User talk:Calavj

Welcome!

Hello, Calavj, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Open borders

I thought your addition to Open borders was a useful one but I will not be surprised if someone removes it. The problem is that it relies on a single source and that source, Daniel Wilsher, is not obviously wp:notable - there is no article about him that explains why his opinions have weight. Being published by CUP is a big help but is not enough. Please see if you can write an article but be aware of our policy wp:conflict of interest if you are associated with him or with CUP. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You really do need to respond to advice, rather than add another non-notable quotation, as you did with Erin M. Worrell. There is an additional problem with your latest addition because it is not obvious how it belongs where you put it. I also think it breaches policy Wikipedia is not a forum - it reads too much like a debating point rather than a stand-alone neutral point of view. So with regret, I am going to cut it from the article and paste it to talk:Open border (to save you having to re-type it all after it has been discussed). Please discuss there how best to incorporate it in the article.

NB that you and I have exactly the same status in Wikipedia - we are both ordinary editors - I just happen to have been doing so for longer. If you don't like what I am doing, please feel free to escalate using the information in the welcome box above. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I have escalated the [lack of] discussion about your edits to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Advice needed on how best to handle a new user at Open borders. I believe that your edits are made in wp:good faith but you must engage in discussion about them if they are to be adopted. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the input and reasons, I would like to add my belief that Wikipedia in general makes mention of gender bias and reasons for gender bias and a lack of minorities writing on Wiki is due to feelings of exclusivity or lack of welcomeness. I would ask: are your comments user friendly, to they imply an edit war, etc? I am starting to feel a part of the reasons below why people feel discouraged from editing on Wiki:

Here is the quote: Former Wikimedia Foundation executive director Sue Gardner cited nine reasons why women don't edit Wikipedia, culled from comments by female Wikipedia editors:[26]

A lack of user-friendliness in the editing interface Not having enough free time A lack of self-confidence Aversion to conflict and an unwillingness to participate in lengthy edit wars Belief that their contributions are too likely to be reverted or deleted Some find its overall atmosphere misogynistic

Calavj (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calavj, I was very conscious of the risk that my motives could be misinterpreted and so having been trying very hard to engage with you both here on your talk page and on the talk pages of the articles, but for reasons I fail to understand you chose not to respond but rather to continue adding material that raised the same concerns about reliability and notability. I have assumed good faith on your part, please be graceful enough to assume the same of me. Also, you know nothing of my gender or ethnicity so please try not to make assumptions. I want to help you contribute effectively to Wikipedia: that means helping you understand what makes Wikipedia effective. One of its most important tenets is to require material be be supported by citing reliable sources and as far as possible that the material is written from an objective, neutral point of view. (To achieve this neutrality, sometimes opposing points of view can be given, leaving the reader to synthesise. [Avoiding the horrible Trumpism "violence on many sides" nonsense - sorry, bias showing but I'm trying to illustrate the point]. So I had hoped to involve others to do this, since I recognise my personal bias is to agree with your contributions and cannot pose the counterpoint.) Probably the most important challenge to the material you added is that you cite work by people who are not wp:notable - you don't even say who they are (is the person an undergraduate? post-doc? full professor?). In many {most?] other articles, that sort of contribution would be reverted with little more than a reference to Wikipedia is not a forum, thus underling Sue Gardner's point.

In the final analysis, you may revert my reversion to reinstate your contribution, and wait to see if anyone else considers it questionable. I shall not revert it again. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Thank you for responding at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, at least we can have a conversation now.

I would also argue that I don't believe you were "conscious" of tone--do you feel your comments are welcoming and supportive? I did not respond to talk requests bc I just learned the convention of how to do so. These are items that are learned over time. Also, Wiki explicitly says that perfection i not required: "You just need to remember that you can't break Wikipedia and although there are many protocols, perfection is not required, as Wikipedia is a work in progress."

Thus, my students are trying to make this page better, not perfect, and we believe we have done so, especially using the most reliable sources: university and peer reviewed sources.

Calavj (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly accept that we started on the wrong foot. I believe I started by welcoming you and assumed good faith on your part - you may have noted that I said as much in other places. I confess that it did not occur to me that you knew enough to keep adding to articles but not enough to reply to messages and for that I apologise. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you quote directly from wiki notability guidelines where it says sources in a page must be notable, as I am not seeing that:

"The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability."

