User talk:Socialsciencenerd

Socialsciencenerd, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Socialsciencenerd! 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 Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Citation styles

Thanks for your contributions, but I noticed an issue: Many citation styles are used on Wikipedia, but generally speaking you should not duplicate content from footnotes into an additional section. (This increases the maintenance burden) nor should you change citation styles without first conducting a discussion on the article's associated talk page. See WP:CITEVAR for details. - MrOllie (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MrOllie, Thanks for getting in touch. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, so I appreciate your comments. As far as I can see, I have not changed any citation styles. Rather, I have improved existing citations by adding missing information and by making inconsistent references consistent with the predominant citation style. Regarding the duplication of content from footnotes into a Reference section: As you know, this is standard practice in academic publications. There is always a Notes section and a Reference/bibliography section. The advantage is that readers can get a better overview of the works cited. The alphabetical order of the Reference section also helps them to locate individual publications. I have noticed numerous Wikipedia articles with Reference sections that duplicate Notes. These would all need to be deleted, according to your logic. Would it be possible for you to send me the link to the section in the Wikipedia Manual of Style (or related source) that prohibits duplication of content from Notes to References? I would appreciate your help. Best wishes, Socialsciencenerd Socialsciencenerd (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Socialsciencenerd, It might be standard practice in academic publications, but it is definitely not standard practice on Wikipedia. There are some articles that have a notes and a references section that either include separate information, or use Harvard style citations to associate one with the other without duplicating information. In any case, switching to a Notes+References citation style is indeed a change of citation style and is exactly the sort of thing that should be avoided per the guideline I have already linked for you. MrOllie (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrOllie, Thanks for explaining this. I have just realized that your deletion of the Reference section in the article "Rational Choice Theory" has caused a problem: Some of the full references that had been connected with Harvard style-notes are now gone. For example, Hollis and Nell (1975); Foley (1998, 2003); Schram and Caterino (2006). What do you suggest we do? Socialsciencenerd (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Socialsciencenerd, You're right, that one wasn't actually newly added. Thanks for pointing that out! I put things back to how they stood on March 30. The correct thing to do here would be to migrate these off of the inline parenthetical style to the prevailing style of the article. Getting rid of inline parenthetical references is the one citation style change that does have Wikipedia-wide consensus. MrOllie (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrOllie, Thank you for your quick reply. I'm happy to help fix the citation style. But I want to make sure I got you right: The prevailing style in this article seems to be footnotes. So should I convert the Harvard-style references into footnotes? Also, at present, the works cited in the Reference section aren't listed alphabetically according to the authors' last names. Should I change this, too? Best wishes, Socialsciencenerd (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MrOllie, May I ask you for your advice? I have left a couple of queries on the Talk page of the article on "Rational choice theory". Could you please tell me how long I should wait for people to respond? Do you have any advice as to how I could proceed if nobody replies? I would be grateful for any guidance that you may have. All best, Socialsciencenerd (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Socialsciencenerd, There's no deadline here, sometimes it can be quite a while. Per WP:BRD, it is rarely a problem if you just go ahead and edit, if someone has an issue they'll just revert and (hopefully) respond to you on the talk page.

You can help other people out by using talk pages in the way they expect, though - in particular new sections should always be started at the bottom of the page (use the 'new section' link at the top of the page and this will happen automatically). By the way, if you have general questions like this, WP:TEAHOUSE is a good place to ask them. That way you aren't waiting on any one particular person. MrOllie (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MrOllie, Many thanks for your reply! I have just had a look at WP:BRD. Very helpful. And thank you for explaining how to use the talk pages. I have now moved my queries to the bottom of the page. I'll raise future questions in WP:TEAHOUSE, then. All best, Socialsciencenerd (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Socialsciencenerd, 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 at the help desk, 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 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 help you get started. Happy editing! CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started

Finding your way around

Editing articles

Getting help

Frequently asked questions
Cheatsheet
Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
Help pages
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

Adopt a User

Hi, sure can I adopt you as new user - meaning I will have from now on a close eye on your contributions and will answer any question you have (if I can, I hope so). For the very first beginning I left you lots of stuff above to read and study - a warm welcome to Wikipedia !

CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Emotional choice theory has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Emotional choice theory. Thanks! –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Novem Linguae, Thank you very much for your message! And many thanks for alerting me to the copyright violation detector. This is a pretty amazing tool that I hadn't been aware of. I will make the changes you suggested right away... Many thanks and all best, Socialsciencenerd (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Novem Linguae, Thanks again for your feedback. Can I ask you for your advice? I have now revised the section on political psychologist Rose McDermott's critique. But I'm not sure if I did it the right way. Rather than paraphrasing her, I used quotation marks to cite her directly. Is this ok? Or would it be better to get rid of some of the direct quotes and to paraphrase her? All best, Socialsciencenerd (talk) 09:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friend. Thanks for being so receptive to feedback. Your changes look good and comply with Wikipedia policies on copyright. Good job. My personal preference is to minimize quotes in articles as much as possible. I talk about this in detail in my essay, User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Problems with quotes. But that is purely a style/preference thing and not Wikipedia policy. Just food for thought. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Novem Linguae, Thank you for your kind reply! And many thanks for sharing your essay on the Problems with quotes. How interesting - I hadn't thought about quotes that way. Your point about quotes raising "undue weight issues" strikes me as particularly relevant. I will think about ways to reduce the number of quotes in the article (and in my future articles). Personally, I also find that the presence of many quotes makes texts less readable and more confusing. I think my position would be that quotes should be limited to important phrases that need to be cited in the original to ensure precision. All best, Socialsciencenerd (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Emotional choice theory has been accepted

