Wikipedia:Editor review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Request an editor review
Before requesting a review, please understand the following:
Shortcut:
  • Editor review is a process that allows users to have their behavior and contributions to Wikipedia evaluated by peers, who will provide constructive feedback on areas for improvement. Anybody may request a review, regardless of their tenure at Wikipedia.
  • While an editor may remove comments about them that appear to be off-topic or simply personal attacks, it is important to remember that the editor review process may produce comments that the editor may not like or personally agree with, and the editor being reviewed should make every attempt to use this collaborative process to communicate with others. Editors should not refactor comments they dislike. These should either be simply removed or discussed.
  • Administrators requesting a review of their administrative actions should see administrator review.
  • This page frequently gets backlogged, so requests may wait up to several weeks for a response. If you have fewer than 300 edits (or your last request was within the last 3 months), your request may be removed without notice.
  • Please consider reviewing another editor when you request a review.
If you would like to be reviewed, please follow the steps below:
  1. Create a subpage using the box below, replacing USERNAME with your username. Please make sure there is no space after your username, as this makes it hard for reviewers to reach your request.
  2. Do not save the page yet! Follow the instructions in the box above the request page. Please remember to fill in the requested fields.
  • Optional, but highly recommended: You may put the {{Editor review}} template or the {{Editor review sticker}} template on your user page to advertise the review page.
  • Optional: It is possible to add a userbox onto your User page (after the review is finished) by placing {{User Editor review}} at your user box section on your User page. Instructions on how to use templates may be found here.
  • Optional: As only admins can see your deleted contributions, these admins have volunteered to perform editor reviews focussing on deleted contributions (this will probably be of most interest to newpage patrollers)
  • Optional, but highly recommended: There is a large backlog at Editor Review, so take some time to review some of your fellow Wikipedians.
Request form
Replace USERNAME with your username.


Click here for unreviewed requests

Current requests[edit]

Cwmhiraeth[edit]

Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · count) My competency at writing science-related articles has been called into question here on the Administrators' noticeboard where I have reported that I am being harassed by another editor. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    I create content and mostly write or expand articles on individual organisms. I have also brought a number of articles to GA and FA standard
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    I have not been in dispute with other editors but am constantly being criticised for my incompetence by user AfadsBad
  3. What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
    AfadsBad has stated that I make "multiple mistakes in every article" and that "every one of these articles needs [to be] extensively rewritten to be accurate." I would like a reviewer to look at some of my articles to determine whether the criticisms made by AfadsBad are valid. Thank you.


Reviews

  • OK. I think I'm neutral here; as far as I can remember I have not interacted with either editor, and I am also not active at Wikipediocracy. My knowledge of natural sciences is also pretty good. I would suggest that @AfadsBad: gives examples of articles containing errors or misleading information here (together with brief information as to why they consider these articles to be erroneous), whilst @Cwmhiraeth: is welcome to submit what they consider to be accurate ones. We should be able to generate a reasonable discussion from this. I also suggest that all parties refrain from using terms such as "harassment" and "nonsense". Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for taking on this role. Here are a few suggestions Formica incerta, Xyloplax turnerae, Adamussium and Cidaris cidaris, or you could select something else, they are all listed on my user page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
@Black Kite: - see discussion at User_talk:Casliber#Harassment - we've been discussing this edit there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I will look at the suggested articles, also, if possible. I am just going to do the most recent articles and the most recent edits. Someone feel free to correct my indentation to make this more readable.
  • Description, bad link, found the same source elsewhere. "It is generally woodlouse-like in appearance and has a head with two pairs of unbranched antennae[3]" Period missing from Wikipedia sentence. Description is about the suborder, but you are writing it in the species description. A suborder and a species are not the same thing. Not in source, "woodlouse-like" in appearance, and what does this mean, is it the similar flattening, because I think this giant Antarctic one has terminal appendages that are distinctly not woodlouse-like. Is the two pairs of unbranched antennae a distinguishing characteristic, or is there some reason, of all the information about the suborder in this source you selected this one piece of information to include in the species description? It appears to be original resource and improper weighting. "There is no carapace and the segmented thorax bears seven pairs of pereopods (walking legs). The abdomen has five pleopods (swimming legs with gills) and a single pair of uropods (tail fan) which are large and folded under the abdomen where they protect the pleopods.[3]" This is also from the suborder; the sources says 7 or 6 pairs, not 6 pairs of pereopods (maybe it's six pairs plus the uropods?). Pleopods are not "swimming legs with gills," although this may be true for this taxon (the suborder), but I don't know. It doesn't say "mouthparts" in the source about cuticular microstructures, and this may also significantly alter them meaning conveyed when comparing these to related terrestrial organisms and their microstructure functions. More to come. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC))
  • Also, the pleon in isopods can be a characteristic used for evolutionary relationships, so the number should be exact, if it is, but not, if it isn't. Accuracy may change something about the taxonomy of this organism. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC))
  • "It is thought that these may help to prevent growth of epiphytic organisms on the body surface." This sentence leads us to the fact that scientists think that the Antarctic marine isopod might be able to prevent plants from growing on its body. This is not in the article; the article speculates the projectiles may be able to prevent "forams and larval stages of sessile organisms," not plants. "Epiphyte" has the clue "phyte." Again, not even close to the source. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC))
  • Distribution and habitat "Glyptonotus antarcticus is native to the Southern Ocean and the coasts of Antarctica. Its range includes the Antarctic Peninsula, the Weddell Sea and the Ross Sea.[2] It lives on the seabed at depths ranging from the intertidal zone down to about 580 m (1900 ft).[1]" The Southern Ocean and the coasts of Antarctica? The Southern Ocean is the ocean that runs up to the coasts of Antarctica. How about "Glyptonotus antarcticus is native to the coasts of Antarctica including the Antarctice Peninsula, the Weddell Sea, and the Ross Sea. But, including these three specific locations implies they are specific or important, and omits why they are specific or important, that a single study identified an insignifcant number of unique mitochondrial haplotypes in these three locations.
  • General The article also omits an important piece of information about this organism, it is a model organism for Antarctic marine isopods. And, because it omits this major fact, it omits descriptions of the qualities that make it a model organism. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC))
Comment: The source for "woodlouse-like" seems to be this unsourced 2006 edit to the article on Valvifera. I can't readily find a (non-Wikipedia-related) source that makes the same comparison, so it's potentially dodgy. Andreas JN466 21:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if there is any evolutionary significance to dorsoventral flattening, so, this statement does require a source. Thanks. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC))
  • Reply I started expanding this article on March 30th and it was quite difficult to write because there was limited availability of suitable information, especially a description. The "woodlouse-like" is taken from the appearance of the animal in all the images that I saw. Isopods are mostly dorso-ventrally flattened. This article is quite a good choice of article for AfadsBad to criticise, not yet necessarily being finished! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "The "woodlouse-like" is taken from the appearance of the animal in all the images that I saw.": I'm sorry, that falls under original research. Descriptions of physical similarities and evolutionary relationships should be based on sources, not on editors' visual associations. Andreas JN466 02:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • A statement
    • I am working on the article Isopoda with a view to GA and I come across mention of Glyptonotus antarcticus and I think, what an interesting animal, a four inch woodlouse-like creature crawling about under the sea ice. I decide to expand the single sentence stub. As I work I begin to realise how little general information is available. In my view, all species articles need a description but I can't find much information on the animal's morphology so I have to tack one together from different sources and resort to a higher level taxon for some basic details. I'm pleased with my detective work. So where does this creature live? Antarctica presumably, and the South Shetland Islands certainly, but does its range extend to Patagonia or elsewhere? I don't know and decide Southern Ocean is probably a safe choice. I also find that it occurs in the Ross Sea, the Weddell Sea and the Antarctic Peninsular so I add these details to my budding article. It's probably known from these locations because there are various marine research stations there, but I can't mention that because it would be OR. I find mention of echinoderms being a large part of the diet and add that. I wonder about adding something about reproduction. All isopods brood their young in chambers under the thorax. Many Wikipedia readers may not know this and I would like to add it, however I can find nothing specific to this species so leave that for the time being. I find some further information on diet which I plan to add, a list of several invertebrate groups that does not include echinoderms. I am going to revise the biology section to change the potentially misleading information on diet but at this stage AfadsBad starts criticising the article so I stop. All my pleasure in researching the species evaporates. Because a topic ban has been suggested and I want to continue to write articles on biology subjects and organisms in particular, I take note of AfadsBad's criticisms and hack bits out of the article so it conforms to that particular editor's view. Is it a change for the better, I think not. Is the article an improvement on the original stub, I think it is. Do I want to go on writing this sort of article, I do, but not with AfadsBad perpetually looking over my shoulder, calling me a vandal and trying to ridicule my every effort. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Precisely. According to AfadsBad no articles should be written on Wikipedia unless a world authority on the article topic is willing to write it. Our admin system is mostly interested in preening and feathering its own nest, and little support for content builders is going to come from that direction. Content builders who ever write articles on topics where they are not recognised authorities should be cowering in corners. Their only option now is to become admins or abandon Wikipedia. We must put our faith in the massive competence of AfadsBad, who surely now will write the necessary articles himself. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Based on the problems identified, I do think you need someone looking over your shoulder, because at times you cite very unreliable sources, propagating their errors through Wikipedia. And resorting to a higher-level taxon for species information is problematic, for the reasons stated below. A reader should never be led to think that a comment made in a source on a higher-level taxon was made on a specific species. So if the source says, "Isopods are X", you should never write "Glyptonotus antarcticus is X", citing that source and making it appear to the reader that the source said this about Glyptonotus antarcticus. Andreas JN466 13:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I think your comment on my sometimes using unreliable sources is correct and I agree with your point about higher level taxa. Nor would I in the least mind having someone looking over my shoulder if they provided guidance and were helpful when I make mistakes. AfadsBad does not fit this role. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Atlantic Puffin, which, according to Cwmhiraeth's user page was promoted to FA status not "as a result of collaborative effort." So, I'm assuming she wrote it, reviewed it, and promoted it entirely by herself.
Objection Black Kite has banned snide comments like this one from the page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
So, what should I assume other than that when you say, "I entered (the WikiCup again in 2013 and repeated my success. During the course of the 2013 competition 'Sea, Starfish, Common Starling, Manta Ray, Crocodilian and Atlantic Puffin were promoted to FA status, all but the last as a result of a collaborative effort.' What do you mean by Atlantic Puffin not being a result of collaborative effort? You also say below that someone else provided the cladogram. I picked this based on its being on the main page, but also your statement that it was not the result of collaborative effort, which sounds as if it could not be true considering the amount of work reviewers put into looking at FACs. Maybe you can include a more truthful statement about your ownership of this article, or maybe you mean something else by Atlantic Puffin not being the result of collaborative effort. You chased me away from Desert with your snide response to my correcting science and also let me know you owned that article, too. Was Atlantic Puffin actually a result of collaborative effort? --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC))
You are talking here about a sentence on my user page. In the articles Sea, Starfish, Common Starling, Manta Ray and Crocodilian I had a formal arrangement with other editors that we should jointly bring the article to FAC. In the case of Atlantic Puffin I had no such arrangement. I expanded the article, nominated it for GA and subsequently for FA. Of course other people edited it along the way, especially during the FA process, but it was not a pre-arranged collaboration. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Taxonomy and etymology "It is placed in the auk family, Alcidae, which includes the guillemots, typical auks, murrelets, auklets, puffins and the Razorbill." A list of tribes, except that the Razorbill is a species in one of the tribes. Why not just list the common names of the tribes as currently taxonomically accepted? This sentence is cited to a source which does not include the tribes, so this tribal plus one species listing is unexplained original research. "The Rhinoceros Auklet (Cerorhinca monocerata) and the puffins are closely related, together composing the subfamily Fraterculini.[4]" The Wikipedia article calls the Fraterculini a tribe, not a subfamily. This contradiction was not sorted out before this article was promoted to FA. The Atlantic Puffin article uses a 1999 source, but the Auk article used a later source for its systematics section. The source used by Cwmhiraeth does not contain the information she included, that it is a member of the subfamily, it calls it a tribe, like the Wikipedia article on Auks. Also, the proper article to use for the taxonomy is not an article describing a newly discovered fossil species, but if that article is used, it must be used accurately. The subfamily is the Fraterculinae. This has the familiar ending for a subfamily, while the tribe name ends in "-ini," as is common in zoology for tribe names. Another not in source for this sentence, "The specific name arctica refers to the northerly distribution of the bird, being derived from the Greek "arktos", the bear, referring to the northerly constellation, the Great Bear.[7]" does not say that the name refers to the northerly distribution of the bird from the bear referring to the northerly constellation, the Great Bear. It's just a Greek-English lexicon with a definition of ἄρκτος. It's unsourced. --(AfadsBad (talk) 0250, 2 April 2014 (UTC))
  • "guillemots, typical auks, murrelets, auklets, puffins and the Razorbill" are a list of the types of birds by English name, not tribes, in the family. So it is not OR as you've asumed the tribe bit not Cwmhiraeth. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they are types of bird, and typical auks (note the "s"), guillemots (note the "s"), murrelets (note the "s"), auklets (note the "s"), and puffins (note the "s"), are groups of birds, but Razorbill (note the lack of an "s"), is a single species of bird, closely related to the other birds within one of the aforementioned groups. One of these things is not like the other. So, it was just a random list of some common English names of birds in the family? Why? --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC))
So what are these birds, are they the major, the most familiar, the defining members, a minor subset, or what? This list didn't come from the source attached to the sentence. The Guillemots, several species of birds, the species depending upon your nationality, the typical auks redirects to auk, which gives it as some of the members of a tribe, the murrelets are a genus, the auklets, a tribe, and the puffins, a genus, and the Razorbill a species. Is there some source which lists these particular random common names of species, genera, groups and tribes of birds as the members of the auk family? It's OR; it did not come from the source cited, and it does not appear to be useful. Is it comprehensive? Are some tribes missing? The cladogram is improperly done, so the reader should not be expected to get the information from it. This is the random patchwork of information system. List the tribes, list a familiar member from every tribe, list the most familiar members, list some representative geographic members, but don't provide your OR about the Auk Family. --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC))
The common names often do not correspond to the same taxonomic units, as you very well know - the common names cover all members of the family - they are used to engage the reader. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
It's unsourced, the reason, if any, for this group of names, as is the group of names. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC))
Correct on the tribe issue - changed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Cladogram Copied incorrectly from the source, should be removed from the article. --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC))
  • "Orangish-grey?" Please don't. It can be orange to grey, but "orangish-grey" is a made-up color, and, even if real, it is not the same as something that varies from orange to grey in color. "Orangish-grey" is not in the source. " It is a demersal fish, living and feeding near the seabed, both in bays and rocky coasts, in brackish water and freshwater lakes. It typically hides in crevices, under stones, in burrows or among seagrasses.[3]" This is confusing, bays can be brackish water, and as you've emphasized brackish water it could be in brackish waters along rocky coasts, but, this fish is also found in marine waters; for a fish that lives in marine, fresh and brackish waters the article should state that instead of contorting something else. "The male prepares a nest in a crevice, a mollusc shell or even a discarded bottle or can. [5]" This is the reproduction of the species in its non-native range. Is it the same in its native range? That needs sourced to its native range. --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC))
  • Reply I started expanding this article on 31st March and I am still working on it. About the colouring, the source says "grey to orange stripe" which seems unhelpful to me. I cannot use that exact same phrase in my article for fear of close paraphrasing. I have found little information on the fish in its native range and have therefore had to make use of the material I had. I was careful to say it bred in spring and summer rather than giving a month range, as that information would likely be different in the southern hemisphere. Similarly, its diet probably varies across its range but I have to use the sources I can find. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
This is the one place you should plagiarize. You once changed some crustacean color to avoid plagiarism and applied a characteristic color of a different species. Sometimes these colors are identifying characteristics. You should not copy the flowery language of sunlight in mangroves, though. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC))
It is on the main page now. Can you explain why you differentiated only one similar species when the source describes two similar species? This is OR, you decided to not include part of the information, creating an article implying this is all of the information about similar species. It's not. (AfadsBad (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC))
The source provides a detailed comparison with T. bifasciatus, which was once considered to be synonymous with it, while only mentioning the other fish in passing. I don't believe omitting something from an article is OR. Even a GA has no need to be comprehensive! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you both; please add anything else you wish to, and give me a little time to analyse what you have shown. Best, Black Kite (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

While I haven't looked into Cwmhiraeth's work on here and on the surface it usually looks fine, I am very concerned with the behaviour of AfadsBad which is against the spirit of wikipedia editing. There's nothing wrong with pointing out errors and we should strive for accuracy, but it is a very clear from the way in which AfadsBad approaches the situation and Cwm that this is a form of cyber bullying, victimizing Cwmhiraeth's work, not done in the spirit of collaboration. It's as if AfadsBad exists on wikipedia purely to stalk Cwm's edits. It isn't right, however concerned she is of her work. I'm not sure an editor review is really needed although Cwm is clearly trying to be open to the fact that she might be introducing errors unwittingly. I'd say what is really needed here is some form of arbitration and a topic/user ban on AfadsBad from editing or targeting Cwm and her work on wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thankfully, this assessment is completely incorrect. Cwmhiraeth's science writing is full of howlers that would make any self-respecting scientist want to pull their hair out. The readers of this project should be grateful for the fact that someone is actually putting in the effort to identify them rather than just throwing up their hands in disgust and walking away. — Scott talk 09:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Scott's statement may be biased as he appears to be a friend of AfadsBad at the Wikipediocracy forum where he posts under the name of "Hex". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    • A friend? No. I reserve that label for people I actually know in real life, not random screen names from the internet. Also - biased? No. I choose to only respect genuine subject-matter expertise, which belongs to people like scientists. As opposed to people who pick and choose bits of books to clumsily glue together into articles. Not being a scientist myself, AfadsBad's continuing examination of your work has been illuminating. — Scott talk 21:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
      • While I have no particular objection to being called Hex's friend, I am afraid that I also reserve that moniker for people I have personal relationships with, and Wikipediocracy is not a social network. You obected to other factual errors, below, errors you eventually corrected, by pointing out another editor from Wikipediocracy. I think that ColonelHenry and Blofeld are covering the "it can't be criticism because I don't like her," and you can probably safely just deal with correcting your article errors. Dispraging me, making snide remarks because I pointed out an error, pointing out en.Wikipedia editors in good standing who are also Wikipediocracy posters won't make the cladogram sourced. Correcting and/or properly citing the cladogram will make the Atlantic Puffin article better, though. At least some of your errors have been corrected after my posts on Wikipediocracy. Here, the corrections just get reverted. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC))

@Scott: As I said I make no comment on the content of Cwm's work as I haven't looked into it, but my assessment that AfadsBad has been picking on Cwm is hardly "completely incorrect". There is a big difference between constructively pointing out errors and solely targetting the work of one editor and seeming to relish talking down to them and scoffing at their work and driving people away from contributing entirely.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Dr. Blofeld. @Scott, you state "Cwmhiraeth's science writing is full of howlers that would make any self-respecting scientist want to pull their hair out." Perhaps you would like to point some of these out, or are you relying completely on AfadsBads' assertions? If what you say is true, it would be more useful if others would point out my errors to me or correct the articles concerned (they are on my watchlist) so I can see where I have gone wrong. Off-wiki harassment and cyber-bullying is very unhelpful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Although inaccurate. ColonelHenry and Dr. Blofeld are both here because I criticized their articles, although Dr. Blofeld says his were written by two other editors, and he just got credit for them. Cwmhiraeth says I chased another editor away by criticizing their work. And what really exploded ColonelHenry was an extraordinarily bad geology section written by still another editor. So "solely targetting the work of one editor" is not accurate. I don't care who wrote it, but Cwmhiraeth, unlike the editors who wrote Dr. Blofeld's articles, ColonelHenry, and the editor who wrote the horrible geology, has done nothing to prevent future errors.--(AfadsBad (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC))
I think that Cwmhiraeth set the ground rules for engagement with the Desert exchange when I removed a couple of howlers there and she reverted one then scolded me for removing the other because it messed up formatting. Sure, make up information and put it on the main page, as long as it is correctly formatted.
"Comments by AfadsBad
I think this article is pretty good, but it has some major problems, too many and bad information. The most technical sections do not make sense in many places. For example,

"The humidity may be as low as 2 to 5% and because water vapour in the atmosphere acts to trap long wave infrared radiation from the ground, the cloudless desert sky is incapable of blocking sunlight during the day or trapping heat during the night."

