User talk:JEFeditor
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, JEFeditor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Climate migration did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.
If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Nat Gertler (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
July 2024
[edit]
Hi JEFeditor! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Ken Silverstein (business journalist) several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Ken Silverstein (business journalist), please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Wiiformii. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of Ken Silverstein (business journalist). Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Wiiformii (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Wil F. A previous editor suggested 'third party' references. I followed through and added ones from PBS, NPR and CSPAN. I see those were removed as "non-constructive." I give up. I'm moving on to other climate issues. Please check the edits and see if those 'third party' verifications are 'constructive.' Thanks. I'm done on this one. Moving on. JEFeditor (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know how to correct the edit. I use a hyperlink to create a link to the third-party verification, an 'external' link to their site. I need to figure out how to create an internal link to prove the verification. I don't want to make this mistake concerning other edits to issues or bios. JEFeditor (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- WP:REF has the most key information on what we're looking for in a reference and how to construct them. The other editor's statement that your edits are unconstructive was not accurate, it was a move toward something. These would make adequate references for the fact that he appeared on those outlets (although depending on what's being discussed, it may or may not address notability concerns. Just as an example, an interview talking to Stephen King about his book It would lend to King's notability, but an interview with King about the works of Richard Matheson would not lend to King's notability but to Matheson's. It's what's being discussed, rather than who is doing the discussing, that matters.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've watched a few videos on creating citations and understand your key points. My brain is swimming right now. I'll come back to this and take a stab at getting the citations and format correct. This is challenging for a beginner, so please be patient if I get it wrong. Having said that, I want to add constructive points to issues I study and represent, and the learning process is necessary, if not mind-boggling. JEFeditor (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you have any questions, let me know. We were all beginners once, and to a reasonable degree of rounding, we all made missteps along the way. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your patience. Just a quick talk: When trying to find some relevant references, I found Silverstein's material in Forbes Japan, China, Africa, and the Middle East, not just the Forbes.com site. So it is more accurate to say he writes or contributes to Forbes. I am unsure if those columns run in the magazine. Thanks again. I'm on to a new topic and will incrementally add to my wiki skills. JEFeditor (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but the statement is not that he writes for those magazines, but that he is a "senior contributor". The "contributor" title is one that Forbes uses to indicate folks they allow to blog on their website (although they have at times reused the blog material in print, I'm given to understand.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- that's fine. I also see the material on the Real Clear sites, which are different from Forbes but owned by Forbes. JEFeditor (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just taking a look at your most recent edit on the Silverstein article, there's a couple problems. One is that you added information without a source (and the article is already a pile of unsourced information, and that should be being scraped out, not added to), the other is that you marked your edit as minor... I understand the instinct, it's just a few words, but any time you are adding or subtracting information other than correcting vandalism, it should not be marked as minor. The "minor" checkbox is for changes like formatting corrections, spelling fixes, perhaps a slight reordering. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help. I just Googled where the author is published and which countries he has profiled. For all the reasons presented earlier, I don't want to create links. If I did, they would be sourced. If you have ideas in cases like this, please suggest them. JEFeditor (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- You shouldn't be creating a hyperlink in the text body of the article itself. You should be using the <ref> tag to create reference footnotes that will appear in the reference section of the page. Having said that, we really don't need a listing of every paper that ever picked up one of his syndicated columns; a handful of prominent examples would be fine, and would be even better if we had a third-party source commenting on the placement. That is at the heart of the problem with this page -- the lack of third-party sources commenting on Silverstein. The closest we come is the awards listing, and for establishing notability using awards, we want them to be, well, notable awards. As a good sniff test, if there's a Wikipedia article about the award, it's more likely to be notable than not. In this case, not only are there no Wikipedia pages about those awards, there are not pages for the organization or publication giving the award. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help. I just Googled where the author is published and which countries he has profiled. For all the reasons presented earlier, I don't want to create links. If I did, they would be sourced. If you have ideas in cases like this, please suggest them. JEFeditor (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just taking a look at your most recent edit on the Silverstein article, there's a couple problems. One is that you added information without a source (and the article is already a pile of unsourced information, and that should be being scraped out, not added to), the other is that you marked your edit as minor... I understand the instinct, it's just a few words, but any time you are adding or subtracting information other than correcting vandalism, it should not be marked as minor. The "minor" checkbox is for changes like formatting corrections, spelling fixes, perhaps a slight reordering. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- that's fine. I also see the material on the Real Clear sites, which are different from Forbes but owned by Forbes. JEFeditor (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but the statement is not that he writes for those magazines, but that he is a "senior contributor". The "contributor" title is one that Forbes uses to indicate folks they allow to blog on their website (although they have at times reused the blog material in print, I'm given to understand.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your patience. Just a quick talk: When trying to find some relevant references, I found Silverstein's material in Forbes Japan, China, Africa, and the Middle East, not just the Forbes.com site. So it is more accurate to say he writes or contributes to Forbes. I am unsure if those columns run in the magazine. Thanks again. I'm on to a new topic and will incrementally add to my wiki skills. JEFeditor (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you have any questions, let me know. We were all beginners once, and to a reasonable degree of rounding, we all made missteps along the way. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've watched a few videos on creating citations and understand your key points. My brain is swimming right now. I'll come back to this and take a stab at getting the citations and format correct. This is challenging for a beginner, so please be patient if I get it wrong. Having said that, I want to add constructive points to issues I study and represent, and the learning process is necessary, if not mind-boggling. JEFeditor (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- WP:REF has the most key information on what we're looking for in a reference and how to construct them. The other editor's statement that your edits are unconstructive was not accurate, it was a move toward something. These would make adequate references for the fact that he appeared on those outlets (although depending on what's being discussed, it may or may not address notability concerns. Just as an example, an interview talking to Stephen King about his book It would lend to King's notability, but an interview with King about the works of Richard Matheson would not lend to King's notability but to Matheson's. It's what's being discussed, rather than who is doing the discussing, that matters.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know how to correct the edit. I use a hyperlink to create a link to the third-party verification, an 'external' link to their site. I need to figure out how to create an internal link to prove the verification. I don't want to make this mistake concerning other edits to issues or bios. JEFeditor (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Renewables accounted for 86 percent of capacity additions
[1] is too close to the source Renewables accounted for 86% of capacity additions
[2]. Please rephrase your additions in the future. Bogazicili (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)