User talk:FPizzo

Welcome

Hello, FPizzo and welcome to Wikipedia! It appears you are participating in a class project. If you haven't done so already, we encourage you to go through our training for students. Go through our online training for students

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Please also read this helpful advice for students.

Before you create an article, make sure you understand what kind of articles are accepted here. Remember: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while many topics are encyclopedic, some things are not.

Your instructor or professor may wish to set up a course page, and if your class doesn't already have one please tell your instructor about that. It is highly recommended that you place this text: {{Educational assignment}} on the talk page of any articles you are working on as part of your Wikipedia-related course assignment. This will let other editors know this article is a subject of an educational assignment and aid your communication with them.

We hope you like it here and encourage you to stay even after your assignment is finished! Drm310 (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, FPizzo, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Adam and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Greetings!

Hello Fara, I look forward to working with you on Wikipedia in exploring and learning about FEPP and adding to the community of knowledge.

Mattsaathoff (talk) 21:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Gender-based price discrimination

Hello FPizzo,

Just wanted to let you know I think your efforts to expand this topic are appreciated and sorely needed. I stumbled across the Price discrimination article a while back. It struck me as odd that the Gender-based examples section was a paltry 7 sentences in length! Being far from an expert on the subject I did a little research and attempted to expand it, but it was definitely still in need of work.

Good luck finishing up. I put a link at the top of of the Gender-based examples section of Price discrimination indicating that a main article on the topic exists. I was wondering if you intend to return to the Gender-based examples section of the Price discrimination article and rewrite the section in an abbreviated form when the Gender-based price discrimination article is filled out as per your intended outline? StrangrDangr (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Gender-based price discrimination at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 09:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Gender-Based Price Discrimination

Hello! Your submission of Gender-Based Price Discrimination at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Paraphrasing

To close in this edit [1]

You added "The study involved 180 independent negotiations at ninety dealerships in the Chicago area. The testers were of different races and genders. Each tester entered new car dealerships and bargained to purchase a new car, using a uniform negotiation strategy. The results of the study concluded that white males recieved significantly better prices than non-whites and women. For example, white women had to pay forty percent more than white men and black women had to pay more than three times more than white men. "

Source says "More than 18o independent negotiations at ninety dealerships were conducted in the Chicago area to examine how dealerships bargain. Testers of different races and genders entered new car dealerships separately and bargained to buy a new car, using a uniform negotiation strategy.7 The study tests whether automobile retailers react differently to this uniform strategy when potential buyers differ only by gender or race. 8 The tests reveal that white males receive significantly better prices than blacks and women. As detailed below, white women had to pay forty percent higher markups than white men; black men had to pay more than twice the markup, and black women had to pay more than three times the markup of white male testers."

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Adam (Wiki Ed) your thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

We have this text "The DCA studied and surveyed the gender pricing of goods in New York City across multiple industries including toys and accessories, personal care products, and adult clothing. The DCA compared nearly 800 produces with definitive male and female versions from more than 90 brands sold at two-dozen New York City retailers." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gender-based_price_discrimination&type=revision&diff=721396519&oldid=721394293

Ref says "To this end, DCA conducted a first-ever study of the gender pricing of goods in New York City across multiple industries. The industries studied for this report include: toys and accessories, children’s clothing, adult clothing, personal care products, and home health care products for seniors. The Agency compared nearly 800 products with clear male and female versions from more than 90 brands sold at two dozen New York City retailers, both online and in stores."

° First of all, no where on the entire page were these sentences:

"The DCA studied and surveyed the gender pricing of goods in New York City across multiple industries including toys and accessories, personal care products, and adult clothing. The DCA compared nearly 800 produces with definitive male and female versions from more than 90 brands sold at two-dozen New York City retailers." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gender-based_price_discrimination&type=revision&diff=721396519&oldid=721394293

Unless another user added this to the page, I never typed out those sentences Doc James (talk.

FPizzo (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

You also copied the picture from http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2015/04/27/gender-price-gap/ Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I created a temporary page for gender-based price discrimination. Not sure how other users access this.

FPizzo (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• I moved your "temporary" page to Draft:Gender-based price discrimination. I guess that is what you meant to do. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking closer

• Yes in these edits you moved [2] the content of concern to [3] the new article. So agree those concerns were not of yours.

• The content in this edit was added by you [4] not sure if that was moved from somewhere?

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was instructed to add information from the price discrimination page to the gender-based price discrimination page to clear up the parent page. Upon realizing that there was duplicative information regarding the DCA study in the New York legislation section - I removed the sentence you are referring to.