Moves from low humidity, to water vapor trapping ground lwir, to a conclusion that the cloudless sky can't block sunlight or trap heat. This is all over the place, and what ir trapping has to do with anything is not explained.
The weathering section is based on outdated research. Rainfall is used where precipitation should be, snow is the only form of precipitation in some desrerts. The USGS reference is interpreted incorrectly, alluvial fans occur in all deserts, not just non-sandy ones. Same with aridisols, which are just arid land soils.
All cacti have not dispensed with leaves, check out Pereskia.
The CAM and C4 comment implies C4 plants open their stomata at night; they don't.
There are many other problems; here is one: "Most shrubs have spiny leaves and shed them in the coldest part of the year and in some areas, sagebrush covers 85% of the ground.[58]" The plant they are discussing with this area of coverage is Great Basin sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata, which is not a desert plant. It generally requires a rainfall slightly higher than the average desert in its range, and, therefore, doesn't cover 85% of the ground in deserts anywhere. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC))
Thank you for your comments, AfadsBad. I will consider the points you raise and make alterations where I think they are required, but please do not remove chunks of sourced information as you did with the sentence on cacti, thereby interrupting the flow of the text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)"
That's a real "Don't touch my article" statement if I've ever seen one. Condescending. And, she reverted my removal of bad science. You keep saying I should just improve the articles myself, but Cwmhiraeth has made it clear that I am not welcome to. I remove bad science, and she tells me it messes up the formatting. I remove made up science, and she reverts. Cwmhiraeth established her rules of engagement right away--stay away from articles she owns, don't remove bad science if it messes up the formatting because WP:Looking pretty is more important than WP:Verifiability, and don't remove made up science because she doesn't understand botany (as she claims on Casliber's user talk page) but knows it must be true or something. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC))
I don't intend to deal with most of the points raised above because AfadsBad keeps on repeating them ad nauseam and I have discussed most of them elsewhere. Some of the criticisms are valid, others half-truths and inaccuracies and others trivial points that AfadsBad has exaggerated into major failings. As for the "Don't touch my article" statement AfadsBad has bolded above, AfadsBad has misinterpreted it. At the time Desert, the article in question, was undergoing a GA review and AfadsBad had already just disrupted a GA review of another article (Parsnip) so I didn't welcome her following me to Desert. My objection was not about "formatting" but at the complete removal of a reference to cacti as being part of desert flora as shown in this diff without substituting some other statement about cacti. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Apparently pointing out the errors here is not helpful either. Please remove the cladogram from Atlantic Puffin and focus on your science mistakes on Wikipedia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC))
Yes it is - I will take a look at the cladogram now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Right then - so the two issues with the cladogram are that it is inverted and that the Scripps's Murrelet has been split from the Guadalupe Murrelet. In which case the best might be to remove scripps and append the Guadalupe Murrelet with a footnote explaining that the Scripp's has been split subsequently....unless there is something else? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you can invert a cladogram. It is not a formattng error. From above it appears to be a sourcng error. If you synthesize two cladograms into one, either source it properly and explain or don't include it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC))
What? - if you understand cladograms all the branches are the same. Do you deny that? The two source cladograms in figs 14 and 15 have identical branches WRT Alcidae. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
What are you talking about? You said it was "inverted," and I don't have any idea what that means, how a cladogram can be "inverted." The two source cladograms are not the two from the cited article, for the purposes of this article, as the two in the cited source do branch identically, or so it seems at first glance, but the two sources are one of those from the article, and a cladogram from another source that added extra branching not shown in the cited source. It is quite obvious, if you click on the cladogram in the cited source that it is not the cladogram in the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia should not attribute something to a source if it is not in that source, the reader deserves to be able to look at the source to get more in depth information, not a contradiction.--(AfadsBad (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC))
Inverted means for whatever reason the bottom and top are flipped i.e. it is upside-down - all the branches are the same. There is one (1) extra species, which I advised a correction as above and below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Is there significance to top/bottom? I don't think so. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC))
@Cwmhiraeth: - I tried rejigging the cladogram but fucked up the code - I recommend the change be made as I suggested above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't attempt to do cladograms but rely on more knowledgeable people, in this instance IJReid. I asked him to comment on the cladogram and he replied in a post in this review that may have been overlooked. I have moved it to below this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the second cladogram incorporated into the cladogram that is cited in the article. Because IJReid incorporated information from another study, but only cited the one source, comparing the cladogram in the article to its source makes it quickly and obviously appear wrong. So, OR, synthesis, not in source, unsourced. The inversion does not change the information contained in the cladogram. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC))
  • The only thing wrong with the cladogram is the insertion of Sythliboramphus scrippsi, which was not included in the original cladogram, but was named from Xantus's Murrelet, which has been split up. It is not possible to change the format of the cladogram, but wiki cladograms look different on different browsers. Also, it is not "it's own cladogram" just because it doesn't include the clade named from the original source. As the one who included the cladogram, I find the only problem with it is the inclusion of S. scrippsi, which is not that problematic at all. IJReid (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm going to start drafting out some conclusions later today, but I will be off-wiki for the whole of Friday, so I'd expect to be able to write things up on Saturday. Thanks for your patience, and please keep providing any further evidence you think may be useful. Black Kite (talk) 07:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
@Black Kite:Thank you Black Kite. AfadsBad has made various criticisms above but what I would also like you to consider is the truth of the statement "And, no, it's not a few bad articles. It is every single article she has ever written." This is a quote from the Wikipediocracy forum where I have been honoured to have a thread all of my own entitled "Cwmhiraeth, the greatest vandal of them all". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I will be going through more articles, and, since Cwmhiraeth wants to emphasize the "every single article," it is important to go through a large number. I am not picking articles in any particular way, just what she is currently working on, but three is insufficient. And I work full time, so it will take time. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC))
That's fine; I can always hang on for a while if you need more time; there is no deadline here. Black Kite (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite:Since this review process started eleven days ago, a number of editors have criticised individual articles (eight I think) which I have started, expanded or worked on. The points they made were mostly good ones and I have tried to deal with them appropriately. You would probably agree with me when I state that no article, not even those successful at FAC, are perfect, and articles nominated there all receive criticism during the review process. Nor do I think any editors could be described as perfect in what they write, they all sometimes make mistakes. So the question is, do I make mistakes in all or most of the articles I work on and are the articles less than competent. You asked AfadsBad to put forward articles of which she was critical and she nominated three. You asked me to put forward examples of my work and I nominated eight.
You proposed closing the review on 3rd April. It is more than a week now since AfadsBad asked for more time so that she could point out more erroneous articles. She has not done this, and has provided no evidence at this time to back up her statement "And, no, it's not a few bad articles. It is every single article she has ever written." Nor has she or anyone else criticised the articles I put forward as being examples of my work. I voluntarily submitted my work for editor review as was suggested at AnI, where my complaint of harassment awaits resolution. Please could you draw this review to a close and publish your conclusions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Given the further evidence emerging, I would kindly ask @Black Kite: to not close the review.--cyclopiaspeak! 11:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

EC

You claimed you had caught onto your problems and could fix them, and prevent them in the future, so I proposed you show that by identifying and correcting them in your articles. I offered five, you accused me of picking five that would do you harm. They are articles you wrote.
You could have looked through them. Instead, you've continued to add the same problems during this review--you have a sandbox and you use it for articles, why not spare the reader inaccuracies? You have excuses, but you have not shown, by identifying past errors yourself, or by ceasing to add errors, even after you've reached understanding, understanding of your mistakes according to you. In your talk page history, I found that other editors have told you this over the years, that you write badly about taxonomy and evolution, inaccurately, mistakenly. Your defenders have not offered content defense, they have vitriolically personally atracked me--this does not address your content, and no one has defended your content with positive examples. Nothing editors say to you about content has got through to you.
Five articles you created. Can they be fixed by you? How many examples do you need of what you did badly, inaccurately? In order for your mistakes to cease, you must be able to identify, correct, and stop creating the errors. Can you give me one article you created that has no major errors of the type you say you can see? How many times will you hear the problems, say you get it, then continue to add the same problems? No one has said anything differently. The problems with your articles and their failure to agree with the sources you use are easy to see, you do not write verifiable articles, and you cannot see this. If you don't stop creating them now, this issue will keep arrising for you and for Wikipedia, simply because Wikipedia does require verifiability. I don't matter--your articles are not appropriate content for an encyclopedia that requires verifiability. You have created over a thousand non-verifiable articles and continue to do so. I think your creating and editing science articles on Wikipedia is seriously detrimental to the project because your articles are inaccurate and wrong. Blame it on me. It won't verify or correct anything you wrote. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC))

From Desert:


Cold deserts can be covered with snow or ice for part of the year; frozen water unavailable to plant life. They are found in Greenland, the nearctic ecozone of North America and Antarctica. The mean winter temperature is typically between 4 °C (39 °F) and −2 °C (28 °F) and the annual precipitation between 15 and 26 cm (6 and 10 in). For example, Cape Dorset on Baffin Island receives annual precipitation averaging 403 mm (15.9 in) but this is made up of 144 mm (5.7 in) of rainfall and 296 cm (117 in) of snowfall. The temperature seldom rises above 20 °C (68 °F) in summer and often falls below −30 °C (−22 °F) in winter. The soil in cold deserts is often fine silt, saline and heavy. Plants growing there tend to be widely separated, deciduous, low and spiny.


"They are found in Greenland, the nearctic ecozone of North America and Antarctica." This is stated as though it were an exhaustive list, which it isn't. More importantly though, "The mean winter temperature is typically between 4 °C (39 °F) and −2 °C (28 °F)". That is not the mean winter temperature in Greenland, Antarctica and so on, by a long shot. Next, "the annual precipitation [in cold deserts is] between 15 and 26 cm (6 and 10 in). For example, Cape Dorset on Baffin Island receives annual precipitation averaging 403 mm (15.9 in)". The example of Cape Dorset (403 mm) is well outside the precipitation range indicated in the sentence prior (15–26 cm). As such, it is hardly an "example" of what the previous sentence stated. Moreover, the cited source is specifically about Cape Dorset, not cold deserts. It seems odd for this example to be chosen for this article. The units given change from cm to mm and back for no apparent reason. As for 403 mm (15.9 in) [...] made up of 144 mm (5.7 in) of rainfall and 296 cm (117 in) of snowfall (my emphasis), 144 mm and 296 cm do not add up to 403 mm. Not even 144 mm and 296 mm would (144 + 296 = 440). The reader is given no explanation. Insertion points (May and October 2013): [1][2]. This is a GA. And it’s not just a GA, but a GA that gets in the region of 100,000 views per month (it ranks 2,850 in traffic on en:WP, and is no doubt used as a source for essays by thousands of schoolchildren). Yet the information is in equal parts wrong, whimsical, and confusing. Andreas JN466 01:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

With regard to the temperature, you may notice I use the word "typically". With regard to the precipitation, 144 mm rain and 296 cm snow, different things are being measured and I believe the snow is the depth of snow on the ground rather than its thawed equivalent. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't make logical or didactic sense to say, "Xs are typically A; here is an example ...", if the example is not A, but B. More broadly, you're mixing and matching unrelated sources, essentially engaging in WP:SYN and creating novel narratives. That's a policy violation. Andreas JN466 09:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
There not being many weather stations in the Arctic I used this one as an example. If you can find a better alternative, please do so. This is an example and I do not think WP:SYN is violated. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
May I ask why you have not corrected the false information about the average winter temperature in cold deserts? The range you gave (4 °C (39 °F) to −2 °C (28 °F)) is completely untypical for the locations you mention (Greenland, Antarctica, and the nearctic ecozone), and cold deserts in general. Does it not bother you that since we had the above discussion, around 10,000 people will have viewed this page, and that those who read that paragraph will either have been misled or will have dismissed Wikipedia as unreliable? Andreas JN466 10:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The underlying problem here is that you cited a completely unreliable source, targetstudy.com, an Indian website. The paragraph in the source reads, Cold Deserts - The Deserts that occur in Greenland, Antarctic and the Nearctic realm are called Cold Deserts. These Deserts are characterized by cold winter with snowfall and high overall temperatures throughout the winter and sometimes the summer too. Does this not set off alarm bells immediately? Cold winters with high overall temperatures throughout the winter? It continues, The mean winter temperatures in cold Deserts is [sic] between –2 to 4°C and the mean temperature is between 21–26°C. The mean temperature in cold deserts is between between 21–26°C? What were you thinking? They clearly got their texts mixed up. This is not a properly curated source. It goes on, The mean annual precipitation in cold Deserts range [sic] from 15-26 cm. Are we sure that whoever wrote this sentence in this clearly mangled source was writing about cold deserts at all? Note that Cape Dorset, which may well have a cold desert climate, has an amount of precipitation completely outside this range. The source continues, The soil in this area is salty, silty and heavy. The plants in cold Deserts are widely scattered and vary between 15 cm to 122 cm in height. Plants over a metre tall in Greenland and Antarctica? Please! The main plants in this area are deciduous, most of them having spiny leaves. Note that you have also reproduced the soil info in the article: "The soil in cold deserts is often fine silt, saline and heavy." This is practically plagiarism of a garbled source that I suspect may have been about some entirely different habitat than cold deserts. You are rushing, probably to make some WikiCup target, failing to scrutinise your sources, and adding material to Wikipedia that is not helpful. That is the kindest way I can put it, Cwmhiraeth. Please stop. And, just to be explicit, please go through the article with a fine-toothed comb and strip out all the information cited to this source, and check the reliability of your other sources. A Good Article Reassessment is clearly called for as well, and a note to the original GA reviewer who approved this article may be in order. Perhaps, as this is a level-3 vital article, Casliber might be willing to help set that in motion. I do not unfortunately have the time. Andreas JN466 11:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I must admit, I don't feel comfortable using Target Study as a source, we need a better one, which should be straightforward to find. That source material on cold deserts is weird. I had a suspicion that coniferous plants were hardier at really cold temps but might be wrong on this - this needs a good secondary source, which will likely help address alot of this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The WP:SYN concern is that you are describing the Cape Dorset climate as a (typical) example of a cold desert climate, but there is no source cited that makes that connection between Cape Dorset and the (sub-)topic of your article, cold deserts. SYN is always a potential problem if you are citing sources that do not mention the article subject. It's best to avoid doing so, and to just give a summary of sources that are specifically on the article subject. This applies equally when you are citing, in an article on a species, sources on a higher-order taxon that do not mention your specific species. If you're writing on a species, cite sources that are directly about the species (unless you are including some very general, brief introductory information on the genus, family or order the species belongs to, according to reliable sources, just to locate the species in the general evolutionary tree). In an article on a species, nothing should be described as specific to the species if it's in fact generic to the entire genus, family, order etc. For example, it would not make sense to say that "a bear is an animal with a vertebral column", even though it is true. When you are describing the above species of crustacean as woodlouse-like (based on nothing more than what the image reminds you of), you are committing a similar error, because the entire order is woodlouse-like. SYN means combining sources to make statements about the article subject that no source has made about that article subject, and there are examples of that in your work. Andreas JN466 10:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I made no change to the article in connection with the temperature in cold deserts issue that you raised because the figures I used were in the source I used. It probably is an unreliable source and I did wonder about the figures quoted, but you did not question the source before and it is only today that you have spattered the article with "unreliable source" tags. I have found a better source and will rewrite the relevant parts of the classification section, but not tonight as it is too late. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Upon re-reading your reply above, Cwmhiraeth, I realise that I misunderstood you. Apologies. You were saying that the reason you made no change to the article in response to my complaint was because the information was sourced. But please, think a moment. An average winter temperature of –2 to +4 °C, as you wrote in this GA, is what people experience in many parts of Britain. Is Britain a cold desert? The source also said that in cold deserts, "the mean temperature is between 21–26°C". That's warmer than Athens, Greece, and a range that would include places like Orlando, Florida. There are palm trees there, and people swim in the ocean the whole year round. Plants as tall as 122 cm? Surely you have seen TV programmes of Greenland or the Antarctic. There are no such plants in the cold deserts there. And the ice on Greenland and in the Antarctic would have melted long ago if the average winter temperature were between –2 and +4 °C, because summers are warmer than winters, and if winters are barely below freezing, summers would be above freezing. You need to realise that you have not learnt how to distinguish reliable sources from unreliable sources, Cwmhiraeth, and that you are writing about topics that you have no grasp of. This was a truly elementary mistake, and it has stood in the article for nearly a year now, viewed by a million people, and probably copied by an uncounted number of schoolchildren in their essays. Andreas JN466 22:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
As for the "woodlouse-like" bit, though I might agree with you in principle, the only items of information I could find on the description of this species was the length, the divided eye and the cuticular surface. Not even its colour! It is not an article of which I am proud and it was difficult to write, but having started, I did not want to leave it unfinished. I see no harm in adding some general information from a source about a higher taxon, especially as most people wouldn't have much of a clue about what a "benthic marine isopod crustacean in the suborder Valvifera" would look like. In fact I consulted InvertZoo some time ago about the difficulty of writing descriptions of little known organisms and was advised that this practice was permissible. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not so fussed about unfinished pages - that happens all the time. I have sometimes left articles I've written for DYK with content holes in them to see if anyone will fill them when an article is mainpaged. Hasn't happened yet though...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
If you do not have access to sources about a species, then my advice to you would be to either refrain from writing an article about it, or to just use what sources you actually do have, and leave it as a stub for someone else to complete. There is no problem with a reliably sourced stub. As for colours, you could for example have included an external link to a colour photograph of the creature. Many such images are available on the internet; Yale University has a good one here for example. Template:External_media is useful in such cases. Mining sources on a family or order for an article on a species is not a good idea. Just mention the family or order, and link to it in the article. Andreas JN466 20:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh I don't know - I've found pages half-built and gone on from there. That is the true spirit of collaborative editing and why this place is a little bigger than citizendium and others. Regarding the second point...hmm. need to check that one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid you've lost me there, mate. smile What are you replying to? I thought I was saying much the same as you: just create a stub with the sources available, and leave it to someone else with better source access to complete. Andreas JN466 20:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I think I understand what you mean now with "the second point". To give an example, it is an easily sourced fact that reptiles are tetrapods, and that the basic body plan of a tetrapod includes four limbs. However, to cite such a source in an article on snakes is not a good idea, because while snakes are tetrapods, they do not have four feet. Clearly, no one would do so in this case. We all know what snakes look like. But when you are talking about obscure organisms that have few good sources available, a habit of extrapolating from higher taxa to individual species is bound to introduce misleading information in a non-negligible proportion of cases. And we all know that once something is in Wikipedia, it is copied in myriad places. It's just not a good idea. By all means, briefly describe the higher taxon in an introduction, using sources on the higher taxon, but please don't make the reader believe that what the source said on the higher taxon was said about the particular species. If the source was talking about the order or family, the reader needs to understand that this is information characterising the entire order or family, and not the individual species. Andreas JN466 21:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Another random sentence from the same article: "Birds have avoided the problem of their feet becoming chilled by maintaining their lower limbs at external temperatures.[69]" Firstly, the sentence is on its face nonsensical. Birds avoid having their feet chilled by allowing them to get as cold as their environment? Secondly, as we have learnt, the environment can be dozens of degrees below freezing. If the temperature of an antarctic bird's feet were maintained at external temperatures, they would be frozen solid! Thirdly, this sentence cites "Scholander, P. F.; Hock, Raymond; Walters, Vladimir; Irving, Laurence (1950). "Adaptation to cold in arctic and tropical mammals and birds in relation to body temperature, insulation, and basal metabolic rate". Biological Bulletin 50 (2): 269–271." Is it a good idea to cite a paper as old as that? Fourthly, there is nothing related to birds having cold feet as an adaptation to living in a cold environment on pages 269–271. In fact, the only sentence that touches on the general topic on page 269 says, "There is no evidence of adaptive low body temperature in arctic mammals and birds, or high body temperature in tropical mammals and birds. ... Equally inadaptive is the body temperature, and the phylogenetic adaptation to cold or hot climate therefore has taken place only through factors that regulate the heat dissipation, notably the fur and skin insulation." This reads more like the exact opposite of what the sentence cited to this source says. Pages 270 and 271 are nothing but a list of literature cited. Why are we citing those pages? There is a sentence on page 262 of the source that says, "The cold legs of arctic aquatic birds and mammals (and probably of the terrestrial forms as well) may be taken as another example of adaptive insulation" (my emphasis). In other words, what the source says is that by not "heating" their feet more than necessary, these birds reduce dissipation of body warmth through their unfeathered feet. By having cold feet, they prevent the rest of their bodies from being chilled. Insertion point. Andreas JN466 01:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting point and one not picked up during the very thorough GA review. Why don't you change the article if you think the "random sentence" misleading. However the article Desert was not written by me, only expanded and taken to GA. I did my best to improve it but would readily admit that it is not perfect. If you want to demonstrate my incompetence, it would be better to choose articles that I have started from scratch or have expanded from brief stubs. I'm sure you will be able to find errors if you try hard enough. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I've only commented on material here that Cmwhiraeth added to the article. Diffs are provided. Andreas JN466 09:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't deny that this was a passage written by me. The same meaning was intended but I expressed it badly. I should not have used the phrase "maintaining their lower limbs at external temperatures" when what I meant "not attempting to maintain their lower limbs at a higher temperature than the environment". I have now rephrased it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The way you have phrased it above is still wrong, as birds obviously do maintain their lower limbs at a higher temperature than the environment (if they allowed their feet to freeze solid, they would suffer frost bite and gangrene and would die). The way you have corrected it in the article however is fine. Thank you. May I ask you why you didn't correct the citation? The article still cites pp. 269–271, and the information is not found on those pages (pp. 270–271 is merely a list of cited literature). Andreas JN466 10:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
corrected source pagerange now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I have rewritten the paragraphs on desert classification that you tagged as having an unreliable source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Note Cwmhiraeth has made a couple of comments about errors I have missed. My error reports are not exhaustive or methodical. Other editors will be able to find errors that I have missed in her articles. I will begin posting my list ASAP. No article I include should be considered error free after the errors I list are corrected because I will continue to do non-methodical error lists.. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC))

