Jump to content

Talk:Liz Danforth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attempt to open discussion of contentious edits

[edit]

Biographies of living persons on Wikipedia do not customarily give sources for birthplace, place of residence, or degrees. I believe the [citation needed] tags constitute unreasonable sourcing demands as described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Status_quo_stonewalling#Unreasonable_sourcing_demands (second paragraph in particular). I have not seen this type of information questioned on other BLP pages. Ebbn (talk) 10:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid they do, actually; where they don't, they're in error, and can get removed. Otherwise we don't know if the contributor just made stuff up. More in email. --GRuban (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, first sources added. Further edits incoming. Thanks for helping the newcomer! Ebbn (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban, I am not sure if using linkedin counts as a reliable source? 8.37.179.254 (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It counts as a WP:BLPSPS, a self published source from the subject herself, which can be used for not contentious information. Where she went to school generally counts as such, unless you think there is a reason to doubt it? --GRuban (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Was removed by MarnetteD, however. 2600:1700:E820:1BA0:480F:9200:578D:46C8 (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hrr. From her edit comment ("filled in 2 bare references"), I suspect it was inadvertent. Let's ask.
@MarnetteD: you seem to have removed a source in this edit. Was this intentional? --GRuban (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I removed it. A) it is WP:USERGENERATED and there is no fact checking whatsover on its entries. B) Anyone can post anything on the site and - because it is not WP:VERIFIABLE there is no way to know if it is accurate or not. C) Since the info is posted by the person involved it is a WP:PRIMARY source. I wouldn't use it for any article on WikiP. I understand that some may disagree so if you anyone feels the need to restore the link please and a proper cite template as both refill and reflinks rejects the link and wont format it.
Thanks, Marnette! @Ebbn: rather than doing it myself, let me walk you through the steps of formatting the citation, because you'll likely be doing this a few times.
  1. Click to edit the page. In the edit box, click where you want the reference link to go, likely right after the period at the end of the sentence.
  2. At the top of the edit box, top, click "Cite". Under Templates select: "Cite web" Under URL put in the URL, https://www.linkedin.com/in/liz-danforth-2713945
  3. For many web pages, clicking the little magnifying glass will now fill in a few more fields, for this one it apparently doesn't, so you'll have to do them all manually.
  4. Last name, first name are those of the author of the source, in this case "Danforth", "Liz", respectively. (This is the part that MarnetteD is uncomfortable with, since naturally she will be presenting herself in a favorable light. So if this were more controversial info, we'd want to cite someone else. But for something like where she went to school, this should be fine; if someone else was seriously disputing this, or if she were saying she was class valedictorian, we'd likely want more.)
  5. Title would be the title of the article, I guess "Liz Danforth Linked In" is probably the best.
  6. Website name and publisher would both be LinkedIn, I'd just it put it in one of them, and put the double square brackets to make it a link, "LinkedIn".
  7. Access date is whenever you last looked at the source and it said what you're citing it for (because web pages do change at times), you can click the calendar icon and it will put in today's date.
  8. For articles with a publication date, such as news articles, you'll also want to put that in the date field (under extra fields), this page doesn't really have one, so leave it out.
  9. Ref name, put in something like "LinkedIn", because you may want to reuse this reference elsewhere on the page. (Then you'll be able to just put in <ref name="LinkedIn"/> and both little [3] links will go to the same reference.)
  10. Preview, if everything looks reasonable, insert, save. For advanced use you can go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_web and it will give you more information than you can shake a stick at, I doubt ten people fully understand all of it, I've been here for a dozen years and have only used maybe half of those fields, this should be enough to get started.
Good luck! --GRuban (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed NEW CONTENT and REORGANIZATION for Liz Danforth (BLP) page

[edit]

Article needs substantial overhaul (current categories make little sense, original article was little more than a stub, and original article is old enough to be outdated). Changing too much at once (late December 2018) proved contentious. Proposed NEW/REVISED/UPDATED article at User:Ebbn/sandbox. Requesting comment on proposed changes, including references (I'm currently trying to sort out where those went when I created the sandbox article -- will be re-adding them in the next few days)--Ebbn (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I linked the sandbox. My comments are that at first glance it looks much better than what we have, but I would need to be able to check the references. --GRuban (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, do make a user page that mentions that you are being paid. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Paid editors spake thusly: "You are expected to maintain a clearly visible list on your user page of your paid contributions." It's worth following that link, it also has a few snazzy templates that you can use for this, though text will suffice if necessary. --GRuban (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully helpful stuff:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liz_Danforth&oldid=1207118121"