User talk:Sean Waltz O'Connell

Welcome!

Hi Sean Waltz O'Connell! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Hi Sean Waltz O'Connell! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Makhanda, South Africa that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for the notice and assistance. I will review the specifics of these qualifications for future reference. I presumed because it was one single change it would be minor. But in retrospect your flag makes perfect sense. Thanks for the heads up! Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Hello, I'm Wiiformii. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, South African jurisprudence, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Wiiformii (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wiiformii ,

I see you removed every single edit I've made on this article.

Can you please explain this absolute course of action for me? The citations are for a legal page and according to legal citation standards as well as wikipedia guidelines. The citations, including the one's for sections you removed referenced the "African Legal Journal" as well as other reliable sources, including South Africa's Constitution.

I am trying to expand this page for the sake of adding context to South African Jurisprudence, a very important concept in our legal system. Could we have a dialogue about your concerns before subsequent edits are made? - Kind regards.

Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Ernest Hemingway bibliography

Hello, @Sean Waltz O'Connell. I noticed your edits at Ernest Hemingway bibliography and noticed that you are adding one period for each edit. I am not an admin but I would like to tell you that this can look like you are gaming the system by adding to your edit count. While you may have good faith, I encourage you to make the edits in one edit. Thank you, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 09:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi {{u|Cowboygilbert}} Thanks for your input! I wanted to separate each edit for legibility. It was my impression that it would be the best course of action. But thanks for your insight, i'll consider that moving forward. </nowiki> Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "separate each edit for legibility"? Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 09:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

u|Cowboygilbert For ease of reference to the edits. I'll take a look at the links you sent. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to John Donne

Please read MOS:PEACOCK and WP:RS, as suggested in the edit summary. All that puffery and opinion seems to go beyond the required neutral point of view. Instead, use "use facts and attribution to demonstrate".

WP:BRD recommends discussion at this point, to avoid any suggestion that you are edit warring.

--AntientNestor (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AntientNestor,

I would be happy to go over it with you so that we can enrich this historical page. When it comes to the additions in question - If you would suggest more references, I am happy to do so, rather than a blanket removal of the edits. Some people tend to do blanket removals without discourse as a form of racking up edits, so naturally its best we have a discourse to guard against any such impressions.

If there are certain words or connotations that you query, let's have a discourse about it to see if it can be adjusted. Although, when it comes to the effect an author had on the 20th century, as well as other writers - A certain sense of description is necessary to illustrate such impact. Could you cite which exact statements you regard as 'puffery' so that we can address your concerns to uplift this article?

Kind regards. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best place for discussions about such a prominent article would be on the its own talk page, where everybody may see. AntientNestor (talk) 08:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aatif Rashid (July 9)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Aatif Rashid 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.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sean Waltz O'Connell! 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! DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Raladic (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raladic, Thanks for the notice on this, however I'm already aware that this is a contentious topic, it says that right on top of the talk page. As such I have stuck to the necessary procedures and neutrality, as you can observe in the page's talk page. You have repeated notions that I have already addressed in my responses, so I don't see any likelihood of us settling the inclusion of the objective criticism additions to the article. So I believe we should try now some sort of dispute resolution, as recommended by the rules. I took this issue to WP:NPOVN. Please refer to the page. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard notification that is given to all editors when they first make edits on a contentious topic. Some editors miss the CTOP warning at the top of article talk pages, which is why we have policies to inform users on their individual talk page with this template.

As the box explains, you may us the Ctopics/aware template on your own talk page to indicate your awareness of contentious topics if you have not previously gotten a notification about it.

As the template at the top says, it doesn't imply something is wrong with your edits, it just ensures that you are aware of it. Raladic (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to follow up on Raladic's reply: "contentious topic" has a special meaning at Wikipedia beyond the English sense of the word that has concrete ramifications. In brief, all editors are on a much shorter leash when editing such articles, and may face sanctions such as suspension of editing privileges faster and with less warning than is the case with non-contentious articles. The presence of the ArbCom message on your talk page essentially flips the toggle on you as an editor from "Oh, I wasn't aware" to "You have been informed, and have no excuse" in case you get sanctioned, just as it does for me, Raladic, and anyone who has received this message. It does *not* mean you are being called out for anything; it is strictly a performative utterance changing your awareness status regarding contentious topics from "unaware" to "aware", and nothing more. Does that make sense? Mathglot (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congenital adrenal hyperplasia

Hi, Sean Waltz O'Connell. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, and in particular, for the ones to Congenital adrenal hyperplasia. The content you added, particularly in the history section about ancient and 19th century didn't appear to have any foundation in the Riepe-2011 article whose citation you added (not '2010', as in your citation template), and so unfortunately I had to undo your edits to the article. But they are not gone, they are all in the history of the article, so you can restore them if you can provide a citation that backs up your added content. Thanks also for using the {{cite journal}} template to cite your content.

One other thing concerns the use of page numbers: please note that the |page= parameter should be used to specify the exact page (or page range) that verifies the content immediately preceding the citation. If your solar article occupies pages 79–114 of the astronomy journal, and the solar temperature is listed on pages 84 to 86, then the page parameter in your {{cite journal}} citation should be |page=84–86, and not the first and last page numbers of the article. (Commas are legit, as are combined forms like |page=84–86, 91, 101–103.)

Besides the contentious topic issue above that you are already aware of, there is also the issue of reliable sources for articles on biomedical topics. I won't say anything further about it at this point as you seem to be on top of things, but if you haven't delved into this in depth before, I urge you to read up on it at the link.

If you have any questions about citations or anything else regarding how to edit Wikipedia, the Wikipedia:Teahouse is there to help. Thanks, and once again, welcome to Wikipedia! Mathglot (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mathglot, Thank you very much for your guidance and for clarifying the citation standards. The oversight regarding the history section on Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia is regrettable. My intention was to provide context based on historical insights I’d gathered, but a mix-up in my notes paragraphs led to incorrect citations. I see now how that was misapplied and will be more vigilant in verifying each citation against its relevant content. I’ll review and if I intend to replenish the content, source the historical information properly before attempting re-integration in the future, as suggested. Thank you as well for the notes regarding page references—I’ll be sure to double-check those details. I appreciate the warm welcome and your constructive feedback. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sean, you are most welcome. Feel free to contact me anytime on my Talk page, and there is also the WP:Teahouse where many experienced editors hang out and answer questions about editing Wikipedia. Happy editing!
P.S. One minor mistake on my part regarding the explanation of page range above: because my example listed more than one page, the parameter alias |pages= should have been used, not the singular 'page'. Both are valid and generate the same output, but the convention is to use 'pages' when more than one is involved. Mathglot (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]