Gastrotrich etc.[edit]

While waiting for AfadsBad to track down some more of my howlers, here are a few more articles with which I am quite pleased, each from a different branch of the animal kingdom. Red-cheeked salamander, Eurasian Wryneck, Natterer's bat, Crocodylus novaeguineae and Gastrotrich. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Gastrotrich "The gastrotrichs (commonly referred to as hairybacks) are members of the phylum Gastrotricha ...." They are not "members of," they are the phylum Gastrotricha. It's a synonym, this may be splitting hairs, but it would be polite to the reader to let them unambiguously know this in the first sentence. --(AfadsBad (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC))
Have a look at the article Arthropod where you will find similar opening remarks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Other stuff exists
"They are mostly benthic and form part of the periphyton, the layer of tiny organisms and detritus that is found on the seabed and the bed of other water bodies." Your definition of periphyton is unsourced. I use the term in limnological studies, where it is common, but it needs a source that fixes it both in marine and freshwater ecosystems as you define it here.
Periphyton is both wikilinked and explained and I don't believe it needs a citation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Please source your definition of periphyton as part of the benthos and clear up the rest of the sentence as to your meaning.
The multilayers epicuticle is important in all the zoology and taxonomy texts on the clade that I can find, but is not mentioned at all in the article; its structure is unique, and it is not described in the article. The pharynyx is also an important evolutionary feature, and, although mentioned a number of times, a discussion of the unique characteristics of it are not mentioned in the article. An organism article missing descriptions of real or highly contested derived characteristics is incomplete.
I regard the source I used, Invertebrate Zoology by Ruppert, Fox and Barnes, as an extremely reliable source. It did not emphasize the importance of the epicuticle or the uniqueness of the pharynx. I don't choose to waste my time seeking out evidence to contradict what a reliable source states. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
If your source does not agree with the major journal research, then it's inaccurate. The fact remains that you appear to have either ignored or missed or not understood the significance of the major journal research. Please do a simple Google search on the taxon plus epicuticle.
"The relationship of gastrotrichs to other phyla is unclear. Morphology suggests that they are close to the Gnathostomulida, the Rotifera, or the Nematoda. On the other hand, genetic studies place them as close relatives of the Platyhelminthes, the Ecdysozoa or the Lophotrochozoa. As of 2011, around 790 species have been described.[4]" The article is on species richness, and it contains none of the information in the three sentences preceding its citation, except, of course, for the species count. This may be an omitted source?
Indeed, there was a missing citation which I have now added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Our article now says, "On the other hand, genetic studies place them as close relatives of the Platyhelminthes, the Ecdysozoa or the Lophotrochozoa.[4]" But the source says, "On the other hand, a re-examination of the "Aschelminthes" phylogeny based on the SSU rRNA gene sequence analysis showed the Gastrotricha as the sister taxon of the Platyhelminthes, while later studies placed them close to the Ecdysozoa, the Lophotrochozoa, or neither one." This does not say that "genetic studies place them as close relatives of the .. the Ecdysozoa or the Lophotrochozoa," but says that genetic some genetic studies placed them as "close to the Ecdysozoa, the Lophotrochozoa, or neither one." This is a very different statement than what you added the reference to.
"The phylum contains a single class, divided into two orders: the Macrodasyida, all of whose members are marine, and the Chaetonotida, some of which are marine and some freshwater.[5]": There are numerous sources found through a Google search, including journal articles, books, and web sites which indicate that most but not all of the Macrodasyida are marine; a few are freshwater. If your source on marine/freshwater is accurate, then you should catch and explain why so many sources consider it to be mostly marine, while Wikipedia is saying it is entirely marine.
This statement comes from the above mentioned Invertebrate Zoology. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Then it's too old, and it's inaccurate, and it should be removed completely as a source from the article. The source you just added to incorrectly cite the sister taxa says, "Macrodasyida, with 310 strap-shaped species, all but two of which are marine or estuarine, and Chaetonotida with 455 tenpin shaped species, three-fourth of which are freshwater."
  • This article is a GA. It was reviewed by an experienced editor and promoted in February this year. AfadsBad has put a "disputed" tag on it but has not mentioned on the article talk page what factual accuracy is questioned. I do not believe any of the points raised by AfadsBad in reviewing it above could in anyway be described as a "Howler". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
    It's still disputed. You cite a book as accurate which disagrees with your web source which disagrees with what you say in the article. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC))
    I started a GA Review on this; it is not one of the best of en.Wikipedia when even the highest level of the taxonomy is incorrect, and the article uses two sources that apparently disagree with each other, while the editor simply picked, without explanation, to use information from one source or the other. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC))
Removed "howler" section name. Although when I ctrl-F'd, I happened to notice that you, Cwmhiraeth, used the word "howler" yourself on 18:20, 5 April ... EDIT: ok nvm... Scott was the first one to say "howler"... starship.paint "YES!" 07:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
You write, "The imitator salamander (Desmognathus imitator) is thought to be a mimic and is very similar in appearance but has a pale line joining jaw to eye and more robust hind legs." This implies that D. imitator has "more robust hind legs" than P. jordani, but, this is what the source says, "Unlike the Jordan’s salamander, the back legs of the imitator salamander are also much stockier than the front legs." This is not the same thing.
In my dictionary, "stocky" is defined as "short and strongly built; thickset" and "robust" as "strong and sturdy". I think this is a quibble. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
The source compares the back legs and front legs of the imitator salamander, it does not compare the back legs of the imitator salamander to the back legs of the Jordan's salamander, which you did in the article by adding the contrast of the "pale line joining the jaw to the eye and more robust hind legs."
"The main populations are along the border between North Carolina and Tennessee but a separate population occurs in Rabun County, Georgia." The source says, " A more southern set of populations occurs in Rabun County in extreme northeastern Georgia." A population is very specific in biology, and if the source says "set of populations" this is not the same as "a separate population." --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC))
Thank you for making this alteration to the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
"The altitude range is 210 to 1950 metres (700 to 6400 ft) but few specimens are found below 600 metres (2,000 ft)." The sources says no such thing as "few specimens are found below 600 metres," but says, "They occur at elevations from 213–1,951 m (...), but usually to elevations above 600 m (...)." It only states, awkwardly, that they are usually to elevations above 600 m without a quantification such as "few specimens." This could mean something different such as seasonal, foraging, breeding. As a stylistic point, the species is endemic to the US, and metres should be spelled "meters."
If they are usually above 600 m then not many are found below that elevation. If I had also cited the AmphibiaWeb source, it mentions elevations of over 853 m in the Great Smoky Mountains. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
"The whole range is within the boundaries of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park." This is not said in the cited source. This may be because of the populations in Georgia which are not in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, which is a park that straddles the border of Tennessee and North Carolina.
You probably know the geography of the United States better than I do, but the source states "This species is protected from the detrimental effects of clear-cutting (Ash 1997, Petranka, Eldridge and Haley 1993, Petranka 1998, Ash and Pollock 1999) by occurring completely within the Great Smoky Mountains National Park" Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Then you again have inaccurate sources. Because the Great Smoky Mountains National Park straddles the border of two states. And neither of those states is Georgia. So, you, as the editor of the article, should not be adding contradictory information. Instead of doing so, you have to figure out which sources are correct. It can't both be a species found in three states and the entire population is only in two. If two sources contradict each other, you don't just pick one and give that information, then pick the other for different information. Figure out why they have contradictory information. Also, if the information you write from a source contradicts prior information, there is a problem with it.
"The red-cheeked salamander conceals itself during the day under rocks and in or under rotten logs. It has extensive shallow burrows through which it can move about. At night and during rain it emerges onto the surface to forage. Each salamander has a small home range outside which it seldom wanders. This is about 11 square metres (120 sq ft) for a male and 2.8 square metres (30 sq ft) for a female. When displaced by a distance of 300 metres (980 ft), most salamanders managed to return to their home. The red-cheeked salamander feeds on small invertebrates including worms, snails, springtails, spiders, insects and insect larvae.[2]"
What the source says, "Jordan's salamanders inhabit burrows or other subterranean passageways under rocks, logs, and other cover objects during warmer months." These sentences in our article are difficult to understand, but appear to contradict the source information, which clearly states that they live in burrows and etc., under various objects, during "warmer months," not "during the day."
I have added an additional source which states that "This highly-terrestrial species is often found under rocks, logs, or debris on the forest floor. These salamanders are most easily detected at night, especially under wet conditions, as individuals wander the forest floor in search of food." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
"Individuals home after displacements of over 300 m (Madison, 1969, 1972)." Our statement says "300 m," rather than "over 300 m," and these are different numbers, but it also seems to be a generally accepted statement in our article that contradicts it "seldom wander(ing)" outside of its home range, which I cannot find in the source. Can you provide a copy and paste quote for that statement?
Your 300 m point is a quibble. The definition of a home range is "Home range is the area in which an animal lives and travels." I will remove the phrase you object to. It is superfluous. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Weller's article is only about the North Carolina and Tennessee populations, this information should be clarified or a source about the feeding habits of the Georgia populations added, or a statement about general feeding habitats of salamanders, with a source.
I haven't used Weller's article as a source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you did use information taken from Weller and from other authors that is summarized into the web page. The web page author cites his/her sources.
  • Once again, you have added a "disputed" tag to the article, nor do I think you have identified any howlers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
"This species breeds in temperate regions of Europe and Asia. Most populations are migratory, wintering in tropical Africa and in southern Asia from Iran to the Indian Subcontinent, but some are resident in northwestern Africa." If they are "resident in northwestern Africa" they probably breed there, rather than in temperate Europe or Asia.
Good catch! I added the word "mainly" to the first sentence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
"The Picidae family has four subfamilies, the Picinae (woodpeckers), the Picumninae (piculets), the Jynginae (wrynecks) and the monotypic Nesoctitinae (Antillean Piculet).[4] Historically, based on morphology and behaviour, the Picumninae was considered to be the sister clade of the Picinae. This has now been confirmed by phylogenetic analysis and the Jynginae has been placed basal to the Picinae + Picumninae because the behaviours of drilling holes and communicating via drumming, present in these two subfamilies, is not present in the Jynginae. The Nesoctitinae are considered to be a monotypic subfamily which shares some derived characteristics with the Picinae but lacks others. The evidence suggested that the Picidae originated in the Old World but it is unclear whether this was in Africa or in Asia.[4]"
This is a species article. This description of the subfamilies adds no specific information. However, what the source says is not the same as what is "summarized" in the en.Wikipedia article. The source says, "Historical taxonomic treatments, based largely on phenotypic and behavioral characters, have considered the piculets (Picidae: Picumninae; ...) (...) as the sister clade to the Picinae, while the wrynecks (Picidae+Jynginae ...) have been placed basal to the Picinae+Picumninae. This sub-familial arrangement has seen recent confirmation from molecular phylogenetic analyses." Our article says that historically the Picumninae was considered to be sister to the Picinae, and that information was confirmed by phylogenetic analysis, and in addition to confirming the first part, the phylogenetic analysis led to the basal placement of Jynginae. This is not true. Both the sister clades and the basal placement of the Jynginae were historically accepted and both were confirmed. The confirmation was molecular, but our article implies that the confirmation was behavioral ("drilling holes and communicating via drumming), an incorrect synthesis of the article.
As you know, I find taxonomy sections quite difficult to write. Please feel free to change this section if you think the information is incorrect. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
If you find taxonomy sections so difficult, then please create them in user space and have them thoroughly checked by someone before putting them into article space. You know how to create and use sandboxes, and they would be ideal for this. I'm not interested in Avian taxonomies. This information is inaccurate and should not sit on en.Wikipedia collecting page views. Also, why bother writing a taxonomy section for the family, if you struggle with taxonomies, and the article is about the species? It does not even belong in the article to begin with.
  • No "disputed" tag here yet! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
    Added a "disputed-section" template. Would you like me to look for more to dispute in the article. As with all my other looks at your articles, I am not doing an exhaustive search, just finding quick and obvious errors that. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC))
Our article says this crocodile is found "... primarily nocturnal crocodile is to be found in the freshwater swamps and lakes of New Guinea," but the source says it is found "... extensively in freshwater swamps, marshes and lakes." The summary potentially omits a major habitat, as swamps and marshes are not the same thing, and if there is some reason to list only swamps, but not marshes, this should be stated and source.
Turning back to my dictionary (Concise Oxford), the definition of a "swamp" is "A piece of waterlogged ground; a bog or marsh". It could be that the word has a different definition in American English. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Isn't the point that these are habitats with specific meaning, and not general synonyms in a dictionary? My take is that a swamp is densely wooded whilst a marsh is not. John lilburne (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Now that you know that you can correct the article to fit an international audience. This may or may not be a matter of regional English; I've always used the terms very specifically for freshwater wetlands ecology. Generally, though, it is helpful to speak to an international audience, as the source might have been doing to begin with by saying swamp and marsh, rather than assuming the source was just saying "swamp and swamp." Technical writing generally gives clues. There is no reason to list the same term twice; if it is listed twice, there may be a reason for it. That they are using the two different terms for very specific meanings is highly likely.
Our article says, "Although tolerant of saltwater, it is rarely to be found in brackish coastal waters, and never in the presence of the competing saltwater crocodile (C. porosus).[2]" But I can't find mention of saltwater tolerance in the source. Can you provide a copy and paste quote? I also can't find brackish anywhere--coastal waters are not necessarily brackish.
I have removed the word "brackish" to please you, but if a predominantly freshwater animal sometimes moves into seawater, would you not have thought it was bound to encounter brackish water on the way? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Does it say it "sometimes moves into seawater?" The source says, "Found extensively in freshwater swamps, marshes and lakes. Very rarely found in coastal areas, and then never with Crocodylus porosus, whose range it overlaps...." It does not say "that it sometimes moves into seawater." Can you find a copy and paste quote for that?
"At one time it was thought that there were two subspecies, C. n. novaeguineae, the New Guinea crocodile native to Papua New Guinea, and C. n. mindorensis, the Philippine crocodile, native to several islands including .... Most authorities now consider that the Philippine crocodile is an entirely separate species.[2]" This species confusion has been updated in 2009, so you should not be using descriptions from 1982 books. Also, the article is not about the once misidentified subspecies, so a list of the specific Philippine islands it inhabits is not part of the topic.
I think you will find the book was published in 1992 and not 1982 and I was not aware of the 2009 study. Perhaps you could provide details so that I can update the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
1992 is still problematic date-wise for genetic issues. You source the length to this 1982 source, "Groombridge, Brian, ed. (1982). "New Guinea crocodile". The IUCN amphibia-reptilia red data book (Fully rev., expanded ed.). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. pp. 355–362." The 2009 source is yours, " Britton, Adam (2009-01-01). "New Guinea Crocodile". Crocodilians: Natural History & Conservation. Florida Museum of Natural History. Retrieved 2013-10-22."
Our article says "The body is gray-brown in colour, with dark brown or black bandings on the tail which become less noticeable as the animal grows." But the source says, "Body colouration is brownish to grey, with darkish banding on the body and tail which is more apparent in younger animals." This could mean it is brown or it is grey or it is brown-gray; it does not mean it is gray-brown. "Darkish banding" does not define it as "dark brown or black," a completely different color range. Also, "more apparent in younger animals," does not mean they become less noticeable as the animal grows, which somewhat implies that they change with growth. This might be too picky, though. If the information agrees with the older source, which I do not have handy, but not to the newer source this is a problem for the reason mentioned, that the older source may be summarizing characteristics of a Philippine islands subspecies along with the New Guinea species, which would make the information incorrect.
I try to avoid close paraphrasing when eliciting information from a source. The book source was a library book so I do not have it to hand at the moment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
"Two populations of C. novaeguineae are known on the island, separated by the mountain range that runs along the centre of the island." Runs east-west along the center of the island would be good basic information.
True. I think that the book source mentioned that and I omitted it to prevent close paraphrasing. I see that another source has been added to the article in the last few days. I will better format the new reference and see what information the source provides. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
"The animal was first described from the Sepik River area in the north of Papua New Guinea but a separate population is found in the south of the island, from southeastern Papua New Guinea to the Indonesian provinces of Papua and West Papua.[4][5] DNA analysis has revealed these to be genetically separate populations.[6]" I can't find the information about genetically separate populations in 6. Is this in one of the other sources or did you find it somewhere else? If it is in 6, can you provide a copy/paste quote.
I will look into this, but we are back with my library book source for the first sentence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I see no particular problems with the matters you raise above. No "disputed" tag yet I see. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • From ANI

Since I am indeed a biologist and an editor, I think I can give my 0.02 $ on this ugly mess. Yes, Afadsbad is right, Cwmhiraeth is sloppy. Sometimes she is very sloppy, sometimes she's just doing clumsy OR/SYN (e.g. by making descriptions up from pictures), sometimes she mixes things up. That is bad, and I'm glad there is an editor review on. And it is good that Afadsbad put attention on it -this kind of poor quality editing has to be noticed and fixed, that's the very point of the project. Cwmhiraeth should listen and take more care, perhaps asking for advice when she is not sure of what is writing about. It is also good that pitfalls in the GA process came to light. Conversely, however, Afadsbad's attitude on the matter is appalling. Obsessive harassment of Cwmhiraeth both off and on wiki (calling her "the greatest vandal of them all" on WO), incessantly reminding of a couple bad edits/contents like they were the end of the world, conflating very minor inaccuracies with major errors to make them all seem a larger mess than it is etc., is not tolerable. Two wrongs don't make one right. Yes, Cwmhiraeth editing is questionable, but in good faith. Clumsy as she might have been, she does not deserve such a treatment -I hope Afadsbad has no students, because if I treated my students like she's treating Cwmhiraeth, I'd be fired on the spot (and trust me, I've had bad students). Therefore I'd like for Afadsbad to keep pointing to errors, whoever is the editor who does that, but to change attitude completely. --cyclopiaspeak! 13:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Afadsbad is right, Cwmhiraeth is sloppy. Sometimes she is very sloppy, sometimes she's just doing clumsy OR/SYN (e.g. by making descriptions up from pictures), sometimes she mixes things up.
Whatever the result, I am not the only editor who has noticed this, because it is real. Cwmhiraeth is currently forum shopping editor talk pages and expressed an issue with my full time job requiring me to work five days in a row. This may be outrageou for Wales and other parts of the world, but normal in the US. I have access while monitoring, but no time until tomorrow. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC))
Afadsbad's attitude on the matter is appalling. Obsessive harassment of Cwmhiraeth both off and on wiki (calling her "the greatest vandal of them all" on WO), incessantly reminding of a couple bad edits/contents like they were the end of the world, conflating very minor inaccuracies with major errors to make them all seem a larger mess than it is etc., is not tolerable. Two wrongs don't make one right.
If you are going to highligh an editors comments, like you have just done above Afadsbad, in such a crass and unkind manner, then at least add the balancing comments such as I have just done for you. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm also a biologist and an editor, and I endorse what Cyclopia has said. Looking over the general flow of AfadsBad's criticism, the errors she's denouncing seem to me to fall into three categories:

  1. Genuine, unambiguous errors of fact.
  2. Poorly or ambiguously written material, which AfadsBad has insisted on construing as a definite error of fact. (e.g., the argument over the bat echolocation sentence)
  3. Complaints which are essentially stylistic, e.g., the idea that it's wrong to write a new article if you haven't harmonized all the articles that it links to.

