User talk:Hockmana

This is Hockmana's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

AfC notification: Draft:Linda J. Parrott Hayes has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Linda J. Parrott Hayes. Thanks! —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 14:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for your comment. This is my first shot at publishing a bio on Wikipedia. Where do you suggest adding a non-primary source? The only primary source I added (to my understanding primary) is Dr. Hayes's UNR faculty biography page. If you have time, I'd love your advice. Thank you! —Adam Hockmana (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hockmana! Congratulations on getting you draft accepted! However, all of the references are primary or affiliated with the subject. Refs 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are all descriptions of her by places she worked for and by groups that have given her awards. The rest are just papers she's worked on. To show notability in Wikipedia, you must use third-party sources. She is definitely notable per the notability guideline for professors, but the article could use a few more unbiased sources. Happy editing! —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 15:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I added three sources citing Hayes's work in verbal behavior, thinking, and memory. If you have other advice for types of 2nd and 3rd sources, please let me know. I'll adjust my writing moving forward. Also, is it possible for me to add a photo of Linda from Google or I would need to own that photo? Thanks, Adam Hockmana (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to add an image that is copyright free. Google has a tool that can be applied to search for images that are freely licensed. I'll have a look at Flickr, as sometimes there are images with creative commons licenses where a person is, for example, giving a lecture, and a head shot can be extracted from that. Otherwise, WP is extremely strict about copyright infringement because it presents legal liabilities. The google-tool is one of the drop-down menu options under image search. Netherzone (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I used the tool and there is no image available with a creative commons license. Hockmana (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on Flickr either. I wouldn't worry about the article not having a photo. I'll add a tag to the talk page requesting one. Sometimes editors who specialize in photo matters will add one. Good luck with your future editing. Netherzone (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Hockmana!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 14:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Linda J. Parrott Hayes has been accepted

Linda J. Parrott Hayes, 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!

Netherzone (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone, hello! I believe you have used the wrong template as Hockmana is not autoconfirmed and cannot create articles themself. Have a good day! —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 15:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asparagusus, Hmm, that's weird, I wonder what I did incorrectly - I thought I simply clicked on the green "accept" button. I will try to troubleshoot this, and if you have any further advice, I'm all ears!

@Hockmana, please disregard this part of the note above: Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. and continue to create new articles through the Articles for Creation process. Thank you Netherzone (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone, I think it was just AFCH? It might've thought that Hockmana was autoconfirmed. I don't really know how it chooses which template to use. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 15:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I used the "Review (AFCH) "dashboard" that appears in the drop down "More" menu. Netherzone (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding sources

Why does this sentence have seven references: Her research focused on behavior theory and philosophy, interbehaviorism, radical behaviorism, verbal behavior, response substitution, rule governance, and animal modeling. One or two independent citations that confirmed the claims would be better. Please try to find secondary sources that are fully independent from her that she is not connected with - what others have said about her. Thank you, Netherzone (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I put all the citations at the end of the sentence (i.e., those seven references each refer to one of the topics in the sentence). I'll place them right after each one. Hockmana (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really necessary to list all those topics. I would suggest selecting one independent, secondary source to back up a sentence that says something like "Her research focuses on a variety of behavioral topics"." WP is an encyclopedia, and a shorter statement is more succinct. All those details belong on her own personal website, faculty page, her LinkedIn page, or Academia.com profile. See WP:NOTRESUME, and WP:CITEKILL (in particular the WP:REFBOMB section. Netherzone (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I removed the list, focused on her two primary areas, and added secondary sources. Hockmana (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Netherzone (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help. What are the next steps for this article? Appreciate you answering all my questions on my first go around of publishing a Wiki page. Hockmana (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I left you a message about re: photos of living persons and copyright concerns. The article looks fine as it is, except for the predominance of primary sources. Once that issue is better balanced, then the maintenance tag will be removed. Netherzone (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I tried to provide as many citations as possible for each line. Would it be better for me to use a single primary on a paragraph with info about her. For instance, Linda attended Western Michigan, U of Manatoba, etc. — rather than use a citation from her ABAI bio and her UNR bio, drop one of those citations? Hockmana (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the Education section, and it seems like the first citation might work for the whole paragraph, as long as it verifies all the claims (facts) that are being made. Then her faculty page citation (the second ref) could be used in a new section, "External links" which you would place below the References section. The paper (the third citation) could go to her list of selected publications. Keep things concise, and streamlined - which works best for the encyclopedia's general readership. Netherzone (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I've updated the article with those corrections. Hockmana (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last part of the Education needs attribution. Does the citation #2 (ABAI) back up the content in the whole paragraph? If so it can be moved to the end of the paragraph itself. Netherzone (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I moved that paragraph to the Career section with the other relevant UNR paragraphs. Hockmana (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks great. Regarding the primary sources maintenance tag, I am wondering if there might be any reviews of her books or journal articles - those would be secondary sources. Netherzone (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Number 5 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212144720301939) is a review of her work on interbehaviorism. I've just added #8, which comments on her work in verbal behavior. Hockmana (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty then! Looks great, nice first article, Hockmana. I'll remove the tag in my next edit. Good to meet you here, it's been a really pleasant collaboration. See you around, Netherzone (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks so much for your help. I've learned a lot. Does this article go through another phase or is it published? And do you know how long it takes for Google to index it and show in a search? Thanks. Hockmana (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's published. I just exported the WikiData, so it should show up on Google soon. Netherzone (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Thank you for making this a great first Wikipedia experience. Cheers. Hockmana (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bridget A. Taylor (February 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Cabrils was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to

meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria
or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth

Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Well done on creating the draft, and it may potentially meet the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:PROF) but presently it is not clear that it does.

As you may know, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’. Also, if you have any connection to the subject, including being paid, you have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link). Please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements, then please make the necessary amendments before resubmitting the page. It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject. It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:PROF criteria #3, because XXXXX").

You may also wish to leave a note for me on my talk page and I would be happy to reassess. As I said, I do think this draft has potential so please do persevere.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bridget A. Taylor and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Cabrils (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hockmana! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation 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! Cabrils (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Bridget A. Taylor has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Bridget A. Taylor. Thanks! Cabrils (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bridget A. Taylor has been accepted

Bridget A. Taylor, 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!

Cabrils (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cathleen Piazza has been accepted

Cathleen Piazza, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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!

MurielMary (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cheryl McNeil (August 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Reads somewhat promotionally (significant, prolific, etc). External links should also be removed or converted to inline citations where appropriate.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cheryl McNeil and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Greenman (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cheryl McNeil (August 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by OnlyNano was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cheryl McNeil and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

OnlyNano^talk 15:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Cheryl McNeil has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Cheryl McNeil. Thanks! OnlyNano^talk 15:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cheryl McNeil (October 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Thilsebatti was:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cheryl McNeil and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Thilsebatti (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]