User talk:ConstantPlancks

Hello, ConstantPlancks! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} 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 name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 06:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Thank you!

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 14, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 03:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Sheila Ford Hamp, 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. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.

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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sheila Ford Hamp and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Sheila Ford Hamp, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, 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.

Theroadislong (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ConstantPlancks! Having an article 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! Theroadislong (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself, as you did at Sheila Ford Hamp, you may be blocked from editing. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Ford Hamp, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. 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!

Theroadislong (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Midway (2019 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doolittle. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to the biography of Brian Mast are quite extensive, and I think some might interpret them to be whitewashing his political legacy. Regardless of my opinion, I hope that you, I, and others could discuss this on the biography's Talk page before you execute such substantial revisions again. Thank you, and I hope we can cooperate successfully to make Wikipedia better. - AppleBsTime (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already discussed the changes at talk. Please check next time and no edit warring. LittleJerry (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're playing at, or what interest or animosity you have towards that author, but claiming that I'm astroturfing spam is a personal attack. I see other warnings on this page regarding your editing; I'd heed them. SN54129 22:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What warnings on this page? The one about the article I recreated before it was created? You should read it sine the warning editor stopped because he was wrong. Also, I didn't claim YOU were astroturfing. I said the presence of 5 separate citations and naming that author twice in an article where he has no expertise or significant opinion is astroturfing. He's a food and nutrition professor with no significant academic contributions to political geography, George Orwell, or Nineteen eighty-four. I am not interested in blame, only removing spam sourcing. ConstantPlancks (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sections Elk, Brain Mast, and June 2020 are all previous warnings. valereee (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Over 3 years, I made a single edit to Brian Mast[1], a single edit to Elk[2], and June 2020 was some strange complaint that appears to be automated about the article Sheila Ford Hamp that I created. Do you believe that it should have speedy deleted? Did you review the warnings before asserting they were actual warnings about editor behavior that 54129 alleged? ConstantPlancks (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Political geography of Nineteen Eighty-Four. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SN54129 12:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, CP, I'd like to discuss your removals of sourced info at this article's Talk:Gastronationalism. Like SN, I object to the characterization of that as astroturfing. valereee (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've also removed mentions of this author here, here, here. I'm afraid you're going to have to explain. valereee (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on talk page of articles. ConstantPlancks (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a content dispute at several articles that needs to be discussed at the article talks. This is a question about behavior, which needs first to be brought up at an editor's user talk. You seem to be systematically going through wikipedia and removing sourcing to an academic whom you feel "isn't notable". Sources aren't required to be notable. They are required to be reliable. valereee (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, particularly wrt the casting of aspersions and BLP violations; what's worse is the subsequent doubling down. SN54129 15:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources being used aren't reliable for the claims being made. The misuse of sources and reliance on a single for multiple claims across multiple was problematic. That's a source problem, not an editor issue. Bring it to a noticeboard if you think otherwise but every removal was based on policy. ConstantPlancks (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Systematic_removal_of_sourcing_to_a_particular_author_at_multiple_articles Thank you.

valereee (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CP, if you'll listen, I'd like to help. Do you understand that removal of sources isn't a good thing, even if those sources are iffy? valereee (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Unequivocally. After that, we look to adhere to WP:RS WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:CITESPAM, WP:MOS and essays like WP:CITEKILL and WP:BLUESKY. ConstantPlancks (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not looking for any sanctions. In fact, if you'd not told me you didn't want to discuss here any longer, I'd have just stayed here discussing for the past several days and I'd quite likely still be here doggedly explaining. That is not unusual here. When you tell someone to take it to a noticeboard, you're basically saying "I don't want to discuss this here any longer."

What I want is for you to listen when multiple more experienced editors tell you are misunderstanding something. If you discuss it with them and still don't understand why they're telling you something you believe is incorrect, the very strong likelihood is that you don't understand it fully. I'm not saying very experienced editors can't be incorrect, too, but when you have multiple such editors telling you something, it's very likely they're right. If you go to Preferences>Gadgets and enable Navigation Popups, it will allow you to hover over an editor's username and see how long they've been editing and how many edits they've made. When you're seeing the same advice from multiple editors with 20K+ edits, listen to them.

I am thrilled that you understand now that removal of sources isn't a good thing, even if they're iffy. Except in the case of a biography of a living person, even a seriously iffy source is better than no source at all. If you also believe the content is also dubious, tag the iffy source and open a talk page discussion. Consider checking to see which editor added that info and pinging them to the talk page section.

I'm going to assume good faith here and that you are not accusing me of any of those other things. Yep, RS are important, and several people have told you that you are mistaken about the sources in question. Yes, bestsources is great, and the answer is to provide a better source, not simply to remove a source you found iffy.

