User talk:Shivoconnor
Hi, this is my talk page feel free to leave a message. Shivoconnor (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Shivoconnor, you are invited to try Wikipedia training modules
[edit]If you're looking for some guidance on how to get started, try these training modules.
|
This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Shivoconnor, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Shivoconnor! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC) |
Welcome
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
A page you started (Pam Smith) has been reviewed!
[edit]Thanks for creating Pam Smith.
User:Blythwood while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:
I've added some standard, useful things to finish off an article on an academic: I've added a link to her faculty page in an external links section (this is what people will want to go to next: it's more useful than linking to a static "staff in the spotlight" profile that won't be updated, and it goes at the bottom), put in a reference list above the external links section. Below that I've added the "authority control" tag that can hold links to her work on library catalogues and journal websites, and activated it. I've also put in a defaultsort tag so she appears in category listings under "S" for "Smith" rather than "P" for "Pam Smith". I've added a few relevant tags, notably the "living people" tag–important because articles on living people often need enhanced screening for vandalism so it's important to mark them. Hope that all makes sense!
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Blythwood}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Blythwood (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Few other stylistic and formatting points worth noting: I don't know how you filled out the journal citations, but it's easiest just to click "cite journal", put in the PMID or DOI and click the magnifying glass: it will fill out the citation for you and there's no need to paste in a url. References at the end of the sentence go after the full stop (a bot automatically fixes these). There's a specific formatting code for putting honours after the person's name, which I've used. I've also tagged the talk page marking the article as a biography article. Blythwood (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Ways to improve Tonks Fawcett
[edit]Hello, Shivoconnor,
Thanks for creating Tonks Fawcett! I edit here too, under the username Lopifalko and it's nice to meet you :-)
I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-
All your sources were primary sources with her authorship apart from 1 in The Tab, a student newspaper. I have added 1 independent reliable source but it needs more.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Lopifalko}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Lopifalko (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Nursing journals
[edit]Hi, thanks for creating articles on notable nursing journals. I have been editing them, to bring them in line with our normal formatting standards and such. Perhaps you can have a look at what I did, to help you with future article creations. If you'd like to expand these articles beyond the bare minimum, you can find somee helpful tips and resources here. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hi again, did you see the above message? You again created a bunch of articles with inappropriate in-line external links, references to articles that do not support the statements made, etc. PLEASE have a look at the changes I made to your articles. At this point you really are creating a lot of work for me and with hardly any extra effort from your part, this could be avoided. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd like to second this, you want to take a look at WP:NJOURNAL. While it's not an "official policy" article, it does document a community consensus: that journals need to be very notable indeed (in other words, there really needs to be extensive articles or even books profiling the journal from an external perspective) for them to be eligible for a Wikipedia page. A lot of the articles you've created don't seem to fit that criteria, or even come particularly close to it–an article with no external sources apart from a citation ranking seems like it would need a lot of extra sources to come close to being eligible to be kept. You may also want to take a look at WP:SELFCITE and WP:REFSPAM. Blythwood (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
June 2019
[edit]
Hello, Shivoconnor. We welcome your contributions, but it appears as if your primary purpose on Wikipedia is to add citations to research published by a small group of researchers.
Scientific articles should mainly reference review articles to ensure that the information added is trusted by the scientific community.
Editing in this way is also a violation of the policy against using Wikipedia for promotion and is a form of conflict of interest in Wikipedia – please see WP:SELFCITE and WP:MEDCOI. The editing community considers excessive self-citing to be form of spamming on Wikipedia (WP:REFSPAM) and the edits will be reviewed and the citations removed where it was not appropriate to add them.
Finally, please be aware that the editing community highly values expert contributors – please see WP:EXPERT. I do hope you will consider contributing more broadly. If you wish to contribute, please first consider citing review articles written by other researchers in your field and which are already highly cited in the literature. If you wish to cite your own research, please start a new thread on the article talk page and add {{requestedit}} to ask a volunteer to review whether or not the citation should be added.
GermanJoe (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia and copyright
[edit]
Hello Shivoconnor, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Young Academy of Scotland have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.