FPizzo (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Than we have in this edit [5]

You added "The DCA found that personal care products for women were purchased at a higher frequency than other consumer goods included in the study, indicating that the 13 percent difference in pricing leads to a significant financial burden for women over a lifetime."

Source says ""Because personal care products are purchased at a higher frequency than the other consumer goods included in this study, this 13 percent difference translates into a significant financial burden for women over the course of a lifetime," the study reported.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

User:DMacks can you give this editor a second opinion? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree there are close-paraphrasing issues. It's possible (I don't have time to look more closely right now) that some were pre-existing on one WP article and FPizzo merely copied it to another WP article. By edit-history, that makes FPizzo the apparent contributor of the content to that new target article even if he was not the original contributor of that content to WP as a whole. But that's also a concern even if the content were originally valid. WP content license requires attribution, so the edit that pasted the content into the new target on WP would have to identify the WP source article (via edit summary for example). DMacks (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

What would you have me change? Instead of 13 percent should I had said slightly more than 10%? I dont think so..... I was trying to be as true to the findings of fact of the study as possible. There are certain points of information and words that should not be changed unless you want to mislead the reader.

FPizzo (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

One could say "Of the products looked at those with the biggest difference in prices for the sexes were for personal care. As women generally buy more of this type of product they end up paying a fair bit more over the years." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

First I wanted to add the actual details of the study with numbers. Your sentence is weakly worded. Its not just a "fair bit" it creates a burden (a legal term of art).

The more important thing is it is not a copyright issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Another

You added "The study found that no hair salon offered cheaper haircuts to women. Of the 100 salons examined, only 15 had equal starting prices for women's and men's haircuts. Women paid on average $35.02 for a basic haircut while men paid $22.78."[6]

Source says Of the 100 salons for which data were collected, only 15 had equal starting prices for women’s and men’s haircuts' (10 of these were franchise salons). There was no salon that offered cheaper haircuts to women. On average, 'women paid $35.02 (SD=11.38) for a basic haircut and men paid $22.78 (SD=6.23)."

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Again you do realize that there is only so many ways to say a very blunt fact that "no salon offered cheaper haircuts to women." Would you prefer that I type like Master Yoda over here?

Cheaper haircuts no salon offered to women.

FPizzo (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

And you should not say it the same was as your sources sentence after sentence.

For "no salon offered cheaper haircuts to women" you could have had "at all the salon's looked at women either paid the same or more for main for a haircut" Google says no one has used that wording before [7]

If you would have done that it would not have flagged your edits by the copyright detection bot. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

That is not accurate. The reference does not say that haircuts were the same for men and women. I did not want to add anything to the sentence by inference. Again that is misleading.

FPizzo (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes I know you are insisting upon using the same wording as the sources. We do not allow that here. Apologies. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess you just do not understand the importance of words and phrasing. As a law student, I understand the very specific difference between the meaning and phrasing of every word. Clearly you have not developed the skill of understanding the nuances of certain words and sentence structure. Which is clear from you thinking that "significant burden" is the same as "a fair bit."

FPizzo (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@FPizzo and Doc James: Hi folks. Sorry, my saturday response time is a little slow. I've taken a look at the above. FPizzo, before I go on, telling another editor "I guess you just do not understand the importance of words and phrasing" is rude and uncivil. There is no world in which accusing someone of being dense will improve a situation or a conversation and it is not how we talk around here. Second, please take a close look at the edits Doc James has highlighted. They aren't a summary of the topic using that source. They're close paraphrasing and he is trying to help you avoid it. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

@Adam and Doc James: Thank you Adam. I already apologized for the way I reacted. As someone who is new to Wikipedia I was a bit freaked out when I saw that my work was under investigation to be deleted. Not only because the page is for a class grade but because I put a lot of time into the article and I wanted an opportunity to address the problems. With that said, I am still not sure whether I have addressed the paraphrasing issue.

The copyright banner that took over the gender-based price discrimination page was a bit alarming. I could not figure out whether it was alright for me to remove the banner and fix the paraphrasing or not. I wanted to avoid getting in further trouble with Wikipedia. Thinking that I was not allowed to remove the banner in time for my course's deadline is what set me off - and again I do apologize for my comments.

It appeared though that since my issue was just close paraphrasing that I was allowed to remove the banner and reword. At least I hope this is the case. With that said, I did look over all of user DocJames specific comments and I attempted to reword them as suggested.

Can you please let me know if the issue has been addressed and that I took the right course of action? Also if there are any other paraphrasing issues that I need to address.