Because AfadsBad describes all three categories with OMG WORST THING EVAR shrieking outrage, it's difficult to take her claims about the scope of errors at anything other than a substantial discount. Nonetheless, I think there are enough errors of the first category turning up to warrant a more substantive response from Cwmhiraeth than "Oh, OK, I'll fix that." Back in fall 2012, there was a similar but more restrained debate (see Talk:Tree/Archive 2) where essentially the same point was raised: that she seems to be persistently working on scientific material that's just a bit too far over her head, and winds up regularly committing factual errors as a result.

I would like to see Cwmhiraeth explain how she's going to avoid committing these kind of errors in the future, not just agree that she'll fix them as they arise. The source of the criticism may be unpalatable, but this is not the first time she's been told she's botching science articles. Wikipedia will always be a collaborative process wherein we fix one another's errors, but if you're consistently generating extra work for people, you need to be thinking of ways to avoid doing so. And I would like to see AfadsBad find something else to scrutinize, because at this point, the usefulness of her technical knowledge in these critiques has been negated by her histrionics and lack of discrimination.

On a more general note, there's been some implication that the current situation has arisen because Cwmhiraeth is connected with the right people or projects and her critics are not. I am not convinced this is proven, simply because, in my experience, Wikipedia has an extremely high tolerance for editors who are productive, good-faith—and regularly make mistakes. In one case where I was peripherally involved, an editor was creating a large number of very short articles with various stylistic infelicities and periodic errors due to a failure to do basic cross-checking of a single source. He wasn't particularly well socially connected, as far as I can tell, and he wasn't doing it for DYK/GA/FA. But whenever other editors in the area got upset with his work, he refused to engage with their criticism, and someone always turned up to say "Look at all the work he does! You can't sanction him just because you don't like..." This dragged on for four years, with increasingly personal animosity between the editor and his critics, before ArbCom sanctioned him and admonished one of his principal critics for (self-admitted) misbehavior. For better or for worse, this kind of tolerance is endemic here, and trying to attribute it to a single small clique is not likely to be accurate. Choess (talk) 05:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cyclopia:@Choess: I am beginning to see what you are all getting at and in that way this editor review may be quite helpful to me. Unfortunately AfadsBad has been shouting at me for such a long time that I have stopped taking any notice. She has done it on a blog that I ceased reading and a forum that I didn't even know existed. She lacks communication skills and, with a very few exceptions, has never explained precisely what she was objecting to in my articles.
I completely rewrote the article Tree referred to above, using a book as my main source. It became apparent later that the book was not reliable. I used it because my education included zoology but not botany and I did not know enough about plants. The "tree episode" was a salutary lesson. I now seem to be criticised for trying to make an article more comprehensive and comprehensible by adding unsuitable taxon-level information or descriptive words like woodlouse-like that are not in a written source (I have amended the article Glyptonotus antarcticus). Now that it has been brought to my attention, I can stop doing these things and can try to be more discerning in my choice of sources. I believe I am able to change my ways now that the problems with my articles are rather clearer. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
If you don't know enough about botany, why did you revert me on the C4 statement, saying again, in one of Wikipedia's top articles that plants with C4 photosynthesis open their stomata at night. I told you directly they don't, you simply reverted me, and now you say I never explained precisely. That's not true. When I explained precisely you reverted and scolded me. Or ignored the problem and left the article as is. How much time should I expend looking through your articles? Will you correct them all? -(AfadsBad (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC))
I will correct all the ones you find where you clearly state what the problem is. Are we entering a new era of cooperation here? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • " I believe I am able to change my ways now that the problems with my articles are rather clearer."
Can you demonstrate this by fully correcting five of your articles not discussed here, find the errors, explain them, correct them? What should en.Wikipedia do about the other 1300 articles with errors that you created? --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC))
I could deal with 5 articles as you suggest, but I don't admit to your "1300 articles with errors" statement. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the best way for you to show you can change your ways is to simply show you recognize your errors and know how to correct them, rather than my pointing them out. I will find five articles, basically at random from your articles created, plus maybe a GA or FA, to include a plant, vertebrate, an invertebrate. I can do it tonight. I won't pick articles that I know have errors, just a sample of articles. I don't really care about insubstantial errors, just errors that change information, or that mislead, or text that is imprecise. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC))
Note, Black Kite or Casliber could also do this. I am just getting the articles created list and using a random number generator until I have a sample across time and organisms, probably not stubs, plus add the FAs and GAs and pick one of them, eliminate ones already error-identified. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

For a start, you can begin with Atriolum robustum, a DYK from February 2014 (so fairly recent, and an article you considered good enough to have on the main page), which contains some facts which are clearly contradicted by the sources you use to support them. I'm not qualified to judge everything in the article, so others may do a more thorough check, but at least one error is obvious enough to be found without expert scientific background. Oh, and I don't think you should ever use Whatsthatfish[6] as a source, it's as far as I can tell a wiki, not a reliable source. Fram (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree that that is not a good source to use. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I expect you are referring to the depth range. Looking for information on the species I came upon this source and used the depth range that site gave, 5 to 18 metres. Later I found the DORIS site which was a better source but did not change the depth range figures. That's an explanation, not an excuse. I have now changed the article and removed the unreliable source you have identified above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Not only that, you gave "but in New Caledonia it is known from as deep as 300m", while the source you used[7] states: "La petite synascidie-urne a été observée dès 12 m jusqu’à 300 m de profondeur, sur substrat* dur. En Nouvelle-Calédonie, elle n'est commune qu'au-delà de 40 m de profondeur." (shortened translation: "has been observed from 12m until 300m depth. In Nouvelle Caledonie, it's only common beneath 40m"). The 300m and the "New Caledonia" are from two different sentences, the first indicating that 300m is the general max depth, the second giving specific info on New Caledonia which doesn't discuss the 300m. Combining these two like you did was wrong (by removing this, you of course solved it, but it is important that you also understand where you went wrong). But thanks for the swift change. Like I said, I don't know whether the article is now correct, but the problems I found are now gone. It would be better if you could look at the conversions as well though, 1.5 cm really isn't one inch, and on the other hand an approximate value like "300m" shouldn't be converted to 984ft but to 1000ft. Fram (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Further to Fram's comments above, reefguide.com is not a reliable source. It is a self-published website (please review WP:SPS to see why citing such sources is against very longstanding policy) that carries an explicit disclaimer: "Disclaimer: I am not a taxonomist, just a recreational scuba diver with a keen interest in underwater photography and species identification. Therefore it is possible that some of the species identifications on this website are incorrect. I rely primarily on popular field guides and web resources, and there is also some limitation in identifying organisms exclusively from images. If you spot any mistakes please let me know, it will be appreciated." Such websites contain more errors than scholarly sites. Referencing such websites in Wikipedia propagates their errors at the level of the internet's top Google link for the topic, supplanting more reliable information available online and thus effectively impairing rather than enhancing access to the sum of human knowledge.
I also note that at the time you added the 5–18 m depth range, you did not cite the unreliable source that you had got the false information from; you only cited marinespecies.org (at the end of the sentence following). As some editors use paragraph-end rather than sentence-level citation, this would have created the impression that the information came from marinespecies.org (which is a reliable source), when in fact marinespecies.org does not say anything about the depth range of the species. Reliable sourcing and verifiability are very important if Wikipedia is supposed to work as intended. Andreas JN466 14:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes indeed. My French translation skills let me down, or at least the fact that I failed to notice the period. I agree with you about the conversions and will change them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Natterer's bat seems to have been left out. I don't claim to be a natural scientist of any color stripe, elongated shape, or phylum, but I did notice a couple of things. Maybe I'll find others later. I also ... did my best to correct them (shock, horror). Which, may, of course have introduced yet new error (see sentence 2), but I believe that it is only by actually trying to fix things that we can approach truth. So put me as somewhere between the "pillory Cwmhiraeth" and "praise her" camp, I see both her work and AfadsBads as valuable ... (and can find flaws with each, but am too busy removing the beam from my own eye to worry about the specks in theirs).
    • Lead said "It is found across most of the continent of Europe, parts of the Near East and North Africa, but is considered rare in the United Kingdom." No citation. I didn't see any reason to mention one country, UK, in the lead alongside continents and multi-country areas, especially if the critter is rare therein. What's more, I'm not so sure it is rare. I found this [8] which quoth "They are considered widespread and fairly common in Northumberland", which I'm guessing is occasionally considered part of the UK. So I removed that.
    • Lead also said "This bat was named in honour of the Austrian naturalist Johann Natterer", which seems correct enough, but wasn't enough for me - did he identify it and name it? [9] and [10] says he did, but I didn't buy it, and found three seemingly more reliable sources that said he didn't; so I wrote and cited that. --GRuban (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

A random five[edit]

These are five for Cwmhiraeth to find and correct errors.

  • Salt Birth (This may have been repaired already. There are extensive edits with edit histories such as, "This is a GA article? Seriously? The editors who screwed this up shouldn't even be allowed to operate a shit pump," and calling a GAR "even more worthless than I thought.") How about Birth? Or we could just list the edits that were required to correct this after the GAR designation and you could explain why the edits were necessary to show your understanding and future abilities. I will think about this, also open to suggestions. Looking at the diffs, they appear to be mostly stylistic. Let's go with Birth--I picked back ups with the random draw, but I did not realize that I should have checked the edit history. I'm too busy, now.

I blew one, adding two invertebrates and omitted the plant but don't recall which invertebrate was randomly generated specifically for this or why I was looking at the other.

--(AfadsBad (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC))

To be fair to Cwmhiraeth, those harsh comments seem to be completely out of order for the utterly trivial changes that were being performed by the editor who made them. — Scott talk 15:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the remarks appear to be out of line and deal with very trivial stylistic changes, at least one of which I think was incorrect and potentially confusing to readers. Stick with salt or move on to birth? Doesn't matter to me. I will probably look at both. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC))
I don't think your chosen articles are random at all, I'm sure they are specially selected to trap me. Nevertheless, I will have a go at them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Tthey appear to be mostly written by you, and you say you feel comfortable monitoring and correcting your errors, so I have no idea how they could "trap" you? Do you think I spent time looking for articles that have bad and obvious errors? Your finding and correcting them could only benefit en.Wikipedia. Would you like BlackKite to generate a different list of five random articles, the same general parameters to cover breadth of time editing Wikipedia, organisms, and hit DYKs plys a GA or FA? --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC))
Suggestion How about if we ask Black Kite or Casliber to generate a list, a DYK plant, vertebrate, invertebrate insect and mollusc, plus one of your uncommented GAs or FAs, that cover different periods of your editing, as the random five, so you don't feel I've picked articles to "trap" you? It only took about ten minutes, having to check that they were mostly yours. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC))
  • No Cwmhiraeth, I don't think you should "have a go" at these vague accusations when you have been given no indication of what you should be looking for. AfadsBad is trying to publicly shame you and bludgeon you into insensibility by using techniques that convict you in advance. The Inquisitor Heinrich Kramer would have been wringing his hands in excitement had he been able to see AfadsBad at work. It seems AfadsBad is finding it difficult to come up with specific examples, and unless she does come up with specifics, you should just ignore her. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Please desist from trying to derail this process. You are not helping here one bit. — Scott talk 23:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Specifics are appropriate Scott. Not vague innuendoes. Confronting Cwmhiraeth with five random articles and demanding that she "find and correct errors" is not a fair way to go about this. AfadsBad needs to establish her claim that Cwmhiraeth is making grievous errors in "every article". That means there must be many thousands of serious errors. It would be a start if AfadsBad listed a representative sample of, say, 100 serious errors, surely a simple task given the scale of the problems she claims are there. But so far she has come up with very little. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
It is true that AfadsBad is behaving more in a bullying than a constructive way. Yet there is evidence that the problem is real. See the article below. I just reviewed it randomly, as Cwmhiraeth herself pointed me to it. It was rife with inaccuracies and half-fabricated information. And when I point it to her, she does not see what is wrong. Nasty as AfadsBad attitude might be (and I'm all for making such attitude stop), I fear she has a point. --cyclopiaspeak! 10:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Epipelagic - AfadsBad's hypothesis is that all of Cwmhiraeth's articles contain errors. That hypothesis is being tested right here, and so far, it's 100% accurate. If you have a differing hypothesis, then bring some evidence of its validity (namely, a Cwmhiraeth article free of the types of error so far discussed) to the table; otherwise, you're doing nothing to disprove AfadsBad's contention. — Scott talk 14:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Boring clam[edit]

I don't really know how to do an editor review, so apologies if my comment is somehow not following some proper process. I just wanted to notice that Cwmhiraeth pointed me to her expansion of Boring clam in a chat on my talk page. She did her last edit after the beginning of this editor review, yet I already found a few inaccuracies there. There are a few examples of inaccuracies in the way she extracts information from sources. All this material has been added by Cwmhiraeth (see this diff and history).

  • Source states that T.crocea is the smallest of Tridacnidae, but in the taxobox the species is assigned to Cardiidae (and Tridacnidae, as far as I understand, downranked as subfamily Tridacninae). Therefore the previous sentence in the article The boring clam is the smallest clam in its family is at least incompatible with source/taxonomy. Should be fixed, even if I'd like someone to check that Tridacnidae and Tridacninae are the same group, regardless of taxonomic rank.
This is a good point. When I started enlarging the article, the first thing I did was to check WoRMS about the classification. It stated that Tridacnidae was no longer valid and that the giant clams were now part of the subfamily Tridacninae in the family Cardiidae. So I changed the taxobox. My statement would have been correct if I had said subfamily. The source stated "It is the smallest of the giant clams" and at the time the source was written, the giant clams were classified as Tridacnidae. I'm not allowed to use the same wording, its close paraphrasing, so I substituted the word family. This was a mistake. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Source states: The shell is often slightly to moderately elongate, article stated The general shape of each valve is roundish or a slightly-elongated oval. No mention of an oval shape is ever made in the source; this is completely made up. Fixed here, hopefully.
The exact words "slightly to moderately elongate" is used in the source and to use it in the article is close paraphrasing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
But nowhere it mentions an oval. That word is completely made up. In fact, there is no trace of an oval shape whatsoever in the shell of Tridacna. --cyclopiaspeak! 19:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)--cyclopiaspeak! 19:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
So how would you phrase it without close paraphrasing? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I don't know: 'prolonged, either weakly or averagedly' is what using a thesaurus gives me. But this is beside the point. The point is that you made up an oval that exists nowhere. The point is that, to put it bluntly, you fabricated false information and you don't even recognize it.--cyclopiaspeak! 20:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
"Mildly elongated." --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC))
Here are various ways of summarising The shell is often slightly to moderately elongate:
  1. The shell often has a somewhat elongated shape.
  2. In many individuals, the shell is mildly or moderately elongated.
  3. The shell is frequently somewhat elongated.
  4. It is common for the shell to have a somewhat elongated shape.
  5. The shell often tends to be a little or moderately elongated. Andreas JN466 01:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Source states: The shell is also typically grayish-white, but is sometimes tinted with yellow, orange or pinkish-orange, too. These colors may also form an obvious band at the shell’s upper margin, particularly on its inner surface. - article stated The colour of the valves is generally greyish-white and there may be a band of pinkish, yellow or orange colour near the margin, especially visible on the interior surface.. These describe two different things (colour is not necessarily a band, one of the hues listed is not merely pinkish but pinkish-orange). Fixed here. I am also unsure reefkeeping.com is a reliable source.
Close paraphrasing issues do not allow me to use the exact words used in the source. I think my phraseology is perfectly acceptable and this is a quibble. As to the reliability of the source, I gave the matter some consideration. The "Invertebrate corner" is well referenced and is part of an "online magazine for the marine aquarist" that was produced monthly from 2002 to 2009 as far as I can see. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
No, it is not acceptable. You described a different thing from what the source describes. The source describes something which all around can feature a yellow, orange or pinkish-orange coloration, which sometimes forms a band at the upper margin. It became something that is always is greyish-white, except that sometimes has a coloured band (which can be pink, but not pink-orange, in your wording), and that band is at the margin of the shell (upper, lower, you don't say). These are two different things - really different. Shells which show a pink-orange color away from the margin do not exist in your description, but they may very well be common according to the source. If you don't understand why they are different, then you really have issues understanding language. This is very worrying.--cyclopiaspeak! 19:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I wrote "The colour of the valves is generally greyish-white and there may be a band of pinkish, yellow or orange colour near the margin, especially visible on the interior surface." The source stated "The shell is also typically grayish-white, but is sometimes tinted with yellow, orange or pinkish-orange, too. These colors may also form an obvious band at the shell’s upper margin, particularly on its inner surface." I omit to mention the "sometimes tinted" bit but then I am summarising the source, ie I don't include every detail, I give the typical colouring and omit the occasional tinting in this instance. What do other people think about this? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem is these colorations, even "sometimes tinted" are usually being taken from tertiary sources. If the tertiary source is reliable, it may already have summarized the primary identifying features of a species, and by omitting something or changing something, you may have removed or altered a primary identifying characteristic. I can't find the article in my watch list, but you did this with a shrimp-like creature once, changing pink to orangish-pink or vice versa, and, without realizing it, you had changed a species characteristic to that of a different species. This requires major judgment on the part of the writer to know what is removable or not. Is this a species defining characteristic, that it can sometimes be tinted? If it is, the omission is not correct. Also, if it is important to describe the color of the valves, inaccurately describing them is not correct. Cyclopia is a biologist, and I am not, so my tendency would be to agree that his judgment on whether you can omit the tint is correct, and that you should be including it in the article if you are describing the valves. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC))
Just for the record, I am a molecular biologist. While I have a soft spot for zoology, taxonomy, and even paleontology, it is not my bread and butter, so my judgement on these matters might not be optimal. Maybe the shell colour may be left out altogether, even if I would expect some description of it. My point is different: it is that Cwmhiraeth apparently, by attempting to avoid close paraphrasing, ends up writing stuff which is different in meaning from the source. She seems to be in good faith, but this is even worse: she seems simply blind to such differences of meaning.--cyclopiaspeak! 20:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I did sidestep your point, although it is one I have made many times. As a molecular biologist you may not know what can be omitted in the color details, and neither do I. But, in this case, without expert knowledge, and such a claim has no validity on Wikipedia, we must go by what the source says, and, yes, what is in the article is not what is in the source. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC))
(edit conflict)Cwmhiraeth, are you kidding me? It's not a matter of omitting details, it's a completely different meaning. Do you seriously, in good faith, do not realize this? If it is so, then you need edit restrictions now.--cyclopiaspeak! 20:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Here is a way the source statement could be expressed in different words, without changing the information:
Source: The shell is also typically grayish-white, but is sometimes tinted with yellow, orange or pinkish-orange, too. These colors may also form an obvious band at the shell’s upper margin, particularly on its inner surface.
Summary: The predominant shell colour is greyish-white. In some individuals, however, this is mixed with a yellow, orange or pink-orange hue, which may also be concentrated in a distinct band along the top margin of the shell, especially on the inside. Andreas JN466 01:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
By the way, if something is really hard to paraphrase, it's always permissible to use it verbatim, enclosed in quotation marks, and with in-text attribution to the source. See WP:Plagiarism (intro). So you could write, According to source X, the shell is typically coloured greyish-white, "but is sometimes tinted with yellow, orange or pinkish-orange, too. These colors may also form an obvious band at the shell’s upper margin, particularly on its inner surface.". Andreas JN466 03:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I am a bit worried that even after the beginning of the review Cwmhiraeth is still pouring inaccuracies in articles. This seems the general pattern, constant little but piling-up inaccuracies, over and over. --cyclopiaspeak! 14:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth posted on my talk page; here I answer to avoid disgregating the discussion in multiple parallel threads.