- 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 the 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 legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
- In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse 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 must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Please stop and read!
[edit]
Before creating more journal stubs that cost me more time to clean up than it costs you to create them, PLEASE READ MY REMARKS ABOVE!!!! THANKS. --Randykitty (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
The article Journal of Nursing Management has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Citations 1, 2 and 3 all fail to verify the stated facts they're claimed to verify, let alone proving notability. The only third-party source is an impact-factor calculation.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Blythwood (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Women and Birth moved to draftspace
[edit]An article you recently created, Women and Birth, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Viztor (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Please respond
[edit]Hi again, I feel like I'm talking to the wall here. Do you read these messages? When you add links to journals to the List of nursing journals, please italicize them. And, please, please, PLEASE stop for a moment and read my above messages. The articles that you create are incorrectly formatted and you are creating a lot of unnecessary work for other editors who have to clean up after you. As most people simply remove the external links that you make, no links to the journals themselves are left in the articles. And please stop adding "references" that absolutely do not support the statements made. Finally, could you perhaps acknowledge that you see these messages? Your continued editing the way you do is starting to become disruptive. --Randykitty (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
June 2019
[edit]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. DMacks (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Shivoconnor: I am sad that it may come to this, but your edits are on balance a net negative, creating lots of articles whose main topics and included content often do not appear to meet our minimal standards and instead are just a lot of work for other editors. All editors are expected to comply with our notability guideline and verifiability policy. Margaret Scott-Wright appears to be on the right track with topic, but contains close-paraphrase/copyright-violations, and the nursing journal articles are uniformly problematic in topic and unverifiable/miscited content. DMacks (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Shivoconnor, once again, we do not permit spam external links in the body of an article text unless there is a very, very good reason. You have been told this on three occasions now. It might be said that this is a minor formatting issue, which is true, but it's alarming to me as it suggests you aren't paying attention to the comments on here, to how more experienced contributors have cleaned up your articles after you published them, and because it makes work for other people to do. We genuinely would like you to be a net positive, because expert contributors are valuable, but it distresses me that message does not seem to be getting across, especially when it's happening three hours after you received a final warning before blocking. I will revert any future edits of this type you make as vandalism without exception. Blythwood (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
- Your edit summaries are also substantively incorrect in many cases...please see the WP:OR#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources (citing a thesis for information about the thesis, citing the first article in a journal for when the journal started or who is its editor, citing an organization's website for information about the organization). DMacks (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
A page you started (Critical Care Nurse) has been reviewed!
[edit]Thanks for creating Critical Care Nurse.
User:Girth Summit while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:
Some additional secondary independent sources to demonstrate that this passes WP:NJOURNAL would be useful - at the moment, all but one of the refs are the journal itself.
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Girth Summit}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
GirthSummit (blether) 07:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
The article Nursing Research has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails WP:NJOURNALS - all the sources are taken from the journal or, the single exception, do not mention the journal.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cabayi (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Your articles need (that's need, not "it would be nice if...") reliable, verifiable, independent sources. I would expand further but I can see you've been told pretty much the same several times already. Cabayi (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
The article Critical Care Nurse has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails to meet WP:NJOURNALS.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cabayi (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
June 2019
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. DMacks (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)- I am sad that it has come to this, but your continued ignoring of many experienced-editor's concerns (including specific advice and pointers to our site policies and guidelines) is not acceptable. DMacks (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Copyright problem on Heart & Lung
[edit]
Content you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the Elsevier webpage, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. For copyright reasons, some of the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. This is your second warning for copyright issues, so please be aware that this is a serious issue, and you need to read and understand our copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Deletion discussion about Research in Nursing & Health
[edit]Hello, Shivoconnor,
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Cwmhiraeth and it's nice to meet you :-)
I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Research in Nursing & Health should be deleted. Your comments are welcome over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research in Nursing & Health .
You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Cwmhiraeth}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Women and Birth concern
[edit]Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Women and Birth, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Women and Birth
[edit]
Hello, Shivoconnor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Women and Birth".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Bkissin (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Aisha Holloway
[edit]Hello, Shivoconnor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Aisha Holloway".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)