User talk:Dr.bobbs

Hello, Dr.bobbs and a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help one get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are interested in learning more about contributing, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Red Director (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Photo licensing

Hello Dr. bobbs, please see WP:IUP. This can go over some basics in regard to your question. If this does not suffice, just let me know and I can dig deeper for you. Red Director (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Hello! There is a small line in the higher grades on what makes an article have a certain grade. See this link: [1]. Red Director (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Dr.bobbs. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Dr.bobbs! You created a thread called where to put scanned documents to cite as references at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Fialka moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Gerry Fialka, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. YODADICAE👽 13:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gerry Fialka has been accepted

Gerry Fialka, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

– SD0001 (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... I need help with using citations with broken (archived?) links in Draft:Gary Stockdale. Specifically, these citations are to the Library of Congress. There are 4 such citations at Draft:Gary Stockdale.

I found these citations using Google searches, for example, a Google search for "Doctor Detroit" "Gary Stockdale" shows that a page at https://www.loc.gov/item/jots.200015001/ contains the info I want. However, when I go to that URL, I get only "Sorry! We can't find what you're looking for. The page you requested could not be found." I'm not sure if this means that the page I want has been archived; but if it has, I don't know where to find the archived page, or an archive date. I really don't understand why Google can find information that is not available to me. It would seem that if Google can find it, it must be archived somewhere. So why can't I find this archive?

Is such a citation usable, and if so, how to cite it, please? Dr.bobbs (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is unfortunate, I cannot seem to locate that document anywhere and the Wayback Machine doesn't have a copy either. Sadly, I don't think the citation is going to usable. Very strange occurrence though - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 17:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Although of course that isn't the answer I was hoping for.

I really don't understand why Google can find information that is not available to me. It would seem that if Google can find it, it must be archived somewhere. So why can't I find this archive? Dr.bobbs (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone else find an answer to my question that would allow me to use these citations? Dr.bobbs (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made an hour-long effort to figure out why LOC searches no longer turn up a record for the film Doctor Detroit, and, without being able to convert the 'jots' designation into an 'lccn', failed. In all of the library records (other libraries and WORLDCAT) for the film (mostly the DVD) that I could find, Gary Stockdale is not listed in the credits, but that's the detail you are wanting to find to beef up that first cite. My advice is that finding it would not help the draft demonstrate notability since credits themselves can't do that. I often advise: "the goal for a draft is not completeness". You do want to succinctly lay out the case for notability. Completeness can probably not be achieved, but there's plenty of time to work on that after you have an accepted article. At this point, your draft looks heavy on original research and light on good, solid, independent and in-depth coverage of Stockdale. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Dr.bobbs (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I am aware that some of the references are not particularly good, solid, and independent; but they're the best that I could find.

However, I don't see where I reported any original research. Pretty much everything I put in is backed up by some kind of reference to show that I didn't come up with it myself. Would you be so kind as to point out what looks like original research in the draft? Dr.bobbs (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original research doesn't mean 'unsourced'. I include as original research statements that seem to be based only on primary sources — primary sources like search results, self-written bio pages, interviews, or individual media credits. It's just my impression, but I didn't see what might qualify as in-depth, independent coverage. Lack of such notability sources will doom the draft; trying to overcome that with lots of individual data points just doesn't work. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks!

But I'm not clear on why search results or individual media credits would necessarily be primary sources, and why search results could not qualify as in-depth, independent coverage. How can one FIND in-depth, independent coverage other than from search results? Can't I write an acceptable article based on material found only by searching the web, or do I have to physically get out into the real world to find material that cannot be found in web search results?

BTW, I never used any self-written bio pages as citations. Dr.bobbs (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, the decision will be made by the draft reviewers. You can certainly use search engines to locate candidates for good sources, but the output of a search itself is unable to support notability.

We usually consider bios such as the one appearing at lacm.edu to be primary sources; it would be strange to think that Stockdale did not have a hand in writing it, especially since he included "School of Hard Knocks" as part of his educational credentials. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course! Thanks! Dr.bobbs (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... putting citations on items in a long list, where many of the items have the same citations. Should I

(a) put citations on every single item in the list, or

(b) group items together into sub-lists with the same citations, and then give the citations only at the end of each sub-list? In that case, I guess that I should separate items in the same sub-list by commas, but separate different sub-lists by semicolons? Dr.bobbs (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no general rule for this because the 'right' choice will depend on how the list is best thought to be organized. I would say that, by default, you should simply supply a citation for every entry on the list - we have the named ref mechanism to keep the overhead minimal - but if there's a different organizing principle for the list that somehow reflects the entries' appearance in different sources, you could go the latter route. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Dr.bobbs (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Dr.bobbs! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Putting citations on items in a long list, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... ... deciding whether to add ^{[citation needed]} to an article I submitted for review, or just remove the material needing a citation.

This is for an article on a living person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gary_Stockdale

Some material is poorly sourced and so needs to cite a more objective source. The material is NOT controversial. I am hoping that I or someone else will find a better source at some point. I see 3 options here:

1) Add ^{[citation needed]} after the poor source citation.

2) Replace the poor source citation with ^{[citation needed]}.

3) Remove the poorly sourced material.

Which option is best, or another option?

Dr.bobbs (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Dr.bobbs (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dr.bobbs: I'd say option 3 is the safest. At AfC we need to check, among other things, that the draft is sufficiently referenced. You tagging unsupported content with {{cn}} only shows that you're aware it's not sufficiently referenced, which is almost an invitation to decline the draft.

Of course, we need to put this into perspective – if ten citations are there, and one is missing, that might still get through. But the more unreferenced content (or cn tags) there is, the more likely the draft will be declined. The risk increases if any of the unsupported content is potentially contentious or sensitive (such as WP:DOB).

Does that help? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Dr.bobbs (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable sources are best tagged with ^{[better source needed]} ({{bcn}}) rather than {{cn}}, which should be reserved for claims that have no source attached. 78.28.44.127 (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Dr.bobbs (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gary Stockdale has been accepted

Gary Stockdale, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

RangersRus (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Dr.bobbs (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]