  • When writing an article you have to summarise the source without close paraphrasing. This means words and sentence structure have to differ from the source. Your "slightly to moderately elongate" is identical to the source and is close paraphrasing. Finding a different way of saying it is challenging. You did not like my attempt. - The problem, again, is that you added the word "oval" out of the blue. The word does not exist in the source (I checked, feel free to prove me wrong). And in fact, just for the record, as far as I can see the shell does not look at all like an oval. You did not paraphrase the source, you changed the meaning of it. That is the point. You can't use paraphrasing as an excuse, because you do not paraphrase, you change the meaning.
  • If I get topic banned after making a complaint about being harassed, it will be a victory for AfadsBad, and imagine the jubilation on the Wikipediocracy forum! I don't like Wikipediocracy and they don't like me; I lurk the forum but I comment there very rarely. I also do not like the attitude of AfadsBad at all, which is problematic. Yet, even if AfadsBad often exaggerates the magnitude of issues she finds, it is correct that you are regularly introducing factual errors while "paraphrasing". You are often terribly sloppy. You read things that have different meanings as the same. You do not think anything of introducing made up information if this helps you "paraphrase". This is the problem. It pops out in many of the content you added -not all, probably, and not even all articles, but it is a regular pattern. Even if several of your articles turn out to be 100% correct, the fact they rely often on offline sources (which is normally allowed, of course) makes them suspicious. It is a problem. Stop making up excuses, act responsibly and acknowledge it, if you understand it; and if you don't, well, then AfadsBad is sadly right in thinking there are WP:COMPETENCE issues.--cyclopiaspeak! 19:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Whoa. I am no scientist, but what cyclopia pointed out is worrying. Elongated doesn't paraphrase to oval, in that case I would rather re-use the word elongated than use oval. I also concur that the omission of other colored shells was a wrong decision. Cwmhiraeth, accuracy is much more important than paraphrasing. As Andreas has pointed out above, use quotes if necessary. I also urge Cwmhiraeth to refrain from adding more content to Wikipedia for the time being. Perhaps it would be better for you to go back and double check articles you have already edited. starship.paint "YES!" 04:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It is very unfair to criticise in this way an unfinished article that I had only just started expanding. The description section was only a few hours old. If you look at my "Statement" above in connection with Glyptonotus antarcticus you will see how discouraging such actions are. As I continued with the article it is likely I would have changed the text to which your first two points refer as I got to find out more about the animal. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I do not think it's unfair. You started editing the article on 10 April while this editor review was in full swing. You added the reefkeeping / Fatheree source into the article while adding the content of the oval and non-existence of other colored shells. Therefore, you should have read the source properly and paraphrased it properly the first time. There should be no need for you to "get to find out more" when you've already seen that source and tried to add content. Come on, you are on editor review, if you want to continue expanding articles during this time then you better do it correctly instead of giving your opponents more ammunition. starship.paint "YES!" 07:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. It is even more worrying that she sidesteps the issue as one of wording, or something that has to do with an unfinished state. Granted, I think we all made mistakes during edits, maybe we've added stuff from one source before understanding that it was actually out of date, or stuff like that. The real problem is that Cwmhiraeth does not understand she is wrong, so instead of fixing the errors once pointed, she just doesn't get it. This is serious.--cyclopiaspeak! 10:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Millepora alcicornis[edit]

  • I can't find any trace of this concept: It shows a variety of different morphologies depending on its location, which led to it being given a number of scientific names by different authorities. in the source referred. Perhaps I just missed it but I'd like someone to check.
  • Another colour description is slightly factually messed up: The cylindrical branches usually grow in a single plane and are cream-coloured, yellowish or light brown with paler tips., while the source states: Brown to light creamy yellow, with white branch tips.
  • Article states The dactylzooids have hairlike tentacles covered in cnidoblasts. These release cnidocytes when prey is in close proximity. Stings from the cnidocytes immobilize an item of prey - No mention of cnidoblasts/cnidocytes is made in the source. Is this made up? From my superficial knowledge of Coelenterata it may make sense, but... Also, cnidoblast and cnidocyte are apparently synonimous (and indeed the two wikilinks redirect to the same page!) so what does it mean that one releases the other? Probably she meant they release a cnidocyst.

This is apparently a GA, and Cwmhiraeth edits are still standing, since January 2012. I am now going to fix this.--cyclopiaspeak! 12:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

She now removed one of the unsourced sentences (and fixed a grammar slip of mine). However on my talk page it seems she still doesn't get it. I am worried.--cyclopiaspeak! 13:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I see in this edit you have removed some information from the lead. Does not reference #4 cover this point? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
It is not the reference that was attached to that sentence. Yep, from my reading of that source, it seems you can put it back with the correct source at the end of the sentence (I also find it quite annoying that the leads of articles you write never have inline sources, this makes it very hard to understand what comes from what. Also entire paragraphs are sourced only at the end. At least every sentence or two should be supported by a source, IMHO, unless a whole block is supported by a single source -perhaps there's some MOS contradicting this, but if so, it is a problem.)--cyclopiaspeak! 13:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't see it in the source, which is rather long. Can one of you provide a page and paragraph before returning the sentence and citing it to this paper? --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC))
@Cyclopia. This is contrary to my understanding of the MoS. On this page it states: "Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead." It also states: "An inline citation means any citation added close to the material it supports, for example after the sentence or paragraph, normally in the form of a footnote." I have found at GA and FA we are told to put the citation at the end of the paragraph rather than cluttering up the text with repeated citations to the same source.
Our article now says, "In 1898, Hickson decided that the variations in morphology were due to environmental factors and that Millepora alcicornis was the valid name for all these species.[4]" This implies to the reader that the later paper verifies Hickson 1898. I have only read the introduction, but the source you cite appears to say the opposite. Can you povide a page and paragraph, or explain your inclusion of this material? --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC))
I have amended the paragraph. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
In this page it states: "Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material." That is exactly what I try to do with regard to such things as the colour description for this fire coral. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
If the "not getting it" continues, this may need to be escalated. Given the facts that are emerging here (as opposed to assertions, which have been well-known for months), it's certainly too early for this editor review to be closed. — Scott talk 14:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
@Cyclopia. I was pleased with this article which I think was my second GA. I started it from scratch and am considering whether to take it on to FA, perhaps you would be able to help me? I will work on your first point, but I think you will find the source information you mention in your third point if you look at the correct citation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I have now removed the unsuitable citation from the lead and the information is now cited in the body of the text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@Scott. Your interventions are always so helpful ! Since you tell us you are not a friend of AfadsBad, why is it that you are editing her talk page and removing another person's post which was headed "Warning"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
That's interesting (RE: Scott) - though you could be a little less caustic, Cwmhiraeth. starship.paint "YES!" 08:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you will see why Scott is not my favourite editor from this posting, also on AfadsBad's talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Honestly from this action (and the previous dismissal of Happy Attack Dog) I expect a bit better from an admin, on this front at least. starship.paint "YES!" 09:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Pteria sterna[edit]

Another random DYK from February 2014. Checked one section, and soon found a clear factual error (you can try to correct it, or you can ask me to point it out, whichever you prefer). Checking further revealed an unrelated but even bigger error. I stopped my check after that second error. While I doubt that the assertion that all your articles have factual errors will turn out to be true, it seems clear to me from my checks and the rest of this discussion that you make too many small and large errors in articles which you consider to be finished (in the sense that your editing is done, not that they are FA-eligible of course). Coupled with the rather deficient DYK, GA and FA checks (Not related to your work, but I have this week alone pulled two approved hooks from DYK, and just corrected a third one, and that's what short cursory checks reveal), this means that loads of problematic articles grace our main page and that a lot of incorrect information gets spread by us. The problems of DYK e.a. can't be solved by you, but you are responsible for the articles you create and the ones you present for the main page. Some kind of mentoring, perhaps by a project or some willing experts, may help, but continuing without improvements is not really an option. Fram (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Please point it out the errors (so that we can assess it) and if possible fix them (so that no misinformation stays). Just stating that it is wrong is not very helpful. --cyclopiaspeak! 15:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
In any case, I had a look and immediately found it needed this fix. Cwmhiraeth mixed up females for males when taking information from this abstract, added a "height" where nowhere it was to be found. This is surely not a matter that can be justified by "paraphrasing". --cyclopiaspeak! 15:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
In Cwmhiraeth's defense, "height" can possibly be explained. Source: The size at first maturity was determined at 117.1 mm SH - I don't know what is SH here, but I was nearly tricked into thinking "Shell Height". However, if this wasn't the case here, "paraphrasing" size to height is a grevious error indeed. starship.paint "YES!" 03:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I saw SH as well and that was the reason I used "height". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Why not then correct this in the text to "shell height?" There is no advantage to not using the correct nomenclature when it works for the general reader, and this addresses both the precision and paraphrasing badly out of fear of plagiarism criticisms. If the jargon is tricky or unusual, then explain it parenthetically, but if it is straight forward and you know it, then use it direcly to benefit the reader moving between multiple artices on the same topic. --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC))
Found another error. 1586 (source) became "three years later" than 1535, apparently. How this happened I have no idea, can't even be a typo.--cyclopiaspeak! 15:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
First one you corrected was the first one I found as well, second one I hadn't even checked yet. The one you didn't find yet is IMO the most serious though. I'm logging off now, if no one has found it I'll post it on Monday! Fram (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The lead says the oyster's range extends to northern Peru, but this fact is not referenced, and the word "Peru" does not appear in the article body, therefore this claim is unsourced. The article also mentions "the tropical Pacific coast of America", but File:World map indicating tropics and subtropics.png suggests Baja California is north of the Tropic of Cancer, and hence "tropical" is inaccurate. A genuinely "tropical" entity might extend from central Mexico to northern Argentina. (bit nitpicking that one, I know, but you asked for errors and I think it is one). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but I noticed you didn't fix it. Please fix errors as soon as you find them. Otherwise this is a sterile exercise. I do not understand why @Fram: is making this a treasure hunt: the ultimate aim of this review is to have accurate articles.--cyclopiaspeak! 16:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't know how to fix it - this isn't my area of expertise. The best thing I could do is put {{cn}} on it, and since the article has an overall {{disputed}} tag, there is no need to add any more as the reader has already been cautioned. If I were conducting the DYK review, I would have flagged both of my two queries above and expected a response from the nominator. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
It does occur in northern Peru and I have added a reference for this fact. There were indeed some bad inaccuracies in the article and criticism of it is wholly justified. I can understand the reason behind some of them, but will not burden you with explanations. I would welcome some form of mentoring as suggested by Fram. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

First, let me state that I didn't list or correct errors because I thought the intention was to see whether Cwmhiraeth could spot the errors, and correct them.

Second, the worst error of the two I found apparently hasn't been found yet, so I'll explain it now. The article states

  • "Spawning is synchronised in any one locality and depends on the water temperature and the availability of food."

However, spawning for Pteria sterna isn't generally synchronized. According to [11], a source used by Cwmhiraeth to support his statement, says: " In general, a single synchronized spawning is known to occur per year in the summer in cold climates (high latitudes) (Giese & Pearse 1974), whereas two peaks may occur in temperate climates, and a continuous spawning takes place throughout the year in tropical climates, although not with the same intensity (Sastry 1979, Mackie 1984). [...] The Gulf of California populations display an asynchronous reproductive cycle, with a continuous gametogenesis throughout the year (Hernandez 1993, Arizmendi-Castillo 1996, Diaz & Buckle-Ramirez 1996; Saucedo & Monteforte 1997); whereas in the Ojo de Liebre lagoon, a synchronic reproductive cycle was observed, with gametogenesis being restricted to a specific period of the year, triggered by a rise in water temperature."

So, basically, Cwmhiraeth has taken a characteristic of one specific research group in one place, and has generalized that for the whole species, even though it is explicitly contradicted in the source used. This is not simply misunderstanding the science, this is worse. I suppose it is caused by only using the abstract[12] and not the whole article, but that's hardly an excuse. Fram (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

While this is a serious content issue indeed, I suppose that if she was not having access to the whole article (or did not find it), this can, indeed, be an excuse. If anything this is just a lesson on being careful when using mere abstracts as sources. This is an error many could have made. I am more worried about the constant confusion she has between paraphrasing -when she does not realize she changes meanings, or interpolates OR. --cyclopiaspeak! 13:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes indeed, I only had access to the abstract. It stated "The reproductive cycle of P. sterna is synchronic and is influenced by temperature and food availability." Using this as my source, I wrote "Spawning is synchronised in any one locality and depends on the water temperature and the availability of food." Am I still damned? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes. The title of the abstract was "Reproductive Cycle of the Pearl Oyster Pteria Sterna (Pteriidae) in the Ojo de Liebre Lagoon, B.C.S., Mexico", with as first line "The reproductive cycle of a wild population of the oyster pearl Pteria sterna living in the Ojo de Liebre lagoon was analyzed from February 2001 to February 2002." (emphases mine) You took the abstract of a study about the reproductive cycle in one location, and generalized this for the whole population. Incorrectly, as it turned out after a short search. You did the same for their size, taking the results from one local study and writing them down as if they were the sizes for the species everywhere. Fram (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
That's right, I wrote "The sexes are separate in Pteria sterna and the oysters become mature at a shell height of around 117 mm (4.6 in) for males and 106 mm (4.2 in) for females. Spawning is synchronised in any one locality and depends on the water temperature and the availability of food. In Ojo de Liebre lagoon it takes place between October and April, commencing as the water temperature falls" being careful to qualify the last sentence as to the breeding period. I was delighted to find some information on size, being previously unable to find much information on the animals appearance. I don't usually write articles with the assumption that morphology and dimensions vary between different locations, one set of figures from a reliable source seeming adequate to me, and I did include the qualifier "around". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
"I don't usually write articles with the assumption that morphology and dimensions vary between different locations, one set of figures from a reliable source seeming adequate to me, and I did include the qualifier "around"." I hope that you have changed your assumption now? It is clear that many, even major asoects can vary wildly depending on the location. At the bottom of the full article[13] are some pointers to other studies, with completely different shell heights at maturity. E.g. 40mm is not "around" 105mm. Fram (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Conopeum seurati[edit]

Here we go again.

I don't much like this prejudicial opening remark, made solely for the amusement of other editors. What you imply is that you have been victorious and found another of my articles to criticise. As a matter of interest, do you keep a tally of any articles that you inspect but think unexceptional, or are all my articles bad? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Let's say the ones I am reporting are beyond 50% of what I've checked. Notice also that I report stuff where I can pick up inaccuracies in a few minutes -the low hanging fruits, so to say.--cyclopiaspeak! 10:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't read into this too much. I didn't. cyclopia's not AfadsBad. starship.paint "YES!" 06:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, Cyclopia is a great asset to Wikipedia and in my opinion, AfadsBad is not. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Fixed statement that talked of colonies being sometimes "unattached balls". Unfortunately, while sources referenced [14],[15] talk of sphere-like colonies, no one of them is "unattached" at all -we're talking of a sessile species, after all. Perhaps I'm wrong but I can't find a reference about free-floating balls of this bryozoan.
I made an assumption that a spherical colony was unattached but Cyclopia made the assumption that because Bryozoa in general are attached, this one cannot exist as an unattached ball. Is not this just the sort of argument that you are condemning me for, going from the general to the specific? I have come across at least one species of encrusting coral that sometimes form detached discs or balls. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't have the scientific knowledge, but why did you assume it was unattached and write it so? If it was not stated in the source then you should neither say "attached" nor "not attached"! starship.paint "YES!" 06:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
It is difficult to imagine any colonial organism like this described as a sphere unless it was unattached because otherwise there would have to be some structure attached to the substrate, and this would make the description spherical inaccurate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
This is utter WP:OR. The fact that this specific species is sessile is sourced, instead, and nowhere it talks about it being free-floating. Here is another example where you made up false information.--cyclopiaspeak! 10:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Fixed misleading sentence "is native to the coasts of northern Europe and the Mediterranean Sea. It has spread to the Atlantic coast of Florida and to New Zealand". Actually one of the sources states that the range of the species is unknown, and both agree that it is just mainly recorded from Mediterranean and Europe. And also "it has spread" implies that it manages to get there by itself; it is instead regarded as introduced, according to the source. --cyclopiaspeak! 20:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Well I think the word "introduced" sounds as if the introduction is purposeful so I try to avoid it. With regard to distribution, typical phrases I use are "native to", "occurs in" and "found in". It is helpful to use "native to" when there is general agreement among the sources that that is the region from which it originated. The complete range may be unknown but it does occur in the locations mentioned so I think that is worth mentioning. As for how it spreads, that is difficult to establish but it could be attached to floating debris so I think the use of the word spread is appropriate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
What you think about the word "introduced" is wrong, given that in biology introduced species is a technical concept. It means the species has been transferred there by humans, while saying "it is native from X and spread to Y" implies that the species has arrived there by its own means. --cyclopiaspeak! 10:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Is there any source that said that it is the region where the species originated or is native from, as opposed to simply "it is regularly found here"? Granted, it is plausible that it is native from there, but to state so is WP:OR --cyclopiaspeak! 10:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid you have not explained why you left out that the full range was unknown. That's important to me at least. starship.paint "YES!" 06:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I could have included it and it probably would have been a good idea, however I guess that the full range of the vast majority of marine organisms is unknown. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid a pattern of poor "paraphrasing" is becoming apparent, in an attempt to avoid plagiarism Cwmhiraeth was seemed to produced content that is simply... a little different from what the source said (once you consider the article as a whole). But a little different just doesn't cut it. starship.paint "YES!" 03:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

In this case, I do not think Cyclopia's reasons for trashing the article are very good, they are mostly a matter of opinion. Cyclopia is a more experienced and knowledgeable editor than I am and I can see that I am going to be condemned as being a rotten editor whether I respond to the criticisms or not. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but to completely make up out of thin air that a sessile organism creates "unattached" spherical colonies is not a "matter of opinion". You basically wrote the bryozoan equivalent of "this species of tree sometimes goes and takes a walk".--cyclopiaspeak! 10:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea whether cyclopia is a member of Wikipedocracy, but I sure am not. I don't think everybody here is waging a war against you. We're trying to remove the factual inaccuracies here, not here to "trash your articles" or condemn you as being rotten. An assumption of "unattachedment" and not saying "full range is unknown" aren't opinions. starship.paint "YES!" 06:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I have a Wikipediocracy account but I basically never post there. We dislike each other quite a lot, with very few exceptions. The owner of the WO domain (I think Kohs is) once called me "reprehensible scum", so if I have any bias, it is against WO. --cyclopiaspeak! 10:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Philaethria dido[edit]

  • Other inaccuracies. The description of the range was a bit misleading but perhaps not formally incorrect. However, despite the source referred in the paragraph describing three subspecies clearly, with a clear geographic range, the article explicitly stated that only two exist, and described ranges somewhat accordingly.--cyclopiaspeak! 10:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Apparently made up information. I can't find any mention of this peculiar feeding habit in any of the sources. Can someone double check if I missed it? --cyclopiaspeak! 11:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Update: Apparently she wasn't the editor adding such information, my apologies to Cwmhiraeth - I didn't check the right diff. She did add sources apparently corroborating this information, without checking if it was unsourced or contrasting with it. However, I repeat, she didn't make up such information. Apologies again. --cyclopiaspeak! 11:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I decided to expand this article a little because one of the images was to be "Picture of the day" on April 8th and the article was a bit stubby. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Still, how didn't you notice that sources were contradicting the unsourced info in the article?--cyclopiaspeak! 13:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you referring to the statement that you removed about the western subspecies? I guess you are, and yes, I should have put the citation after the previous sentence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
But how did you miss the source was talking of 3 subspecies, very obviously (it lists them) when editing? Sure, it is a lesser sin (by omission, not by action) but quite perplexing. --cyclopiaspeak! 17:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
It's quite amusing really. It was you who made the edit that added the third subspecies but left the word two at the beginning of the sentence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
An error Cyclopia corrected two edits later. [16] Andreas JN466 20:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Two edits and two days later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Yep. @Cwmhiraeth:, we all do mistakes. The problem is not that. Auditing my edits would probably find out a remarkable number of mistakes as well. Auditing almost every editor would do. The problem is that 1)your mistakes are systematic 2)they often follow a worrying pattern of changing the meaning of sources in an attempt to paraphrase them 3)they are spread potentially over hundreds of obscure articles 4)most importantly, you often just don't recognize them as mistakes. --cyclopiaspeak! 21:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@Cyclopia: Did you see my comment under Millepora alcicornis above where I point out that your interpretation of "No original research" is just plain wrong in at least some of the places you have been criticising me. I also comment there on your lack of knowledge of the MoS guidelines on referencing. You say my "mistakes are systematic" (systemic?), but that is because you are making an error in insisting that they are mistakes in the first place. (I'm talking here about some of your accusations of original research.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: - Uh, honestly I still don't see such a comment above. I didn't accuse you of OR about Millepora alcicornis, after all -only that I couldn't find a statement in the provided source (it turned out it was indeed not in the source indicated after the sentence, but in another one, and deeper digging turned it out it was not so uncontroversial after all (see below). About the MOS, I have no doubt you are correct in applying it - I just disagree with it. As for that is because you are making an error in insisting that they are mistakes in the first place. - this is the worrying part about your editing. If you can't see that (for example) boldy declaring a sessile species as forming unattached colonies, just because you can't conceive of a sphere-like object being attached to substrate, is an extreme case of WP:OR, how can we expect you to improve in the future?--cyclopiaspeak! 10:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Here is the diff. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth:: Where are you saying that my interpretation of WP:OR is wrong, in that diff? About what you try to do with regard to such things as the colour description for this fire coral.: Do you still not understand that you are not merely using your own words, you are changing the meaning of the sources? Paraphrasing and using your own words is good -it is what is expected. But you cannot change the meaning, making stuff up. --cyclopiaspeak! 11:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Article previously said cream-coloured, yellowish or light brown with paler tips while the source states Color: Brown to light creamy yellow, with white branch tips. These are different and it's a mistake. Cwmhiraeth - for heaven's sake, please never paraphrase colours again. Damn. I would simply write ...and have a range of colours from light creamy yellow to brown, while the branch tips are white-coloured. starship.paint "YES!" 13:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Outsider's view[edit]

I'm a complete outsider to all of this, though I have followed this thread, and the related ones on Wikipediocracy, and I think one of the real problems here is that I don't think there is enough proper fact checking at GAs, and citing offline sources can be used by editors to game the system (whether by malice or incompetence) and sail through the review. What tends to happen then is that there is too much trust that the nominator is correct in their choice of sources. I think I put a only half joking remark in WP:Wikispeak that writing {{sfn|Bloggs|2005|pp=85-86}} sends out a huge "I know WP policies inside out and I am more clueful on this topic than you" regardless of whether the information actually matches the source.

