User talk:Flor Méchain

Your submission at Articles for creation: Archives of the Canton of Vaud (July 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Archives of the Canton of Vaud may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• 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.

DrStrauss talk 13:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Flor WMCH, 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! DrStrauss talk 13:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Bio-inspiration

Hallo, I see that you moved this article out of a sandbox into mainspace, although there is an existing article at Bioinspiration, just minutes after it was worked on by two editors. Was this as part of an editathon or workshop of some sort where you were helping these new editors, I wonder?

It's not really helpful to create a duplicate article, which includes unattributed copied-and-pasted work by other editors. Please don't encourage any learning students to work in this way. They should have just edited the existing article, step by step. There is now a muddle which needs to be sorted out. Thanks. PamD 16:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your vigilance! They reworked an article on their sandbox, it was not ready, and through the rush and the confusion (including people using my computer while not having logged me out) we did not have time to finalize it clearly. This was a few hours ago, though, so our hope is to correct it within this week. Speaking of which, Alessandro, can you help with the merge and redirect? Also, if you'd like to see the rest of their work (a lot of it is much better!) you can see it here

--Flor WMCH (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

But if there is an existing article which is not completely rubbish, your students should not be aiming to demolish the article and replace it with their own version. They should edit it bit by bit, like any ordinary editor, using edit summaries as appropriate, so that their edits are part of the natural development of the article and the whole edit history of the article can be seen by readers and editors. Their whole approach seems wrong, and worrying if there is a class-full of them doing the same thing. PamD 17:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC) expanded 17:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

First of all I did not receive any ping here. i left a comment in the project and I was going to merge the other way because I am not online tomorrow. In any case User:PamD I did not see any rush, I think they worked calmly, I was more aware of the fact they were improving an existing article in the sandbox bit by bit and it wasn't my idea to move it like they did. However, when we summarized (and not all articles were moved at that point) I discovered they did. To my surprise, we clearly left many other materials in the sandbox by that time. I think it did not help that one of them was a foreinger that could write English but I suspect his level of spoken English was lower. So (s)he probably did not understand me when I told him/her yesterday that they had to paste it later, and trusted the other person when told to move with no objection. So it was a series of coincidence, but nothing more.

In any case the original article was minimal. Really, they had to start basically from zero because there was really very few content there. they left the original introduction also as matter of respect but they could have rewritten that as well since it was not a big trouble in the general effort. It was ok, so they left it. This also created the confusion, all the other groups were eihter enlarging an article with much more history and text or creating a new article. They were the only one who were enlarging a very short stub. You should take this into account. I mean I agree with you that the histroy is an important part of the article but the original article is a 1-year old of 800-1000 kbytes whose history contains mostly reverts and cosmetic edits. that's why I though in this specific case once the move was done it wasn't such a big practical deal merge the other way (also the sources seemed to show at the time the hyphenated form as more common). If someone read you they might think they did this on a helthy, proper, long-time existing article and that is not really what happened.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the improvement to the stub was very useful, and the split history from copy-paste pretty easy to fix. I've left a note at the centralised discussion at Talk:Bioinspiration. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Adolphe Merkle Institute Draft finished

Hi Flor, I was working on the Adolphe Merkle Institute article during the PlaMatSu University of Fribourg+WMCH workshop together with User:Phulzar. The draft is now finished. Is the Articles for creation WikiProject the best way to submit it? (Same message to User:Alexmar983 here) --User:AntoG AMI (talk) 10:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)