before your intervention? Sscoulsdon (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello Animalparty, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

• Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

• A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

• There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

• Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

• Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
• The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Animalparty, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

• As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
• Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
• Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the Amendment of the Xericeps Page I Created

Thanks, for sorting the links out. I've not done much editing on Wikipedia over the last few years, so I'm a little rusty, hahah. Aquakeeper14 (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)