I would not conduct a GA review unless I had a reasonable background understanding of the topic - without it, it's impossible to truly know what is inaccurate or misleading, and all the sources in the world won't tell you if major facts are missing from an article. And from what I can tell, that's what's caused this whole argument to erupt. The "blue number disease" is a serious problem on WP, but it's one so incredibly subtle and easily disguised that it hard to spot and correct. Writing FAs, real proper FAs that stand up to proper scrutiny to the world at large, not just a select number of Wikipedia editors, is a hard task and one has to ask the question - if you're so good at writing articles, why isn't somebody paying you to do so?

As for what to do with the work here, the topics are well outside of my area of expertise, but that makes it even more important that they are correct, because I trust the green blob at the top of an article to mean "this is true, and complete". I think the articles mentioned here have been sufficiently called into question that I would advise Cwmhiraeth in the short term to stop work completely and utterly, down tools, and do one of the many things life offers that doesn't have anything to do with sitting in front of a computer terminal. There's a wide world out there - go and enjoy it. Have fun. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ritchie333, what you say of GAs and FAs is true. A biology-ralated article at GA is listed in the "Biology and medicine" section and is usually reviewed by someone who edits in that part of the project but there is still a degree of trust in the article's content. At FAC the reviewers may come from a wider range of interests but the article concerned is usually reviewed at least in part by editors in that field. But your statement "I trust the green blob at the top of an article to mean "this is true, and complete"" is not correct. GAs are required to be broad in their coverage and address the main aspects of the topic, but are not required to be comprehensive, a criterion only required at FA.
With regard to my own editing, I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia because I love finding out about organisms and writing articles on them. The article mentioned above, Millepora alcicornis, was started from scratch by me and later brought to GA by me. Cyclopia made three points, one on the fire coral's colour, one based on Cyclopia selecting the wrong citation to question the contents of the article, and one other, now resolved, where a citation in the lead should not have been there but where the relevant information was cited in the body of the text. Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia would be the better if I had not written the article and the information on this species was still missing from Wikipedia? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I will note here that the second point raised by Cyclopia actually did lead to the correction of an error. You cited a 1948 paper by Boschma for the assertion, "In 1898, Hickson decided that the variations in morphology were due to environmental factors and that Millepora alcicornis was the valid name for all these species." You left it at that, giving the reader the impression that Hickson's conclusion over a hundred years ago was the last word on the matter. Yet the whole point of the 1948 paper you cited was to refute Hickson's conclusion, which it did at some length, producing copious evidence that Hickson's 1898 conclusion was wrong, and there were in fact a fair number of separate species. In short, you left the reader with the state of science as it was in 1898, while citing a source from 50 years later that contradicted it. The change you have made now has updated the article to the state of science in 1948. What has happened in the 66 years since?
Wikipedia is invariably the top Google link for articles like this. I believe more than half of all Google users only click the top Google link. Rather than asking whether Wikipedia is better off for having the article, we should ask whether the public is better off having the Wikipedia article at the top of Google, because this project's mission is to serve the public. Any errors and inaccuracies present in Wikipedia are immediately propagated on dozens of mirror sites and often enter other sources. Updates and corrections like those you made just now may take some time filter through to mirrors; in some cases, they never do. The page Wikipedia displaced from the top of Google is http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/accounts/Millepora_alcicornis/ – an academically curated site that may well have been more reliable than the Wikipedia article. The fact is that errors or outdated information in Wikipedia actually harm Wikipedia's professed mission.
I will also note here that while Cyclopia acquiesced above, AfadsBad didn't, thus bringing this error to light, and leading to the article being corrected. It's not true that AfadsBad is not contributing anything of value here. Everyone is better off if you welcome her subject matter input. Andreas JN466 20:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed I made the change to the article after AfadsBad drew to my attention to the matter in a polite and helpful manner. I do not deny that AfadsBad could be a useful contributor to the project and I welcome her subject matter input but only when it is constructive as in this instance. If she would change her attitude to one of collaboration rather than constantly trashing my contributions and attempting to ridicule me, I would be delighted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Another outsider's view[edit]

I have read this thread and the ANI as well. I am appalled at the tone and the pile-on of attacks I am seeing on a good faith editor and decent human being. AfadsBad, as far as I can tell, Wikipedia is a place where people need to cooperate and collaborate; this editor review fells more like sharks in a feeding frenzy and seems to be doing little to improve anything. To the extent that Cwmhiraeth's work has actual errors, the solution is to collaborate - if there is a problem with the editor doing a fix, then do research and find citations to high-quality sources that can be added to articles, lend a hand. To the extent that there are different views on matters that are merely stylistic differences of opinion (orange-gray is a perfectly adequate description, for example) other ways to phrase a concept are questions of style and form, not expertise and are subject to WP:NPA, This review is not doing that, it's just running down a person and trying to build up the ego of a bunch of bullies at the expense of someone who is actually doing the work. Montanabw(talk) 20:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Gerda's view[edit]

I have not read this. I can't believe it. How many articles could have written with that amount of writing skill. Prepare to die. Put things in perspective. - I approved several articles by Cwmhiraeth for DYK with no problem, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hush Gerda, be patient. Any time now AfadsBad is going to reveal the massive list of real and most grievous errors she has been assembling in the background. The current nit pickers are just teasers, an aperitif. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Epipelagic, do you have a forecast that hell is about to freeze over?  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 19:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand where you saw impatience. I look at death. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Jim's view[edit]

Cwmhiraeth and I jointly brought Common Starling to FA, and I found her a careful and considerate editor. Her edits to pages that are on my watchlist have never caused me concern, and Atlantic Puffin, another FA, was reviewed at FAC by a number of editors including content reviewers. We all make mistakes, but this whole thing is a result of personal attacks and harassment by a WP:NOTHERE editor who has nothing better to do than target Cwmhiraeth for personal attacks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not deny that there has been harassment by AfadsBad, and if it continues, sanctions should be in order. But the problem she uncovered, alas, is real.--cyclopiaspeak! 21:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
While AfadsBad does bring content knowledge to the table, the harassment is unacceptable. An apology and promise of better future behaviour is needed. Any future harassment needs to be dealt with swiftly and harshly. starship.paint "YES!" 01:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe that I agree with Jim and Starship Paint. I am concerned that AfadsBad has no real credibility due to her off-wiki attack pages and general ranting hyperbole. Maybe she has found a few actual errors, but she's also ranting about things that are mere stylistic disputes or making mountains out of molehills. This editor is unwilling to explain why she thinks she is such a genius, makes broad accusations with minimal evidence and seems unwilling to do any substantive editing. I keep saying SOFIXIT and I mean it; if you see an error, instead of bitching about it, just get a source that's better, make an actual edit, do it properly and join the ranks of the content editors who actually build the encyclopedia. Cwmhiraeth is putting herself on the line with every article; it's way easier to sit back and criticize than it is to get off your ass and do something. Montanabw(talk) 02:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
This I can agree with, but again, the problem is real.--cyclopiaspeak! 07:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It just means we have two problems and must solve both, one with AfadsBad and one with Cwmhiraeth. We can have two solutions. starship.paint "YES!" 12:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. That is what I have supported since when I got involved. --cyclopiaspeak! 13:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Stats[edit]

I recently found it interesting to review the relative popularity of the pages which I have created and worked upon. It may help to observe which of Cwmhiraeth's pages are the most popular and, per the Pareto principle, it seems sensible to focus our attention upon these. Here's a table which I have prepared, showing the pages with the most hits over the last 30 days. The cut-off was a hit rate of 1 per hour. I analysed over a thousand pages altogether but these 92 pages get 90% of the traffic - a total of about 1.4 million hits in those 30 days - about two thousand per hour. For comparison, my most popular page, flip teaching, gets about 30 hits per hour and it's good to see someone working on the really popular and most vital pages like sugar and salt.

Andrew (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

30 days per hour Page
275808 383 Sugar
194724 270 Tiger
78805 109 Desert
72662 100 Frog
69569 96 Trophodiscus almus
63796 88 Tree
63334 87 Salt
58680 81 Amphibian
55584 77 Starfish
50310 69 Atlantic Puffin
49586 68 Onion
43209 60 Sea
37100 51 Anatomy
26917 37 Manta ray
23654 32 Poultry
23280 32 Great Plague of London
20850 28 Crocodilia
20404 28 Tunicate
20271 28 Bivalvia
19932 27 Blackcurrant
14052 19 Common Starling
13657 18 Mouth
12048 16 Birth
11312 15 Lagomorpha
8217 11 Western Jackdaw
7066 9 Sthenoteuthis pteropus
6736 9 Tropaeolum
6417 8 Astichopus
5755 7 Common toad
5584 7 Blue spruce
5115 7 Rossia pacifica
4138 5 European ground squirrel
4119 5 Histioteuthis reversa
4103 5 Coptotermes elisae
3842 5 Giant oceanic manta ray
3202 4 Euglossa dilemma
2440 3 Brolga
2400 3 Cryptotermes brevis
2366 3 Helicoverpa armigera
2258 3 Common starfish
2207 3 Teredo navalis
2140 2 Ossicle (echinoderm)
1998 2 Fieldfare
1981 2 Bank vole
1981 2 Eulaema meriana
1971 2 Black wildebeest
1935 2 Rajiformes
1926 2 White-tailed Ptarmigan
1906 2 Saccharum officinarum
1881 2 Gastrotrich
1800 2 John Stainer
1688 2 Cuvier's dwarf caiman
1674 2 White-tailed jackrabbit
1634 2 Meles (genus)
1633 2 School shark
1630 2 Diamondback moth
1505 2 Starfish wasting disease
1500 2 Desert elephant
1497 2 Sandgrouse
1394 1 Asexual reproduction in starfish
1341 1 Diaphorina citri
1335 1 Copula (jellyfish)
1325 1 European flounder
1318 1 Armillaria mellea
1277 1 Branchiostoma lanceolatum
1269 1 Field vole
1214 1 Marine fungi
1181 1 Chinchillidae
1145 1 Eurasian Wryneck
1133 1 Desert warthog
1131 1 Hyphaene thebaica
1121 1 Smooth-fronted caiman
1120 1 Trichoderma viride
1100 1 Longhorn crazy ant
1075 1 John Lindley
1057 1 Coptotermes acinaciformis
996 1 Xestospongia muta
994 1 Black bean aphid
945 1 Eurasian water shrew
915 1 Heteromyidae
896 1 Asterozoa
894 1 Caulerpa racemosa
859 1 Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. cubense
856 1 Grey triggerfish
812 1 Nostoc commune
800 1 Thomas Pennant
754 1 Fungia
753 1 Ashy-faced Owl
753 1 Candidatus Liberibacter
744 1 Rhizophora mucronata
740 1 Artemisia argyi
732 1 Thalassia testudinum
731 1 Austromegabalanus psittacus
1,462,499 2,030
I agree that the articles with most viewers should be the highest priority. Your list should contain the Poultry article which Cwmhiraeth greatly expanded for the recent Core Contest. That article gets somewhat more than 30 hits per hour. As a judge for the Core Contest, I thought the article improvement work performed by Cwmhiraeth was very valuable. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Poultry[edit]

Binksternet, as a judge for the Core Contest, were you aware of Template:Did you know nominations/Poultry? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I was not aware of that DYK nom. I did not look at the Poultry article until after March 9 when the contest ended. It appears that Cwmhiraeth fixed the too-close paraphrasing by the time I was judging the article. I did see one sentence with two parts, supported by a reference, but only the first part of the sentence was found in the reference. The second part of the sentence says that domesticated turkeys "are increasingly becoming part of the everyday diet in many parts of the world," which I don't think is quite true. According to the Ag Marketing Resource Center, the USDA says that turkey-as-food is increasing in the USA, but the world is not mentioned.[17] A paper published in Nutrients says that per capita poultry consumption is on the increase "in many parts world,"[18] but turkey is not broken out separately from chicken etc. I did not assess this lapse as being a significant failure, since the expansion and reorganization work performed by Cwmhiraeth was otherwise so good. The article was logically organized for the first time, and it was expanded 11x with text and references. It really was an astonishing demonstration of what can be done with crappy vital articles. Binksternet (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Looking through the reference section, FN 12 should be replaced. Alot of others are tertiary sources but ok given the general nature of the topic material. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC) thx for changing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Black Kite's view[edit]

Obviously I haven't looked through all the 1300+ articles written or expanded by Cwmhiraeth, but my initial views are as follows;

  • User:AfadsBad's claim that there are "multiple mistakes in every article" is clearly hyperbole. Some that I have looked through (where I am familiar with the subject) are fine. Of these, however, I would suggest that Cwmhiraeth uses a wider range or sources on some articles (especially birds). She has clearly also worked with other editors to create and expand other articles to a good status. However...
  • ...there are equally clearly issues with many of the articles written or expanded by Cwmhiraeth. Whilst I completely understand the problems with sources for many of these articles, if one cannot create an article without synthesising, original resourcing, or in some cases clearly not being familiar with the subject, one should not be writing these articles. Having no information on a subject is better than having incorrect information. My suggestion would be that Cwmhiraeth refrains from writing anything that is not clearly and unambiguously sourced to a high-quality reliable, timely, source. And if she's not sure if that is the case, then to ask advice from more expert editors.
  • The GA/DYK/WikiCup process, yet again, appears to be responsible for many of these issues. Having "prizes" for achieving these goals is fine, but is rendered utterly irrelevant when the people that are reviewing these processes are in some cases not competent to do so. I do not go anywhere near GA/GAR, but as part of my admin duties I have in the past "fixed" dubious DYK nominations or responded to the ERRORS board. The community as a whole should really be looking at reforming a process that instead of producing a number of consistent high quality articles, produces high volumes of articles which are sometimes (but clearly not consistently) good. Encyclopedic accuracy is far more important than pretty stars on editors' userpages. Black Kite (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you are right that this is a process issue rather than one of an individual. Too often in the above mention is made of close paraphrasing, or not using the exact words in source, when the words being changed are elemental facts. A process that has led a well meaning contributor into such errors is flawed. It is a shame that those involved in the FA/GA/DYK process are unable to distinguish between a theater review and the description of a species and its habit. John lilburne (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
It's a catch-22 between close paraphrasing and changed meaning, one that trips up a lot of people and in the case of some particularly tendentious editors becomes a no-win situation. I'd also like to add the point that for longtime editors, our earlier stuff, when standards were not as tight, is going to be inferior to newer material. I disagree that lack of personal expertise should be a total exclusion - if you can find and use reliable sources, that's the point. If people can tap the expertise of one another, (instead of, as here, a self-proclaimed "expert" steps in, does little to help but just attacks the original editor, which does NOTHING to improve the actual article) collaboration is supposed to catch errors. Heck - I've only been in the Sip 'n Dip Lounge once in my life and I've never had the "fishbowl" even while there, but I wrote the article anyway! I also am not a gemologist or a geologist, but collaborated with five people to get Yogo sapphire to FA. So this debate is really quite silly. We need to improve the GA review process, perhaps, we might want to look at the wikicup point system (4 points for a GAN review versus 30 for a GA - I suggest bumping up the points for reviewers - along with the length requirement for a thorough review!) But we do not need to keep beating up on Cwmhiraeth! Enough is enough! Montanabw(talk) 19:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
It is not catch-22. You are all taking the published work of others and copying it onto some website. In doing so you need to be able to distinguish between the bare facts in the source and the prose in the source. You are meant to copy the facts but not the prose. If someone is unable to adequately distinguish between the two then you end up with either a plagiarism/copyright violation or you end up making claims that the source does not make. This is particularly so in technical subjects as the language tends to be specialized, and does not readily accept synonym substitution. Think of it in terms of a English to French translation where if one isn't careful the choice of word renders the meaning unintelligible. For example I've seen a translation of 'port' in this context Cylinder head porting given the French word havre. Messing about with point systems really isn't going to fix the problem. John lilburne (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: is that a typo where you said Having no information on a subject is worse than having incorrect information?
  • Oops, yes, thanks for pointing that out. I reversed the sentence and not the adjective. Black Kite (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with John lilburne - "close paraphrasing" of scientific facts is clearly a problem. starship.paint "YES!" 01:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not sure the above two statements are actually in agreement; injecting your own opinions and saying that your opinion agrees with someone else's isn't the same thing as a meeting of the minds. Montanabw(talk) 02:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That said, you dismiss too lightly the problem of skillfully balancing writing for a general audience AND writing with complete precision; there is always a need to lean a bit one way or the other, It is not easy, it is a gift, and I am trying to point out that this balance takes time and skill; and even the most skillful editors are going to not be 100% all the time. Here we have an editor who has written excellent articles and probably has some that were written in a bit tighter of a timeframe and either painted with a bit too broad a brush or used older reference material or simply extrapolated a bit more than is ideal; this does not mean we dismiss the editor as a human being. Frankly, those of you stating "someone" ought to review over a thousand articles has clearly never even participated in something like a big CCI investigation - I have - and reviewing hundreds of articles takes several people and often many months. Are you going to volunteer? I doubt it- because that would mean you put your own work on the line and up for the same criticism that you are so eagerly dishing out here at poor Cwmhiraeth! It is time to shut down this review because it's getting tl;dr and generating more heat than light. Montanabw(talk) 02:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Once again this is a process issue not an issue with an individual. The system that is in place, is responsible for the generation of these errors. This is demonstrated by the fact that those involved in the FA/GA/DYK process are not seeing, or dismissing the problems. You are all too caught up with detecting close paraphrasing in the reviews that you aren't seeing that the manipulation has changed the factual information. That is the damn problem not any one particular editor, because I suspect that many articles coming through this system by other editors have similar issues, Cwmhiraeth just happens to have created more, but remove Cwmhiraeth and in six months time it will be someone else. I suggest the reason for this is that detecting 'close paraphrasing' is easier to spot by none experts than garbled factual information, however the focus should be on the factual information and the the close paraphrasing should be of lower importance. John lilburne (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Thorough reviewing is something that is needed more of throughout wikipedia. Yes walking the tightrope between too-close paraphrasing and OR is difficult but it can be done. I can see Liliburne's point in staying closer rather than further from the original text is the lesser of two evils. The FA review process is usually exacting on sources, and some reviewers are more exacting than others. Maybe some blanket statements urging tighter review of sources at the relevant boards would be helpfulCas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: When you started your review, you suggested that AfadsBad gave examples of articles containing errors or misleading information while I gave details of articles I considered to be good and accurate. We provided this "evidence" but when stating your view you have made generalisations but not specific comments on the "evidence". I have made a table below and listed these articles. Please could you add comments, a score (1 to 10 with 1 being "extremely bad" and 10 being "perfect") and whether you think the article has multiple mistakes. Please add any other articles you have inspected in detail to the table and score them too. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No, sorry, I'm not going to do that for two reasons. One, I'm not qualified to do so for many of the articles. Atlantic Puffin or Eurasian Wryneck fine, but for many of the others I would be placing myself in the same position as many others reviewing the articles whose knowledge does not extend to being able to confirm how well-written the articles are. Two, I think this editor review has spread to a wider forum, that of how scientific articles are dealt with generally in WP, especially the issues of DYK etc., and for this I don't think reviewing individual articles is worthwhile. I said above that I thought AfadsBad's claims were hyperbole and I stand by that, but equally I also stand by my analysis that there are a number of articles that have serious issues. Black Kite (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Article Comment Score, 1 to 10 Multiple mistakes? Yes/No
Formica incerta
Xyloplax turnerae
Adamussium
Cidaris cidaris
Glyptonotus antarcticus
Atlantic Puffin
Chameleon goby
Red-cheeked salamander
Eurasian Wryneck
Natterer's bat
Crocodylus novaeguineae
Gastrotrich