I guess you still believe this was citespam by me and SN, again you're mistaken. That's pretty concerning that you aren't taking on board what multiple experienced editors have told you about that. You are going to have a very difficult time editing Wikipedia if you accuse anyone using a source you find less-than-ideal of citespamming.

I've explained why what may look like citekill isn't, a couple of times now I think, but here it is again: The fact there are three (or even five) citations at the end of a sentence does not mean everything in that sentence appeared in every source. Sometimes we need to show multiple sources for something. For instance, "John Smith was born April 8, 1991, in Dublin, Ohio; his family moved to Ann Arbor, Michigan, when he was three." Followed by four citations. Should we remove the ones that aren't bestsources? Not without checking to see which ones are providing the dob (which needs to be widely published in RS) and which ones provide which bits of information. There are at least four pieces of information in that assertion, and it's quite possible those piece of information were drawn from more than one source. So unless you're going through those bestsources and making sure everything is there -- and that the dob is in at least three -- you shouldn't remove a source for citekill reasons. There are other good reasons for providing more than one or two sources, but that's the most common probably. By no means should you ever remove a source simply because you suspect it is duplicative.

Just because you know something doesn't mean it's bluesky. If another editor argues it's not, discussion is needed, not removal of content or sourcing.

In general, work with caution until you have a lot more experience. Open your mind to listening to those who are in a position to understand things here better. There is a steep learning curve. valereee (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"John Smith was born April 8, 1991, in Dublin, Ohio; his family moved to Ann Arbor, Michigan, when he was three." Followed by four citations. In this example, having 4 citations at the end is incorrect. We should never attribute pieces in catchall end-cite. This is why we do in line citations. If the cites don't have every piece of information, they should be broken up into where they belong. I think this is outlined in the FA sections. The "multiple source" removal that I did was to a political advocacy journal. The reason for removing it is A) all the material was already cited and B) advocacy sources for facts diminish article quality because even though the content is not disputed, the source can be controversial. One of the extreme examples given on the noticeboard was using "Der Sturmer" as a 4th source. If the other 3 sources were CNN, NYT and WP, I hope you would remove "Der Sturmer" because there is no reason to have it. It's a non-NPOV source even if it happens to agree with NYT and WaPo on a particular fact. Even if in your "John Smith" example, if he was a Nazi and his birthday and a number of other facts is provided in Der Sturmer and CNN, we would still remove Der Sturmer and leave CNN. Not because Der Sturmer was factually inaccurate, and not because the editor that added it was cite spamming, but because it is a form of citespam even if unintended. We don't want WP to be a source of advocacy. Even if an advocacy journal isn't as repulsive as Der Sturmer, we use the same standards. Bergen Project is a fine project, but it's not a reliable source or NPOV. They don't have any editorial board. Their magazine is published to advocate a position (it's in their mission statement). That doesn't make them bad, just not acceptable for sourcing when other sources exist. When it's the 4th citation for a NPOV fact provided by three other reliable sources with editorial standards, why would we keep the advocacy source? It makes it look like the thing being cited is advocacy when it is not. I think our guidelines above require that we use the BESTSOURCES. That means if we have 3 NPOV reliable sources, we don't tack on a non-neutral source because they said the same thing.

A clearer example that mimics the Borgen project example would be something like "Obama's policy on X was very successful. (CNN)(WaPo)(NYT)" After those three sources, an X advocacy org publishes a magazine article w/ the same claims as CNN, WaPo, NYT. They pull quotes from CNN, WaPo and NYT w/o citation or context. We shouldn't add the advocacy orgs magazine to the citation list because it makes the statement look partisan and not NPOV when in fact, it is NPOV and adding the partisan source is what made it look non-neutral. We also should not hesitate to remove the advocacy org citation because doing so improves the article when all the sources are NPOV. --ConstantPlancks (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It may represent best practices to place sources that way, but there are a lot of editors who will move all sources to the end of a sentence (or even paragraph) because in their opinion breaking up a sentence with citations makes it hard to read. You cannot assume that a source immediately follows whatever bit of info is being cited to it. valereee (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you've been told multiple times, take the argument about Borgen to RSN. If they were displaying a masthead, no one would question the use of that magazine, but since they don't, others may agree with you. valereee (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Ann Bowers. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it has no sources. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it 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. I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 20:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Ann Bowers instead.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft is either essentially the same as the article with the same name, or a subset of the article with the same name. The draft will be replaced by a redirect from draft space to the article.

Two copies of this page have been created, in draft space and in article space. It is not necessary to create two copies of the same page, and it annoys the reviewers. This is sometimes done in order to bypass Articles for Creation review. However, if a submitter is ready to have the article in article space, it can be moved into article space, rather than creating a copy. It is common for a page that has been duplicated in draft space and in article space to be nominated for deletion or proposed for deletion.

If the article is kept, this draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, this draft may be kept for future improvement.

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:Ann Bowers 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]