Emotional choice theory, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CommanderWaterford, you work faster than I can look! Thank you very much for your kind words. I'm glad you're happy with the article. That's really motivating. I look forward to working on the next ones. Many thanks for your time and help! All best, Socialsciencenerd (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommanderWaterford

CommanderWaterford is now blocked indefinitely for misuse of editing privileges'. He was my adopter too. I am sorry but you will now have to find a new adopter. I would be happy to answer any questions you have. Good luck! StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 13:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello StarshipSLS, thanks very much for letting me know. CommanderWaterford struck me as a very committed and supportive Wikipedian. So I'm sorry to hear that he got himself into trouble. Many thanks for your willingness to answer questions. That's very kind of you. I'm currently working on another new article, which turns out to be more difficult and time-consuming than I thought. If and when questions come up, I will be in touch. Thank you! All best, Socialsciencenerd (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Socialsciencenerd: I also have a suggestion for a replacement adopter, @JackReynoldsADogOwner. He is my adopter and knows a lot about Wikipedia's policies. He is currently adopting three users including myself. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 21:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Socialsciencenerd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, for some reason, my IP address has been blocked. However, it isn't an open or anonymising proxy, such as a VPN service. Believe it or not, but I haven't used a VPN service for the past 5 years. Could you please help me get unblocked? I would be grateful for your support. Socialsciencenerd (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In order to look into this, we need to know what your IP address is. If you do not want to post it publicly, you may use WP:UTRS to provide it privately. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hello 331dot, thank you for your speedy reply! I'll do that. Thank youSocialsciencenerd (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 331dot, sorry to bother you again. May I ask you for your guidance? I would like to provide my IP address privately. However, when I just had a look at WP:UTRS I wasn't sure how to proceed. Should I click on “Submit an unblock request” and then click on “Appeal my Block”? Apologies for trying to steal your time with this. I would be very grateful for any advice that you may have. Socialsciencenerd (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what you do. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, 331dot!Socialsciencenerd (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Rational choice theory into Rationalism. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for alerting me to this, Diannaa! I hadn't been aware that it is possible to provide attribution. I'll do this right away... Socialsciencenerd (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, sorry to bother you, but it looks like I got this wrong. Can I ask a favour: Do you think you could have a quick look at the "Criticism" section of the page on Rationalism? How should I provide the attribution in practice?Socialsciencenerd (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution is provided via the edit summary. You need to say in your edit summary at the time you perform the edit where you got the content from. If you forget, you can add the required attribution in a subsequent edit summary. — Diannaa (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Diannaa. Sorry to steal your time with my incompetence.Socialsciencenerd (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem! Happy to help. — Diannaa (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Robin Vallacher. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. Dcotos (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, Dcotos! Back to the drawing board...Socialsciencenerd (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Dcotos, may I ask you for your advice: Does your concern about my adding public domain content apply only to the introduction of the page on Robin Vallacher? Or does it also include the section on Publications? In other words, should I include an attribution template to the Publications section? I would be grateful for any advice that you may have. All best,Socialsciencenerd (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Socialsciencenerd for both.

There are legal, ethical, and organizational standard considerations regarding the use of close paraphrasing. To understand it in details, you may go through WP:PARAPHRASE and for introduction you can't copy paste, please go through WP:PARAPHRASE.

As a general guideline, avoid copying content from various sources to prevent both copyright infringement and plagiarism. Exceptions may apply, but this rule encompasses material from charity or non-profit websites, educational and scholarly publications, news sources, and any content lacking a copyright notice. If there's no copyright notice, assume the work is protected by copyright. Dcotos (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your reply and for the useful information, Dcotos. This is all very helpful to know. I will revise the text in the coming days. Many thanks for your time and advice. Socialsciencenerd (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. cheers! Dcotos (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rich Smith, can I ask you for your advice? When I just had a look at my draft article on Robin Vallacher, I thought I had forgotten to include a reference to Jorge E. Hirsch's statement that a scholar with an h-index of 60 is "truly unique". So I inserted this. But then I realised that you had actually deleted this reference. Don't we need such a reference to provide information about the source of Hirsch's statement?Socialsciencenerd (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reference was, as far as I saw, a link to the Wikipedia article about it. Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference, hence why I removed it - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 17:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply, Rich Smith. And many thanks for explaining. I have just removed the reference to Wikipedia again. Take careSocialsciencenerd (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Vallacher moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Robin Vallacher. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and not ready for main-space and have copyrighted content . I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Dcotos (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robin Vallacher (March 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Spinster300 were:

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.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Notable, but needs to be rewritten neutrally. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

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:Robin Vallacher 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.

Spinster300 (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptance of Robin Vallacher

I am perplexed that this article was marked as "not neutral", there is nothing of the sort in the article. I have therefore resubmitted and accepted the article. However, it could do with a few secondary sources, the Hindustani times is weak as it is hard to find. I suggest also linking a pdf of his thesis, which is probably online at the university. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Robin Vallacher

Hello, Socialsciencenerd,

Thank you for creating Robin Vallacher.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

An 81% match of copied and pasted content, as found here: https://copypatrol.toolforge.org/en?filter=all&filterPage=Robin%20Vallacher&drafts=0&revision=1195610193. Please address this issue be summarising in your own words, thank you.

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 begin it with {{Re|Spinster300}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Spinster300 (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative view. Since much of what is similar are titles, take this with a grain of salt. However, adding secondary sources would be good. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]