Thank you for your assistance.

FPizzo (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC) (Aka stressed out law student)

OK, as someone who has been where FPizzo is now (good faith article being slapped for close paraphrasing, AND also having been a law student once), I'm going to trot over to Draft:Gender-based price discrimination and take a further whack at it. I recognize FPizzo's worry that phrasing needs to be very precise and I understand the importance of nuance. Sometimes there just is not a way to avoid wording terms of art or technical language, but other times a person is so close to the text that they can't "see" other ways to phrase things. So, I will deliberately edit from the perspective of not looking at the source material at all, and from there I hope that @Adam and Doc James: can look at that draft and see if FPizzo can move it back into article space. Montanabw^(talk) 21:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

That would be great. Our copy and paste detection software picked up the concerns.

I do not have a specific interest in this topic area so thanks User:Montanabw for jumping in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw and Doc James: Thank you both! I am most likely going to end up writing the entire article from scratch. My professor gave me an extension to do so and Adam agrees. I have already begun the rewrite but have not added it to my sandbox yet. I am waiting to see what the official decision is regarding whether the page will be deleted. If it is, I would definitely appreciate any feedback when I add the rewritten article to the mainspace. FPizzo (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I've taken a huge whack at the draft. I rewrote and tightened the language, and so now someone else (@Adam and Doc James:Adam? Doc?) can run the dup detector again to see what still flags. I did wind up looking at a couple sources to see what they actually did say, and what I DID find is that the automated citation numbering got messed up and one source was being used to site material verified by a different source. I fixed one real clunker I found, but there was another that clearly was cited to the wrong article, so instead of reading all the sources, I just flagged it as . I also redid the names on the refs to eliminate the confusion. Take a look at what I did overall, and if you need more help ping me. I put a lot of tips and explanations in hidden text that is visible only inside the editing window <!--hidden text is formatted like this-->. Good luck with your work, this is an important topic and well worth covering! Montanabw^(talk) 23:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Thank you! I think I had some issues transferring my writing from the original page to the draft page. Perhaps that is why the citations were messed up. In the meantime I suppose I should just wait to see what happens with the page.FPizzo (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

• If I were you, I'd do some more cleanup at the Draft page. This article is clearly salvagable!!!! I ran "Earwig bot" which anyone can do, with this result, basically, that the NYC study is still too closely paraphrased. (I didn't do much with that) I'd say that you could rewrite some of those bits (obviously, things like agency names will flag but not be copyvios). The second-highest hit is considered not too serious (here) but you may want to look for things to rephrase there too. Trust me, this is worth fixing! I had something like this happen to me in my first year of editing, and it is a shock to he system, but if you persevere, it WILL turn out OK! Montanabw^(talk)

@Montanabw, Adam, and Doc James: Hello Everyone, it has been over a week and the page has not been deleted nor has the template been removed. @Montanabw has done some work on the draft and I would like to begin to work on the mainspace as well. My Professor has given me an extension on the project so I am not in a hurry but I was wondering if you could update me on the situation. Would you happen to know when the template can be removed? Thank you FPizzo (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Pink-tax-740x385.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Pink-tax-740x385.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleted the image as a copyright concern. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Warning - removing copyvio template

Please do not remove the {{copyvio}} template from articles. Your action has been reverted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept non-free text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted, and removing copyright notices will not help your case. You can properly contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you are the owner of the material, you may release the material under the Creative Commons and GFDL licenses, as detailed at WP:IOWN. Alternatively, you are welcome to create a draft in your own words at a temporary subpage linked from the article. If you continue to insert copyright violations and/or remove copyright notices, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Chill out, Jytdog, it is clear that the issue is being discussed here. No need to get out the banhammer yet. This is a new editor and one who is pretty upset. It's going to get sorted out. Montanabw^(talk) 21:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK

Hello! Your submission of Gender-Based Price Discrimination at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gender-based price discrimination (July 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Drewmutt was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gender-based price discrimination and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello! FPizzo, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Gender-based price discrimination in the United States

You mind explaining what's going on here? I'm having a hard time teasing it out.

Gender-based price discrimination in the United States vs. Gender-based price discrimination vs. Draft:Gender-based price discrimination

It's to an extent that is nearing disruption. Combined with your persistent submissions to DYK give me cause for concern, but I'm happy to assume good faith and I welcome your feedback. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Gender-based price discrimination concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Gender-based price discrimination, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Gender-based price discrimination

Hello, FPizzo. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Gender-based price discrimination".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. » Shadowowl | talk 16:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)