Yes, good call. You are unlikely to be aware of issues in other articles where editors have attempted to add material which cited non-notable authors with degree mill doctorates published in pseudo-science"journals", so the scam alert got switched on. Consequently, our conversation started down the wrong track when your first addition that began "According to <name>..." but the author is not sufficiently notable to have an article. You may remember my saying that "publication by the Cambridge University Press is a good indicator" (or similar) but I began to get really concerned when another "not obviously notable" author was highlighted, with no clues as to whether it was written by undergraduate or a tenured professor. Again, we could have cleared this up at a much earlier stage had you been able to reply.

Yes, you are correct to say that one example of the notability principle is in the creation of new articles - we don't have a my pet dog is the best article. But the same principle applies (and is by far the more frequently applied) to questions about the validity of citations. To show that we are not breaking the wp:no original research rule, statements that might be regarded [or challenged] as controversial must be supported by citing a reliable source. The shorthand way of identifying reliable sources is to identify the authors: if they are "notable persons" [clue: they have a Wikipedia article} then that is usually good enough. If they are not personally notable, I guess the best alternative is to identify the status of the journal or publication where the material was published - but now we really ought to have more than one source. Even then, it is really important to give the reader some clues as to the status of the author cited - is it an undergraduate thesis? a PhD thesis, post-doc research paper, a book by a full professor at a research University? It is not enough to give the name of the University (Business School), you have to show that the publication/journal itself is notable, it is unreasonable to expect the reader to have to discover its status. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, Thanks for your care on this: question:

Can you quote where from Wiki policy guidelines you are receiving this information? here is Wiki policy guidelines on using sources:

"Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words,with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source,such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources."

"In general, the most reliable sources are:

Peer-reviewed journals

Books published by university presses"

All of the sources used by my class are peer reviewed, academic journal and articles and thus meet the stated policy of Wiki edit guides as stated above. Calavj (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, good call. You are absolutely right - with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight I withdraw. The problem as I said earlier is that Wikipedia has had a problem with people 'gaming' the system, trying to gain credence for wp:fringe theories and as a consequence there are patterns of behaviour that raise alerts. For material that is controversial (as you must know that your contributions are in modern USA and EU - see especially Hungary and UK) so compliance with the standards you state above need perhaps to be affirmed in very clear terms. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Free migration

Your edits to Free migration are subject to the same concerns. You are spending a lot of time on these edits but I strongly suspect that they will not be allowed to stand. Please stop until we get clarification. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Open border, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok, will do.

Watchlist

I don't know whether you have noticed the "watchlist" facility? If you click the little star on the second row of top right of the screen (the one that goes Read | Edit | View history | ♥ | * | More ) it will add the article to your watchlist. From then on clicking on Watchlist (at the top right of the screen) will alert you to any changes that have been made to articles that interest you. It will also tell you who changed the article and (if they have been polite) give briefly what they changed. I mention this because I've made some changes to Open border and talk:Open border that you might want to notice have happened (and maybe revise??). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article in Category pages

Hi there. Please note that article shoudl be in the article space, not in the category space. You keep putting the text of the article Native American drama into the Category:Native American Drama. This is not how category pages work. Category pages should not contain the text of the articles, mainly provide links to them as editors have previously corrected. Please refrain from copying and pasting articles in to the category space. See Wp:Category for more information. Canterbury Tail talk 19:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi, can you help put it in the right space, I'm unsure how to do this? Calavj (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please detail step by step how to do this, or can you please help and do it for me? Thank you. Calavj (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

here is the link for the article page can you make this viewable?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_drama

