User talk:Steyncham

Image copyright problem with Image:MW-small.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:MW-small.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gabarrou

I hope you don't mind but I have moved your Patrick Gabarrou article into mainspace, crediting you. That way I can link to it. Thanks, Ericoides 12:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Yves Bréchet.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Yves Bréchet.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Links to user pages and sandboxes

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to user pages or sandboxes, as you did at Property graphs. Since these pages have not been accepted as articles, user pages, sandboxes and drafts are not suitable for linking in articles. and such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been deleted, please do not re-add any such links, thank you - Arjayay (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WePlanet moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to WePlanet. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability, it is promotional and reads like an advertisement and while the first Guardian article ("A long overdue moment?") is decent, however the rest of the sources are more what the organisation has to say, rather than what people are saying about the organisation, which is what is required to meet the criteria. Additionally, while the Guardian article has some third party commentary from, e.g. Percival, Parr and Monbiot, the article here focuses exclusively on the organisations's own views, making it unbalanced by our policies. 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. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I have a hard time understanding why this article would not pass the notability criterion : I cite 6 articles from the Guardian and one from the Wall Street Journal that explicitly mention the organization (under its forme name of replanet) and the corresponding campaigns that are mentioned in the text

What should I do before submitting the article for review? Steyncham (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to imply that the journalists from the Guardian are just presenting the view point of WePlanet : but these articles are written by independent journalists, whose job it is to provide a balanced viewpoint, , not by representatives of the organization they talk about! If a newspaper like the Guardian does not count as a valid secondary source, which does??? Steyncham (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steyncham. Sorry I didn't see this reply here earlier, it seems that I may have explained things poorly.

First, in terms of notability for organisations and companies, we actually have three different tests that are sometimes conflated: whether a source is secondary, independence of the author and independence of the content, and a source must pass all three (as well as reliability and substantiality).

Second, the tone of the article is entirely separate from notability: an article subject might be extremely notable but also have a promotional article, or have a perfectly neutral article but not be notable. You are entirely correct that one does not affect the other, but both types of article might end up converted to draft.

Now, for specifics:

As an example, we can take the WSJ article "Nuclear Power’s Rebound Causes Rift Among Environmentalists", currently the 9th reference. It is used to verify that nuclear is most visible rift between the newer environmental organizations like WePlanet and the older established ones, but it does not actually mention RePlanet. While the inference might be obvious, using it as a source in this way is damaging to text–source integrity and may be inappropriate synthesis in many cases. More relevant to whether an article is published or not, it it fails the substantiality test, or "significant coverage", as it does not address the topic of the article directly and in-detail, and therefore could not be counted as one of the core references establishing notability.

"Ban European flights and car use in cities to hurt Putin, report urges", on the other hand, is fine for supporting the sentence it is linked to, but would fail several different tests. First of which, substantiality, because while it's all related to WePlanet, almost none of it is actually about WePlanet, and so it's not really possible to support anything beyond the sentence "they wrote this report". But while it passes on independence of the author, it also has very little independent content. Finally, because it mostly repeats and summarises the report, it does not make sufficient analytic or evaluative claims about the report, it is not considered a secondary source with respect to the report itself or WePlanet (though both the report itself and the Guardian article might be considered a secondary source for the topic of, say, "use of gas in Europe").

I could go on, but I think it would be easier if I left things for questions, so that I could answer anything you're actually unsure about instead of expanding on everything. Just a quick overview of the newly added sources: a lot of them don't mention the article subject. They would immediately fail substantiality, so unless you really must use one of them, it is better to remove them. They really just clutter things up and make it harder for an article reviewer to see the articles that do pass the tests. The GMWatch articles seem OK on that regard, but I've not looked into whether they have reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. On to style and tone.

Tone is a matter of article text specifically, so it doesn't matter what your sources are at this stage. As an encyclopedic work, we do not abide subjective or aesthetic statements in our own voice, and care should be taken not to simply repeat rhetoric when we describe the argument taking place. We can say what the viewpoints are, but, especially for advocacy organisations, we are not here to make arguments for or against them. This is different from news style, and even the best news sources may need to be rewritten in tone to be used on Wikipedia.

As an example, the article states older environmental NGOs and established green parties, which have often stuck to anti-technology positions inherited from the 20th century, [...] question the relevance of this ideological legacy. This would not really be out of place in a news article, which blends fact, analysis and opinion, sometimes as quotes, sometimes without attribution (though, checking the source cited, it does not in fact support this phrasing). This is not at all appropriate on Wikipedia, and in fact prohibited by policy.

Even if it were an actual quote, and demarcated with quotation marks, it would be dubious to include. This campaign intends to raise awareness about all the negative impacts of the use of charcoal as a fuel, especially for deforestation and indoor pollution. "The campaign aims to be a catalyst for change, driving widespread adoption of sustainable alternatives and prompting governments to enforce regulations that protect forests and promote responsible land management practices" is a second example: There is just no reason to include the quote here, it's meaningless fluff made to sound good, especially when there's plenty of more informative content you can pull from the two sources, like "UN FAO says deforestation 4 times faster" or "258k deaths from indoor air pollution" or "these are the 5 key strategies of the campaign" (not in those words of course). Like seriously, don't pick aspirational fluff over telling people what the campaign will even do! Works written in other styles might (appropriately) prioritise those things, so it can be hard to adjust, but the content here needs to be appropriate for an encyclopedia, even if it might make it dry and boring (it doesn't have to be dry and boring, and ideally it shouldn't be, but if that's what it takes to remove the promotional tone, then start from there).

That's pretty much it on the tone end I think. Again, if you have any questions at all, feel free to shoot me a message, either by starting a new topic on my talk page, or by putting something like {{u|Alpha3031}} in your comment (see Help:Notifications). Good luck! Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to address your remarks, but I am a bit confused when you say that some of the additional sources I had previously added are not really necessary because they were not directly about Weplanet. In fact I added them to take into account neutrality requirements because the secondary sources I had originally included (mostly from The Guardian) which were actually about Weplanet, were all rather positive. Which is why I enlarged the topic to ecomodernism in the first section to include new references that are more balanced. In fact the only one among these new references which is directly about Weplanet is not really a secondary source because it is from and anti-GMO activist website. I did not find a negative article directly about weplanet from a reputable mainstream media outlet Steyncham (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, it is not necessary to actively seek out sources that take a specific, opposing tone in order to achieve a tone that is considered neutral by policy. As long as you start by primarily using sources that meet the criteria for notability*, and omit or rephrase (or, if appropriate, attribute) the parts where they appear to be giving subjective opinions or otherwise taking a dramatic or opinionated tone, then the article would generally be good enough to publish, though of course people would still try to change it or discuss changes to it.

Even if it isn't enough, that is where you should start, since pulling in sources about other, not directly related topics is considered original synthesis, and causes issues with other parts of policy, namely the fact that articles should be directly based on what is explicitly written in reliable sources, meaning that unless a reliable source explicitly makes the connection, you would be trading one issue with another one.

* that would be, one addressing the subject directly and in detail, in its own words, giving fact-based analysis rather than opinion, and authored and published by a reputable and independent organisation. If you find what you think are the best three at meeting all of those criteria, it would usually help another reviewer pick things up faster, and also guide appropriate article development. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: WePlanet (October 27)

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

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.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Additionally, please see WP:CITEFOOT to fix where you place the citations.

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:WePlanet 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.

Tavantius (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Steyncham! 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! Tavantius (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]