User talk:Nurse12

Welcome...

Hello, Nurse12, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Lizzius (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzius (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing on Scott Bundgaard

Hi Nurse12! I was reviewing some of your edits on Scott Bundgaard and I believe a few of them are problematic (referencing Scott's personal website as RS, some that appear to amount to WP:OR when I reviewed the websites you linked). I have reverted a few, but since you made so many that I believe need to be addressed, I have also listed Scott's biography at the BLP noticeboard. Lizzius (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lizzius. Thank you for taking time to review these edits. I respectfully disagree that referencing Scott's personal website as RS is problematic in that the content provides WP:Secondary and WP:PSTS. This content is relevant, sensible and conforms to content policies, esp WP:SELFCITE in referencing Scott's personal website as RS. Also, a comment was made elsewhere by you that this page appears to be akin to a CV. No reference to Business Career or Professional Career has been included by intention in order to revert to the integrity of this project. Please use as a reference WP created for other past and present Arizona elected officials, such as Doug Ducey. In comparison, Scott's WP is clean, organized and retains a NPOV within existing WP policy. Prior to these edits, paid advocates (such as User:Manofradio had hijacked Scott's WP and corrupted the page with non-neutral POV, which violates WP policies about COI, Wikipedia:WikiProject Integrity, Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. I welcome your dialogue and look forward to discussing further edits with you and the community. Nurse12 (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Nurse12[reply]

The links to his personal websites are still blogs expressing personal opinions on behalf of those directly connected to Scott, and many of the sources you cite don't directly say what you attribute to them (as an example: Scott's past as a broker). This amounts to WP:OR in the strictest sense. It would be best to find and link to sources that directly support your claims. Also, can you provide the diffs that prove User:Manofradio (or any of the other editors that used to edit the article) was a paid editor? Anything else would be casting aspersions, and I would rather assume positive intent from those that came before us. Lastly, alluding to the history of this article makes it seem as if you are not necessarily new to editing at this particular article, even though your account is just a few days old. I don't think there's anything wrong with a WP:FRESHSTART, though as you well know any potential COI's should be disclosed. Lizzius (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted some of your edits to Ron Gould as they were problematic from a BLP standpoint. Your edit left a highly contentious title in the main article, and was placed at an inappropriate point which would seem to give it undue weight. I also see here that Ron Gould is connected directly with Scott Bundgaard's resignation/ethics investigation. Lizzius (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for help from the WP community, because I'm concerned about your accusations and behavior toward me. WP is not supposed to be a battleground. WP:BATTLEGROUND Nurse12 (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)nurse12[reply]

I'm not sure why anyone would think I was a paid advocate of Scott. If you can find any way he has paid, me I'd like to see it. I have no monetary interest in him at all and do not appreciate the slandering. Manofradio (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nurse12, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Nurse12! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyright at Lighting and Wind

Hello Nurse12! I reverted an edit of yours to Lighting (the one that was a direct copy from the Scientific American article you were using regarding over-exposure to light and cancer), but left one that was a really close paraphrase. I also reverted one from Wind, as it too was a direct copy. Can you take a look at this edit and change it a bit? The information from the article is really compelling, and it could definitely contribute to the encyclopedia if incorporated correctly. Here is the template information regarding Wikipedia and Copyright:

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Lizzius (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing at Scott Bundgaard, etc.

Almost as obsessive as you combing through mine to find articles I created as part of Women-in-Red edit-a-thons... And my contribution history is just a little bit longer than yours. As it is, I welcome discussion about content and you can see the Teahouse discussion here. Hopefully we get an answer, though I think if this continues we may have to find some sort of other dispute resolution process to use.

Oh, and one more quick request: please sign your contributions on talk pages. I think I've seen 3 that have been missing them, and while there's a helpful little bot that runs around and fixes those errors occasionally it can get missed. Lizzius (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "almost as obsessive." Your statement implies that you believe that because you've made more contributions than I have on WP and because you've made contributions as some part of an event, that you should be excused from following WP policies. Neither of the first two articles you created - and the only two I reviewed, by the way - hold up to your own level of scrutiny that you're working to apply to me. Please keep in mind that you've been registered on WP for about two months longer than I have. As I've mentioned to you before, WP has a policy about people such as yourself who aggressively pursue new users on WP: WP:NOOB, WP:DONTBITE. Nurse12 (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, just a note that it had to take you just as much time to go through my history as it took for me to "obsessively" go through yours (trust me, I know that my 500 or so edits is nothing in comparison with most experienced editors). And as you noted: we're both new editors. Resources like the Teahouse are tremendously valuable for both of us, and it's important that we read policies to make sure we are constructively editing. Lizzius (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]