So I added a link on the Category page for the main page article. If you mean add the article so it appears as part of a category, you would simply edit the article itself(Native American drama) and at the bottom of the text, where you can see other Categories, add [[Category:Native American Drama]]. This is how you add an article into a category. I'll let you give it try yourself to get the hang of it and I'll check in if you like. Canterbury Tail talk 23:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry I tried, I can't make it a page, its keeps appearing as a category. How do I make the page have the text that is accessible? Right now it appear s a category with a link to a page; how can it just be the page? Calavj (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can you explain to me what you're trying to do. Right now there are two completely separate pages. Native American drama, which is an article page about Native American drama and contains a lot of text and content. This is a regular page that a Wikipedia reader would read. It seems fine. The other page is Category:Native American Drama, which is a category page. Category pages aren't supposed to have content and are just a way of providing links and connecting pages on a subject together. So a Category page should, other than perhaps a very brief description, only have links to related articles. Canterbury Tail talk 02:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My class group is working on the article page, but unsure how to remove the category page. The article page is not the first thing to come up when we search, how do we change this? Thus, we'd like the article page that we have worked on to be accessible? Calavj (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. If you search through Google you're getting the category page not the article page. Sorry but there's nothing really that can be done about that, it's all down to how Google ranks and categorizes it's searches. However the article should stay where it is and the Category is fine as is. I might suggest that the article has an actual introduction like other Wikipedia articles, currently it doesn't have the initial lead section (see WP:LEAD) which may prevent Google from properly reading the article as it likely assumes all Wikipedia articles have a lead section (and they should.) Canterbury Tail talk 00:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Users of this account

I've noticed some of your recent edits and have a question. How many people are using this account? Canterbury Tail talk 19:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One i think Calavj (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am the main account holder and other class student editors are helping me but I am uploading the changes. Thus I use we to show that it is collaborative, but there is one account. Calavj (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I ask because a lot of your edits contain the edit summary of "We added..." which implies more than one person. Canterbury Tail talk 23:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Calavj: Why are you equivocating on Canterbury Trail's question? Please note that the WP:NOSHARING Policy says you may not let others use your account. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rich, can you display more kindness and sensitivity in your posts and tone, thank you. Calavj (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Srich32977: Please don't repeat my mistake: wp:don't bite the newbies. Calavj is acting in good faith, is quite skilled in some areas but in others still has a lot to learn. Give him/her a moment to identify the problem and respond appropriately. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration improves the economy, [etc]

The anon editor who removed the sentence beginning "Immigration improves the economy,..." did so correctly though perhaps for the wrong reasons. Wikipedia's policy is that contributors must not "editorialise", must not contribute opinion, which this sentence clearly is. You could make the same point but only if it went in the section "arguments in favour" and was attributed to a notable person who said so. I hope you found this helpful. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Immersive theater

error fixed: intro, context provided to page

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you are doing good work on this article but it is really REALLY important that you respond to these procedural notifications immediately. It is pointless to ignore them. Failure to do so means that most likely consequence is that the hours of work that you have put into writing it will disappear in a puff of electrons. I have put in a holding response on your behalf but you need to use Talk:Immersive theater to explain how you plan to respond to the "single example" challenge. I know there are others, I've been to one [it wasn't memorable!] - indeed I was surprised to find it to be a new topic. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For an article that was almost listed for deletion, I was interested to see that it is linked from quite a few articles! See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Immersive_theater . Good work! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am not sure what the criticism is about for thus article? Calavj (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)JOhn[reply]

This article on Immersive theater contains 11 scholarly college / university sources, so it is not a personal essay with personal opinions, but a summary / encyclopedia of critical thinkers defining what immersive theater is. Thus, It is not personal; but factual and scholarly. Calavj (talk) 05:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)calavj JOhn[reply]

The challenge back then was not on the variety of citations but rather that there were not enough real world examples to demonstrate that it is an established phenomenon and not just an academic conjecture [which to my mind is not a valid basis for challenge, especially given your impeccable citations and even more so when compared with the dross about some Marvel Comics trivia. End of rant1]. That was then, there are many examples now and the risk is that it gets bogged down in promotional minutiae - see the history of artist in residence to see how provision of examples can go insane to the point of making an article unusable. So maybe now you ought to consider pruning and prècising it a bit? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Hello, I'm WikiHannibal. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Game of Thrones have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. WikiHannibal (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking Bad

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 01:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We appreciate you taking the time to add material that is both well-written and well-sourced to the Breaking bad article. I myself am not opposed to the content you are adding, but I, along with the four other editors who have reverted your additions, feel it is undue weight to add an entire section about criticism that stems from one paper. An entire section dedicated to one argument would require multiple sources. If you feel this content deserves its own section, you will need to create an argument on Talk:Breaking Bad, but I feel the other editors will lean to towards WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE because the criticism is coming from one source. You could probably get away with adding one or two sentences about the paper under the 'Reception and legacy' or 'critical reception' sections. I hope this helps. Ultimately, I would recommend creating a discussion on Talk:Breaking Bad. Thank you for your time. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 15:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is very clear and makes sense. →calavj

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]