Cwmhiraeth's view[edit]

  • Black Kite took on the review but his efforts were largely swamped by the comments of other users. He asked for "evidence" to be provided by AfadsBad and me in the form of specific articles we either thought bad or good. In his conclusions he did not evaluate this evidence, and when I asked him to do this, he stated that with the exception of Atlantic Puffin and Eurasian Wryneck, he did not feel competent to judge them. Thank you Black Kite for volunteering for this difficult job.
  • AfadsBad unsurprisingly featured heavily in the review. I thought her efforts at producing "evidence" rather feeble. Her crony, Scott, followed along with comments but added nothing of substance to the review. Both are enthusiastic members at Wikipediocracy.
  • I understand that Andreas JN466 is a regular member of the Wikipediocracy forum and therefore I viewed his intervention in my review with some suspicion. His comments at AnI seem to have a slight negative bias but are on the whole fair enough. He first proposed on AnI that I sought a review which I did. On this review, he identified three specific errors in Desert, one of which turned out to be incorrect and now appears hidden in this review under the heading "I misunderstood". He popped up here and there, always in a negative capacity.
  • Cyclopia and Fram have both unearthed a number of articles to criticize. I do not think they have been unfair in their criticisms, but both seem to have arrived with a mission, not to evaluate my work but to find examples of incompetence. This prejudging of the issue is exemplified by the opening statement of Cyclopia when creating a new subsection on AnI entitled "WP:COMPETENCE issues of User:Cwmhiraeth". Cyclopia stated in this "Her answers to the points I raised on a review of a random article of hers ... make me worry that some of the unpleasant frustration of AfadsBad could be justified". This so-called "random" article was Boring clam, an article I had started expanding the day before and which was criticised in its unfinished state within hours of the time I wrote the offending passage. Hardly random and hardly fair, I would say. Cyclopia has been vociferous in complaint. Some criticisms I regard as fair comment, but if I query any of them, this fact is evinced as evidence that I "just don't get it". Cyclopia also used the remark "Here we go again." to introduce a new section on another article criticised. Fram seems on a mission to find further examples of my incompetence and will no doubt succeed if the search continues.
  • Several other users such as Casliber, Starship.paint and Jimfbleak have made useful contributions to the review and have sought to oversee fair play in what has become largely a Cwmhiraeth-bashing process. Other users have been kind enough to praise my work or to offer well-argued critical comments for which I thank them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
What, if anything, are you going to change in your approach to article writing and sourcing, in light of this editor review? Fram (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Forget my question, I just read your comments of last evening at the ANI discussion, and they match nicely with what you complained about here: "Some criticisms I regard as fair comment, but if I query any of them, this fact is evinced as evidence that I "just don't get it". Yes, you just don't get it, and I fear you never will, if you still felt the need to ask others to check the change at Spicara maena, caused by my check of your DYK nomination. If you can't see what's wrong with your original text there, even after it had been explained repeatedly, then you should refrain from creating articles on scientific subjects (or at least from writing anything but the most basic facts about them). Fram (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Fram I will take a look at this - just started reading Template:Did you know nominations/Spicara maena when RL happened. Back later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. At the DYK, I thought he (or she) finally got it, but apparently the edit was only done to appease me and get the DYK on the front page, and Cwmhiraeth doesn't believe there was anything wrong with the initial text in the article (or the DYK). This moves the problem from not being careful to not being competent, and that's why my question above is no longer valid. Fram (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
In most animals at a stage in their life when they are growing, the animal's size increases as it grows older. Note the use of the word grow in the previous sentence. I don't believe the proposed hook "... that both the picarel and the blotched picarel change sex as they grow?" implies that the change occurs at a certain size, just that young individuals are female and older ones are male and that the change takes place at some point in their life. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
The hook itself was ok, but as I tried to explain at ANI, the article itself did indeed imply that the change occurs at a certain size ([19]). Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 10:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Reading one of the sources what I took from it is that there were both males and females in the earlier ages and the sex change from female to male occurs after the female has spawned a couple of times, that size was an incidental factor of that. Now the source didn't say that, but it is a line of research that I would have taken to ascertain the real cause as size/age alone as a vector seems to be somewhat lacking. John lilburne (talk) 11:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, are you really trying to defend yourself by equalling "as they grow" with "as they grow older"? Apart from that, your sentence simply doesn't make sense at all: "In most animals at a stage in their life when they are growing, the animal's size increases as it grows older." Yes, usually, when you are growing, your size increases, and the most accepted meaning of "growing" is from an earlier point in life to a later point in life; the reverse is more commonly called "shrinking". So, what your sentence says, is "Most animals grow at some stage in their life". Some, apparently, don't? If the hook didn't want to imply that the sex change was related to their growth, then the addition was meaningless and confusing. I haven't seen an explanation why you thought adding "as they grow" would in any way improve the hook. And I haven't seen an indication why you still thought that the article as originally written by you was correct. But I love your final line "that the change takes place at some point in their life." No kidding? They don't change sex before birth or after death? Please, if you can't make a coherent defense, or better still, just admit that you were wrong, then don't bother replying. You are not helping yourself. Fram (talk) 11:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, the point Fram is making is about aligning the text with the sources - the Fishbase source only uses the phrase "Are protogynous hermaphrodites" and hence the text in the article has to align with the phrase. Now having looked at the sources I can understand the thinking, and would recommend adding about Soykan and colleagues finding that sex inversion occurred between 14.5 and 15.0 cm total length in a study off the coast of Izmir, but we can't generalise as they themselves note that "Salekhova (1979) reported that sex inversion occurred between 12.1 and 15.0 cm in the Lampedusa Island population, and Dulčić et al. (2000) reported that sex reversal occurred between 17.5 and 18.0 cm total length." they also make some notes at the end about regional differences. Now the next issue was Fram calling it Original Research, which it wasn't - sentence two of Wikipedia:No original research the states "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" - you had identified a source but hadn't ascribed it to that section (although we can't generalise the finding). Incidentally it is feasible that organisms mature but not grow during certain stages, but I digress as it is not the case in this fish. Given the pejorative nature of the term OR, I can see that there was some lack of Good Faith on Fram's part, yet were it me I might have tweaked it the sentence before. I also understand Fram's (and others') exasperation at DYK, and he understands my frustration at editors who contribute little content yet heavily criticise others and we have discussed this previously. Polarising debates are problematic and tend to make the opposition angry rather than "learn" them. Sigh. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Casliber for the amendments you made to the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, come on. What I hatted above under the heading 'I misunderstood'" had nothing to do with anything I said about your article being incorrect, and you know it. Let's recap: I identified two, not three, issues in Desert. Both of these involved obvious absurdities.
  1. The first issue concerned the paragraph in which you stated that the average winter temperature in cold deserts like Greenland and Antarctica was between –2 and +4 °C. (!!!!!!!!!!!!) That stayed in this top-3,000, million-views-a-year article for almost a year.
  2. The second issue was that you wrote that birds in cold deserts avoid "the problem of their feet becoming chilled by maintaining their lower limbs at external temperatures". Penguins' feet would freeze solid if they dropped to –30 °C. The poor critters would die of frostbite and gangrene.
What I said I misunderstood was your explanation of why you didn't change the average winter temperature right away when I told you it was nonsense. At first I thought you'd said "It wasn't me" who'd inserted that info. So I wrote a long response with diffs proving that it was you. Upon re-reading your reply, however, I understood what you'd really said: that you hadn't changed it "because the figures [you] used were in the source [you] used". So I hatted my first response. Okay? That's what was hatted. Nothing to do with any incorrect statement of mine about the accuracy of the article.
Now, I find it most alarming that you would recount what happened between you and me here in terms that are so far removed from the truth. I was similarly alarmed when I saw you trying to deflect attention from the point made by Adrian J. Hunter at AN/I. It seemed to me that you seized on a mix-up in what he'd written to avoid acknowledging the actual content point he was making to you (which was the same point Cyclopia and Fram had made before him). If you carry on like this, you'll end up with lots of people who are as distressed as AfadsBad!
To me the crux of the matter, sadly, is this: I wouldn't trust anyone to write science articles who's happily asserted, in a Good Article, that the average winter temperature in places like Greenland and Antarctica is between –2 and +4 °C, and who, when it was pointed out to them, still kept that in the article just because they could point to a website that said so – a website that had no business being cited in Wikipedia. And that this slipped through the GA review, and stayed in the article for almost a year, is equally alarming. Andreas JN466 10:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, could you please answer this? What have you learnt about your editing through this editor review? Have you realised any problems or mistakes? If so, how are you going to change to ensure that these mistakes aren't made any more? starship.paint "YES!" 12:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have learnt that there are some editors who define " no original research" in a different way from me and I am considering whether I should adopt their approach. I have learnt that I should be more selective in the sources I use and I accept Andreas criticism, because I did think the temperatures mentioned in the source seemed rather unlikely. On his second point, I explained that I had expressed badly the point I was trying to make. I have learnt that if you say something over and over again, as AfadsBad has done, people jump to the conclusion it must be true. I have learnt that if you have written 1300 articles, as AfadsBad asserts (I don't know where the figure came from), people are pleased to point out the errors in a small number (15?) and extrapolate from that to assume the rest are all bad. I await Casliber's verdict on Spicara maena with interest and also the results of any reviews of my articles that take place as a result of requests at the relevant WikiProjects. Let's not prejudge the issue. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
How about your paraphrasing? I think I have stated more than once here about my opinion in your supposed errors of paraphrasing leading to inaccuracies. This issue is partly related to "no original research". Do you have an opinion on that? starship.paint "YES!" 13:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I have learnt that if you have written 1300 articles, as AfadsBad asserts (I don't know where the figure came from), people are pleased to point out the errors in a small number (15?) and extrapolate from that to assume the rest are all bad. - That's basic statistics. If I have a bowl with an unknown, huge number of black and white candies, and I pick up a dozen black candies and a couple white ones, it is plausible that most candies will be black. Sure, one can have been really unlucky, but still, the pattern begins to show. Also because each article with problems features multiple problems. As for defining "original research", it is very simple: do not make assumptions that are not written down in the source. I wonder however if you really understand why we find many of your paraphrases incorrect. Are you still convinced that your colour descriptions are correct? If yes, I can try to explain more clearly. --cyclopiaspeak! 14:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

from Faendalimas[edit]

I became aware of this from the link posted on the Reptile and Amphibian Portal. Have spent the last hour reading all of it through. My own specialty is that I am a Zoologist (Taxonomist/ Paleontologist) specialising in turtles, Museum based. I am very busy but will try to have a look at the Crocodylus page listed above. I did however want to comment also. As a scientist I find the style of the attacks in here by some, the tone and methods a little unfair. I have of course had to attack and discredit other work in the course of my career, but it is done in a way that is respectful, I attack the work not the person. In saying that when your work is criticised it must not be taken personally. It seems that choice of resources has also been an issue, books are usually only editorially reviewed, not fact checked so using books is not the best practice, unless you have knowledge of the author. But your preference in science should be first class peer reviewed journal articles. It does not mean there are not good factual books out there, identifying which is which is the issue. Faendalimas talk 15:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

ok well the page ´´Crocodylus novaeguineae´´ I think this article is reasonable, not innaccurate nor missrepresentative of the greater knowledge base for the species. That is its fine. My main criticisms would be I feel the classification could be done better since the species is a member of the sub-family Crocodylinae etc. It could also use a synonymy which is useful and can easily be checked on the Reptile Database. References cited could include some of the first class literature and it only took a few searches to find some of this material available online, in particular on the systematics and ecology of the species. These criticisms are just ommisions I feel the article could use, its not a bad article for WP. This is not a well known species such as the Nile or Saltwater Crocodiles, so information is a little harder to find. So in summary could use a few things added, and a better use of the primary literature. Cheers Faendalimas talk 18:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, did you check the exact consistence of the article with the sources? That's where Cwmhiraeth problems lie. Here is for example: Source says Body colouration is brownish to grey, with darkish banding on the body and tail which is more apparent in younger animals. The article instead says The body is gray-brown in colour, with dark brown or black bandings on the tail which become less noticeable as the animal grows., which is subtly different but different. The source talks of a range of colours (from brownish to gray) while "gray-brown" to me seems a single colour. Also, "darkish banding" does not readily translate into "dark brown or black" - black is nowhere to be found. These are very subtle, minor inaccuracies, but they keep on confirming the pattern. --cyclopiaspeak! 18:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)~
Yep problem is the choice of the source. I am assuming the source got its information from Hall (1989) but without clarification. Cwmhiraeth has cited a web page that has not clearly stated its sources. So what are we to believe. This is another example of my point, go to original sources so it can be done right. For an encyclopaedic article its an adequate following of the sources, not great but adequate. Having seen the species in question, as well as C. johnstoni and C. mindorensis that description is not unreasonable for any of them. But we need sources that back that up. Also the act of writing an entire paragraph, with multiple statements and then citing only at the end of the paragraph your sources, is a little dubious since we dont know which statements come from which source. Wether gray-brown represents a single color or a range is unclear, same is true in the source also. Faendalimas talk 18:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your fair comments, Faendalimas. The reason that there are citations only at the end of the paragraph is that the description is a synthesis of information from the two sources. I have seen this approach recommended because otherwise the text gets cluttered up with citations, and adding and correctly attributing information in the middle of the paragraph becomes a nightmare. The point that Cyclopia makes on the animal's colouring shows that Cyclopia is still failing to understand the necessity of using your own words as per this page where it states: "Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material." @Nikkimaria: I'm hoping that Nikkimaria is going to clarify this point for you. Another point you seem to fail to understand is that different sources often give information that varies significantly between themselves, sometimes dramatically so, and this means that just blindly following one may be misleading. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cwmhiraeth. You've identified a key policy quote about appropriate practice: "Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material". This can be very difficult to do, particularly where a source is dense, technical, or otherwise difficult to understand; as a result, it's quite easy to fall too far to either side of the OR/CV balance. There are of course techniques to deal with the problem - rephrasing where possible, quoting where not, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome. I understand your point of not cluttering the text with citations, but you don't want to go the other extreme where it is unclear what is cited. A balanced method is needed. I have also seen this approach recommended and have urged careful use of this then also. Yes you cannot copy word for word, you must paraphrase and cite. But you cannot loose the meaning doing so either, its a difficult skill to master. Trust me as a professional scientist, am well aware that different sources have different views. The reason that I recommend peer reviewed articles is that as they have been vetted by other scientists in that field in order to get published you can have a little more faith in what is said in the article. I have to deal with this issue, also when writing WP pages but also my own peer reviewed journal articles. That of course constantly leads me to the issue of NPOV in articles I write of WP, such as if I have to cite my own publications. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 06:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: - the point that Cyclopia makes on the animal's colouring shows that Cyclopia is still failing to understand the necessity of using your own words. No. I understand very well you have to use your own words. But, with different words, you have to say the same things. You must change the words, you must not alter the meaning. What is not clear about this concept? Do you understand the difference between using your own words and making stuff up?--cyclopiaspeak! 08:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
@Cyclopia: Yes I do understand. And I think your objection is petty and trivial. The reviewer said of the article "That is its fine", and then mentioned various ways in which it could be further improved. Why don't you just shut up, and if independent reviewers with knowledge of what they are reviewing say an article is acceptable, leave it at that? I think the answer to my question is that you have appointed yourself as chief prosecutor and are determined to get me topic banned or otherwise punished and that you are not prepared to give up. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Yes I do understand. - Then explain me how "darkish bands" translates as "dark brown or black". Dark brown I can understand, but black? And explain me how a range (from grey to brown) became a single mixed coloration (gray-brown). These two things are not the same of your paraphrase, not in wording, but in meaning. Do you recognize this? Granted, this is quite a tiny inaccuracy, compared with others: but it confirms the pattern.
And I think your objection is petty and trivial. - So you think that inserting inaccurate or even false information in articles is "petty and trivial"?
The reviewer said of the article "That is its fine" - Reviewers may miss things. I missed things that other reviewers found, above (see Fram and the oyster article, who found an inaccuracy I didn't find).
Why don't you just shut up M'lady, you are not in the position of telling me to "shut up". You are being reviewed, and I am reviewing (and even if you weren't under editor review, I could point to article errors all the same, all the time). You are free to disagree (digging your hole even deeper), but you are not free to tell me to "shut up".
I think the answer to my question is that you have appointed yourself as chief prosecutor Not at all. I am just worried, maybe more than others, about what is going on with your edits. Not all of them, not all articles, but many of them. Too many to just let it go.
and are determined to get me topic banned or otherwise punished I am indeed determined to do that in the case you keep maintaining an uncollaborative and defensive approach, and refuse to admit your mistaken concept of paraphrasing, for start. I would much, much prefer however not to lose a good faith and prolific contributor, if you can instead understand what is wrong with many of your paraphrases and inaccuracies and help fixing them. --cyclopiaspeak! 10:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
But you are trying to make someone who approved the article change his mind and I don't think that's fair. And now I come to look at it, the bit you are challenging was not even my own work, but has been in the article since 2006! Ha ha, well done! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
But you are trying to make someone who approved the article change his mind and I don't think that's fair. - Why not? What does "fair" mean in this context? This is not a game. This is about ensuring accuracy.
And now I come to look at it, the bit you are challenging was not even my own work, but has been in the article since 2006! - Fair enough, in this case apologies if I assumed it was your work (well, you yourself assumed it was yours, until you looked at the chronology). Yet you seem to think that such a paraphrase is correct. Do you think it is? I agree that between this and the Philaetria dido article, where inaccurate edits preceded your ones, there seems to be a more general problem in science articles, and that you are just a tip of the iceberg. But it would be appreciated if you begun to understand what this problem is. Do you? --cyclopiaspeak! 14:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Well to be fair to cyclopia, I dont think it was an attempt to change my mind but check if I looked at that facet. As an editor and reviewer thats a reasonable question to ask of me, as long as its done respectfully. As WP editors we are responsible for producing what is in effect an Encyclopaedia, that means we have to try to be presenting good information. We all make make mistakes, it happens. @Cwmhiraeth maybe collaborating on these science articles would help help you. Many scientists do not have the time to devote to mass editing on a project such as WP but are willing to help in other ways. You are aware that if you are writing an article on a particular species and need a reference, a quick email to the corrosponding author (first or is highlighted in some way) of a journal paper will usually at least get you a pdf of the paper in question, if you have a specific question you can get explanation. Scientists are not going to ignore you they are just very busy, so you have to keep it straightforward with quick requests. @cyclopia I get that you are trying to make an improvement here, I agree with the sentiment. But do remember people co-operate better when not sitting in the inquisitors chair. Basic stats does make a point here, on average number of mistakes would have a correlation, and hence the more edits done, the more mistakes. That does not make this editor worse than anyone else, benefit of the doubt goes a long way. Cheers Faendalimas talk 15:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
@Faendalimas: I am sorry if I was too aggressive. What frustrates me (and I guess what frustrated other editors) is not so much the errors themselves -many are very minor issues- but the inability to recognize them as such. Everybody makes mistakes, me first. But if someone points that I wrote something which doesn't have the same meaning of the source, or added OR, I feel I would be willing to recognize it. That it doesn't happen here and that it is all still justified with the "that is just paraphrasing" excuse is what makes me worried. --cyclopiaspeak! 17:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Review from Sasata[edit]

Per a request at the WikiProject Fungi talk page, I checked out one article of Cwmhiraeth's, Amanita nivalis, which was created by her (and was on the front page as a DYK), and which I feel comfortable assessing critically. After checking every statement against its source, I conclude that the article is mostly fine. There are some minor things I would have written differently (e.g. using "stem" as a synonym for the technicaly accurate "stipe", but I used to do that too…). Two of the website sources used should be replaced (both of the foreign-language sites don't seem to qualify as reliable sources), and I would ask them to be changed if this were a GAN, but they're tolerable for a start-class article on an obscure mushroom species. I did not find any errors (only omissions that one would expect in a start-class article). I may check some more articles and report back if time permits. Sasata (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, this seems mostly fine to me as well.--cyclopiaspeak! 17:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
One swallow does not make a summer. Snowman (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
It is a fungus article not a bird one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Andrew's view[edit]

The general issue here seems to be perfectionism but perfect is the enemy of good. It is natural for us to want our work to be perfect but the structure and methods of Wikipedia do not emphasise this. Instead, it is explicit policy that articles may be imperfect and that we should not agonize about making mistakes. This seems sensible because we are all fallible; we are not paid for our work; and readers are given fair warning in the disclaimer that "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY".

