User talk:Schematica

A page you started (Lucy Burns Institute) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Lucy Burns Institute, Schematica!

Wikipedia editor Sulfurboy just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Great work. Thanks.

To reply, leave a comment on Sulfurboy's talk page.

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi Schematica! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Technical 13 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Schematica, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! – S. Rich (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

A couple of notes

Hey, good working with you the last day or so. Together we're making these article better. A couple of pieces of advice that you might appreciate:

Sources affiliated with the subject of an article (such as websites and press releases) aren't prohibited per se, so you don't have to remove every last one. The important thing is to adhere to the criteria listed in WP:ABOUTSELF.
Please keep in mind the often-overlooked WP:NOTEVERYTHING. In essence, just because the subject of the article was mentioned in a news story doesn't mean it automatically gets real estate in WP. Listing every single time a subject is mentioned gives the article a promotional feel. WP has a strict anti-promotion policy. It also exposes you personally to the perception that you're not here to build an encyclopedia, which could get you in trouble. My recommendation, focus on making the articles comprehensive and balanced representations of the reliable sources. Try incorporating more material from this source, for instance. You and your articles will appear more credible that way.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple additional pieces of advice that might make your day a little easier:

Check out WP:CITEKILL and WP:BOMBARD. There's really no benefit to throwing up 5 sources that all say the same thing. When it comes to verifiability, one citation per sentence is enough. And when it comes to notability, no number of sources that mention the subject incidentally will suffice; all that matters are sources that have substantial coverage.
Please be sure to read WP:BLOGS. You keep throwing up blog sources even after I've referred you to that guideline a number of times. Consider sparing us both the trouble.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: long edit summaries do not help other editors. This one, which says "One of the more robust online models for achieving this goal is called Judgepedia, which fashions itself like Wikipedia and offers one of the biggest databases on judges and courts." looks like a quotation from the reference you added. If this is a good quotation, it might be added to the citation as part of the reference. It will not be part of the article and it is not informative to your fellow editors. Sometimes we just say "ce" for 'copy edit' or "rvv" for 'revert vandalism'. In AFD discussions, we will just say "k" or "d" to summarize what our !vote is. (WP:GLOSSARY has more.) For more info, see WP:EDITSUMMARY. – S. Rich (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability tags & advice

Don't get "bent out of shape" because a notability tag is posted. Tags are indexed for other editors to see. They review such indexes and look for interesting articles to work on. So a notability tag can have a small positive impact on the article when people come by to see why it is tagged. That is, they will often seek to improve the article. (Notice how the template has links in it for sources?) Now for the advice, you are jumping into the deep end of Wikipedia feet first, which is fine. Continue your efforts. You cannot break Wikipedia. Please don't get frustrated. With this in mind, you should strike your comment about "disingenuous" because the remark reflects your frustration rather than Fleishman's motives or behavior. Do so with the <s></s> Wiki markup at the bottom of the editing window. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snark

Re this comment, thank you, and I'm sorry, I've never noticed you could do that in Google Books. Please do try to keep the snark level down, as it only leads to more tension. By the way, you might get a kick out of this funny. P.S., I'd still like to know how the Marketing Weekly News and Telecommunications Weekly sources discussed Judgepedia, if you know. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some other things that might add to the tension would be you accusing me of having a "pattern of promotional activities across all the articles you've been working on," without offering any specific examples. [1] I'm not really sure how taking an an entirely self-sourced article, cleaning it up and adding five reliable secondary sources is "promotional." [2] Or my removal of a bunch of text straight from an organization's website, and the insertion of a number of reliable sources here [3]. You ask me to WP:AGF, but then you condescendingly write "Please say you're serious before making me go through the trouble of proving something that you can easily verify for yourself." Easily? It took you 13 sources to cobble together your case. Over at Ballotpedia, you remove a dead link and replace it with a "citation needed" tag. You're not supposed to do that. You're supposed to tag the link as a dead link, and preferably check internet archives for a version of the page [4]. You're intent on wanting articles to be deleted, but it seems clear from your comments that you've never actually sought reliable sources about the subjects. Yet you have such strong feelings about why they must be deleted. Take Citizens In Charge Foundation, which you nominated for deletion without apparently making any attempts to find reliable sources. I Googled the organization, and within several minutes I'd obtained a variety of easily accessible reliable sources [5]. It seems to me you should have done that before nominating the article for deletion. You're eager to delete Judgepedia, but you don't know how to, or are unwilling to learn to do a Google Book search. Or how about this edit, where the citation at the end of the paragraph clearly verifies the first sentence (which is a common citation style, so as not to clutter the prose), but instead of checking it, you slap a "citation needed" tag on it. [6] Are these the behaviors of someone trying in good faith to improve the articles? They appear to me as more of a pattern of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Schematica (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could go through this list and explain my good faith on each one, if you think it would help ease the tension between us? It would take some time. Or I'm open to other suggestions? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Allegheny Rugby Union may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.