Given the large volume of Cwmhiraeth's work, it does not seem that their rate of error is especially significant or greater than the general average. It's not clear what that average is but, as an example, I took a quick look at the work of Cwmhiraeth's antagonist, AfadsBad. The first article I looked at was the Ten Standard Firefighting Orders. This seems to reproduce those orders exactly but without clear attribution or quotation marks. There are plenty of editors who agonise about copyright violation and plagiarism in such cases so I can understand why Cwmhiraeth takes some care to change the language used. The second article I looked at was America Burning. In this there is a statement, "One of the outcomes of the report was the practice of architects and engineers including fire safety in the design of buildings." This seemed far-fetched so I checked the source which is cited for this. This source does not support the statement. Instead, if anything, the source indicates that architects and engineers still have more to do in incorporating the latest thinking about fire safety into their professional training. So, it seems easy to find debatable work in those articles.

My main conclusion is that this review is sufficient oversight to keep Cwmhiraeth's standards up. She knows that she is being watched and will not want to give more ammunition to her critics. Those critics should themselves look to their own work and consider the parable of the Mote and the Beam — "Judge not, that ye be not judged.".

I also have a specific suggestion. Most of the articles in question are about particular species. In many cases, these are part of a large family with common characteristics. For example, the delightfully boring clam is a bivalve and there are many thousands of bivalve species. Because they are similar, there is a set of standard terms which are used to describe their morphology. For example, if the two valves (shells) are symmetrical they are said to be equivalved. They have particular teeth patterns and gill structures which are described with standard words like pachyodont and filibranch. So, when working upon members of such a family, one could develop a checklist of standard morphological features which could be filled in using a template such as an infobox. By using such a checklist, the editor would separate the distinctive facts from the prose of the sources used. Plain facts are not subject to copyright and so this process would filter them out in a safe way. Of course, producing lists of facts rather than elegant prose then conflicts with our general style guide but this again shows that the editorial process is a matter of balance and compromise between priorities rather than a matter of absolute right and wrong.

Andrew (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

What you say about AfadsBad's articles is interesting; I did not know she had written any. Although this review is about my editing and not AfadsBad's actions, I will mention that a form of harassment adopted in the last month or so is the trashing by her on the DYK nominations page of any articles I nominate. Here is an example. I particularly commend AfadsBad's comments on 31st March for your amusement but the whole is quite illuminating. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

From Snowmanradio[edit]

I have a formal training in science and so I tend to be interested in some of the science content on the Wiki. Nevertheless, I tend to edit bird articles as a hobby rather than editing articles relevant to my career. Snowman (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I guess that User Cwmhiraeth is a high profile editor here partly because she has won the Wiki Cup twice and was runner up in the 2013 Stub Contest. I have never been a fan of editing contests on the Wiki, mostly because of the apparent conflict between quality and quantity; nevertheless, I did enter and win the 2013 Stub Contest. I think that when editors participate in editing contests they lay there work open to scrutiny. My aim in the 2013 Stub Contest was to do edits without making a mistake; however, I did make some mistakes and I corrected all the mistakes prior to the end of the competition as far as I am aware. I understand the temptation to rush when participating in editing competitions. Snowman (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Some time ago I had a look at the "Sea" article brought by User Cwmhiraeth to GA and subsequently FA. I participated in the FAC review of the Sea article. It seems to me, that this article at the time that it was awarded GA contained many awful mistakes and ambiguities centered around anything to do with science. I became concerned about User Cwmhiraeth's writing on technical issues at that time. The FAC review corrected many terrible mistakes seen in the GA and so the FA is reasonable, in my opinion. All the evidence is in buckets in the FAC review. Snowman (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I participated in a small way in the GA review of the "Salt" article, which covered some medical aspects of salt in the diet. The whole section on health and diet was rewritten mostly after the conscientious GA reviewer asked from help from WP:Medicine. I think that the GA reviewer did the right thing in asking for help and I think that the outcome of the GA review and the GA article was satisfactory. Personally speaking, I would have thought that User Cwmhiraeth should not have presented the article for GA review without a meaningful peer review or assistance from someone who was in a position to understand the medical evidence holistically, if she has not studied the relevant heath issues in depth. Unfortunately, I think that GA reviewers tend to work on their own and a situation may arise too often when one GA reviewer is reviewing a topic he or she does not know anything about written by the GA nominator who also does not know anything about the topic. Perhaps, the GA rules need addressing to avoid the possibility of editors taking on complex topics too hastily. Nevertheless, it would be sensible for editors to exercise a conscientious approach when writing about complex topics. Snowman (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • At the least, I would encourage User Cwmhireath to liaise more when adding complex content to the Wiki, particularly technical and scientific content. I would also suggest that User Cwmhireath had a break from contests. Snowman (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Fair comment, and liaising more with others for more technical topics would probably be a good idea. I do not actually think my work is the worse for taking part in the WikiCup because, for example, the length of my new start class articles submitted to DYK in order to accumulate points, is usually well over the minimum length for DYK and I try to write reasonably balanced articles. As for the Stub Contest, trying to improve the maximum number of stub articles to start class in a set period of time does not encourage high quality editing. And then there is the Core Contest, which I think has a worthwhile objective. I am currently competing in this year's WikiCup, but may choose to "retire" afterwards to give others a chance. ;-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, when User Cwmhireath has liaised she has been effective at liaising, so I am somewhat puzzled about why things have apparently gone wrong and why my remarks on the mistakes in the Sea article after GA made on the WikiCup talk page appear to have fallen on stony ground at that time. Snowman (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I would think that DYKs are about making articles suitable to be shown on front page and being read by about 5000 readers or sometimes more, so I think ideally a DYK article needs extra qualities above an equivalent article that is not shown on the front page. Snowman (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

From Casliber[edit]

  • I can see you're dedicated and have written some material which reads well and worked well with other editors. However I've seen enough here to make me feel uneasy, but I concede that I have goofed at times too. Big/broad articles are extremely challenging to get through review processes so a hefty FAC is not unusual for a large article. I disagree to some degree with Black Kite in that I think it was the imperfectness rather than absence of material which brought many of us here and encouraged us to build and perfect it, and my feeling is that the positives outweigh the negatives overall. However this comes with some caveats - I agree with Snowman about concerns over the GA process, and would recommend Cwmhiraeth use Peer Review as a way of liaising before GA or even after GA if the article was passed quickly (part of me likes it when my articles are passed easily but another part of me often feels uneasy and wishes I was grilled more). I use Peer Review from time to time and have found it helpful - especially if one asks for specific issues to be looked at. I have also noted issues with references raised and do recommend Cwmhiraeth asks others if unsure about the reliability of a source, particularly a web-based one. Also agree on some issues with writing what the source says. This can be more difficult than it looks initially, especially if one has an assumption already. And prioritise fixing items people raise quickly. This can be hard sometimes if the asker has adopted a terse tone and come across as antagonistic, but you really have to. I am sure many of us here will be happy to chip in and help. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
At the end of the section Cwmhiraeth's view I was asked by Starship.paint what I had learned through the review process and I replied. But you see, I really feel rather angry. I made a harassment complaint at AnI and many people agreed that there had been unacceptable harassment. Then along comes Cyclopia and starts a "WP:COMPETENCE issues of User:Cwmhiraeth". Nobody bothers to start a section on any sanctions that AfadsBad should face. So the complaint gets closed rather abruptly at AnI and the result was that AfadsBad faced no sanctions because there was no consensus. I don't know what is happening at the Wikipediocracy thread now but I daresay it is continuing as before. I did not want AfadsBad blocked, but I would have liked an undertaking that she would close the thread and stop harassing me.
So I'm not feeling in a very cooperative mood. AfadsBad gets no sanctions and I get a gruelling editor review where many of the points raised are exceedingly trivial. I see now that it would have been better not to have made the complaint in the first place. I have asked Nikkimaria to help with the disagreement between Cyclopia and me about close paraphrasing but she may choose not to do so. Meanwhile I haven't done anything pleasurable or useful in Wikipedia for about ten days because I am constantly having my work trashed by others, and I know they are looking at everything I do, ready to expose my faults, and even prepared to criticise a partially written article where the word "oval" was only used temporarily until I found a better description of the shell. I noticed a fault in an article on a sea anemone yesterday that Cyclopia would describe as original research, and in this instance I would concur, but I did not change the article because it would draw attention to it and there would be heaps more criticism.
Having said that, your advice about peer review is excellent, also consulting with others if I try to tackle things that may be beyond my competence. There are plenty of organisms that I am perfectly capable of creating but I like to write rounded articles that cover all the main aspects, and sometimes an unreliable source is the only place to find a description. And Faendalimas had a sensible suggestion on how to obtain full-length papers. So yes, I would like to improve my editing along the lines outlined in this review, but the glee with which "they" were finding faults, making comments like "Here we go again", and the threat of sanctions, really put my back up. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

From olive[edit]

Thank you Cwmhiraeth for subjecting yourself to a review. I am seeing slight shifts in meaning which comes with paraphrasing. However, I have seen on multiple occasions so-called experts make errors that were much, much worse. If we were to choose almost any editor I know we would at some point in their work come up with the same kind of errors and would become embroiled in contentious discussion over what was the "right" phrasing. This is no way lets anyone off the hook in terms of editing . Our articles must be accurate. We are focusing on one editor out of many simply because someone happened to shed a light on her. I suspect we could find the same problems with others. There are some things that will happen on a collaborative project and this is one. This isn't sanctionable as far as I'm concerned.

If an editor works in an area where he or she she isn't an expert, it makes sense to ask an expert to come in and check the article and its language. No one is expected to be an expert in all the articles we can edit so asking for help is sensible.

I think there's helpful advice on this page for any editor; its a practical exercise seems to me that with open mindedness can only make any of us reading this page including Cwmhiraeth better editors.

At the same time, while I understand frustration, I don't condone the attacks against this editor.

I hope I don't sound patronizing. Just hoping to see this in the most useful light as possible, to help out a prolific, well- intentioned editor, and once again suggest there is no place on Wikipedia for vicious attacks nor matter what the conditions. My opinion of course.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC))

On OR. There is an important distinction between a research paper and an encyclopedia and its easy to find them intersecting when they shouldn't. Wikipedia isn't really the sum of all knowledge its the sum of all verifiable, RS, published knowledge. If a concrete, direct description isn't in a source,it isn't in the article. No extrapolations. In a research paper one might extrapolate somewhat, but not here.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC))

Thank you for pouring oil on troubled waters. I actually wrote my reply to Casliber before I read what you said and we edit conflicted. I really think an editor review should be a more positive process than this has been. Almost everything said has been critical of my work and has made me defensive and less likely to cooperate. I describe the process as my war, and I didn't accompany my husband to a family funeral yesterday because I felt I had to be here to defend myself from the ongoing attack. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a very easy way to defend yourself from "the ongoing attack": acknowledge and fix your mistakes. If you were willing to do that, everything would change and I'd be the first to help you constructively. But this can't be done unless you understand that what you do, often, is not merely rewording.--cyclopiaspeak! 00:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Cyclopia, thanks for your help in this process. However, I think we're to the point where comments like the above have hit the point of diminishing returns. This set of articles is getting plenty of expert scrutiny and I'm confident the problem won't recur. Asking for anything more than that at this point isn't going to move the process along any faster. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Cyclopia... I'm afraid that Cwmhiraeth is especially not going to listen to you. After what she has said to be several months of harassment by AfadsBad, naturally she will be on the defensive towards more criticism, as well as the fact that you pointed out supposed WP:COMPETENCE issues in the AN/I thread meant for AfadsBad. Perhaps you should take a step back from here.
Cwmhiraeth, despite what I've said to Cyclopia, I actually fully agree with Cyclopia on your paraphrasing issues, and I don't think they are trivial. My advice to you on this point is, on the fine line between (inaccuracy-paraphrasing-plagiarism), you need to lean towards plagiarism to correct your current tendency towards "inaccuracy". I just hope that you will be more open-minded towards this criticism. starship.paint "YES!" 01:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Before making the changes suggested by Cyclopia and others, I wanted to make sure that the changes were in agreement with Wikipedia policy. Nikkimaria has now commented:-
"Hi Cwmhiraeth. You've identified a key policy quote about appropriate practice: "Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material". This can be very difficult to do, particularly where a source is dense, technical, or otherwise difficult to understand; as a result, it's quite easy to fall too far to either side of the OR/CV balance. There are of course techniques to deal with the problem - rephrasing where possible, quoting where not, etc."
I am quite willing to make the necessary changes to articles and of course others can and have been doing so. I also note Cyclopia's offer to help me constructively. Does that mean you are offering ongoing support on future articles I write, Cyclopia? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

AmaryllisGardener*[edit]

AmaryllisGardener (talk · contribs · count) I would like to know what others think of my edits and behavior on Wikipedia. AmaryllisGardener talk 13:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    Even though I've created over 200 articles, I wouldn't consider content creation what I do best, as most of those I created are stubs. It's hard to say what my primary contributions to Wikipedia are, I would say I work in a lot of different areas: AfD, AfC, NPP, RCP, adding refs to articles, etc.
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    I've never been in a dispute with anybody, and if I get in a dispute, I'll try to talk with the editor about it, rather than get into an edit war.
  3. What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
    I just want a general review of my edits, and would like to know if I could run for adminship and pass, but I'm only considering running. And if I do run, it will be a while.


Reviews


fycafterpro*[edit]

fycafterpro (talk · contribs · count) Hello my name is fycafterpro and I wish to be reviewed so I know what I need to work on and do better. Thanks fycafterpro(talk) 20:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    I primarily help wikipedia by removing vandalism edits through huggle and twinkle. I will also sometimes review pending changes.
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    There has never really been any sort of dispute I have been involved in. A lot of users I have met so far are kind and appreciate vandalism I rollback. That being said if I ever was involved in a dispute I would first stay cool and not let my emotions get the best of me. Waiting a little bit before responding would help me. I would stop editing against the user(except for vandalism) to stop an edit war from happening. I would probably try to resolve the problem with the user by just talking to them to understand why they made the edits they did. If I am unable to resolve it in a calm way and I feel I cannot do much more I would request a dispute resolution.
  3. What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
    From this review I want to learn more about myself and what I need to work on as an editor. By knowing my weak points I will be able to work to improve those areas. I am considering running for adminship in the way distant future. There is no specific area I want feedback on, I just want an overall picture on what I can do better to help wikipedia.


Reviews


Josve05a[edit]

Josve05a (talk · contribs · count) I am pretty active on Wikipedia and would love to one day (long in the future) to become an admin. I would appriciate all input about me, so I can know my flaws (and weaknesses). (tJosve05a (c) 15:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    I am a WikiGnome, I have a bot called Josvebot that fixes DEFAULTSORTs etc., but my main contributions is fixing CHECKWIKI-errors, reporing bugs about AWB and WPCleaner. I also revert vandalism with Huggle and STiKi. Since Around December I have also started reviewing AfC's and creating my own articles (few, but at least that is something).
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    I have been in a few edit diputed I think. One of the recent ones were when one user was removing, what I tought was a BLPprod, but I was wronged. I could have handeled the matter better, but when I was about to 3RR I went to WP:ANI and requested assistance from other users.
  3. What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
    As I sayed at the top of the page, I would like to one day (maybe, if the community would accept me) to become an admin. I was running for admin once, but I got too many oppose, so I withdrew.


Reviews

So after looking through your contributions as an editor, I have a few thoughts. Your overall presence is great - thousands of edits, and a lot of much-needed housekeeping that makes a positive impact on the community. You stated that your ultimate goal is to become an Administrator, for which you have faced opposition. I think the biggest difference you can make is becoming more of an active user.

Most of your contributions have been reversions, reports of vandalism, and general page cleanup. Though this is great (and a valuable asset for an admin candidate), you could be more involved. For instance your reviews and comments at WP:AfC are great, and demonstrate user interaction, and observing consensus. In addition, your creation of the Josvebot is great, and shows varied experience. Perhaps you could create a bot that deals with combating vandalism and making reverts, as this function is currently in high demand, and feasible, given your experience in bot-development. Moreover, after looking at your talk page, I can see that there have been comments and questions you haven't answered - for instance, [[User:MissyRedBoots| inquired as to why you were rejecting her article, to which you didn't respond. Helping new users allows them to gain the same skills you have, and shows user interaction skills. Something else you could focus on, is creating content, rather than removing it and making small edits. Try finding topics and articles you're interested in, and promote them to good article status. Though a lot of key articles exist, many of them are stubs and incomplete, giving you the opportunity to add to them. This would show voters of adminship that you uphold a standard of high quality in articles and that you have varied experience.

All in all, though you have made a lot of great contributions as an editor, your lack of variety and depth is what is in between you and adminship. Your contributions are lopsided by the number of small edits you have - by branching out into bot-development, more user interaction, and adding content, you will show voters that you are a well-rounded and experienced editor. The community looks at more than how many chores you help, or how many edits you have, during a request for adminship. Prottush (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed regarding Making more bots. We could always use another ClueBot NG or anti-vandal bot, as our one poor bot can not reach some vandalism in time! (note, if I should not be commenting here, go ahead and tell me, its ok, im a newbie at heart.) Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 23:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I think, perhaps, there is a language barrier here. That could be an obstacle. Enigmamsg 20:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


Rsrikanth05 2*[edit]

Rsrikanth05 (talk · contribs · count) This is my second review. My previous one was five years ago. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    My primary contribs are creating articles on Indian entities that don't have a mention. This may include, police, fire brigades, companies, roads, et al. I have 6 DYKs and a former GA to my credit. I'm adept at finding sources for unsourced articles.
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    I have been in several disputes recently, mostly related to articles that have something to do with the upcoming Indian election. I have decided that the best way to avoid further problems is abstaining from editing the topic itself. In future, I may temporarily quit editing.
  3. What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
    I have been everte4d and accused of being non neutral recently. I'd like an experienced editor [with more experience than me] to r view my recent edits.


Reviews


Jakec*[edit]

Jakec (talk · contribs · count) I've been around since August 2012 (I edited as King jakob c from August 2012 to February 2013) and have made over 8500 edits. In December 2013 I filed an RFA, which was unsuccessful. It would be good to have external opinions on whether I've addressed the opposes and neutrals at my RFA. I'm filing this so soon because I know it takes months to be reviewed and I'd like to have time to take into account any feedback before requesting adminship again. --Jakob (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    My primary contributions are my content creation. I've created 51 articles (as of January 2014), have 28 DYK credits (again as of January 2014) and have 6 GA credits. So far, the GAs are my best work. They are Chalcogen, Fishing Creek Confederacy, Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River), Nescopeck Creek, Catawissa Creek, and David Jewett Waller, Sr.. I also have four more articles that are ready for GA, but haven't been reviewed yet.
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    See my answer to Q3 on my RFA. It mostly still applies.
  3. What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
    I'm hoping to run for adminship in several months.


Reviews


Ankit Maity*[edit]

Ankit Maity (talk · contribs · count) I am Ankit Maity (talk · contribs). I want an editor review simply becuase I want feedback on my editing. No complications attached. All feedbacks welcome. Ankit Maity§(chatter)Contribs 17:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    My main contributions are at deleted contributions because I mostly work at NPP. There, I manage to tag speedy delete and PROD as many articles as I can. I also tag articles with maintenance templates. I once-in-a-while also arrive at COIN because I obviously spot some COIs here and there. I also report copyvios. Apart from that, you can find me working at GOCE and at reviewing GAs. I am also a recruiter at the GA Recruitment Centre. I also work at WP:UAA by reporting usernames. I also work in assessing articles (especially, for my own country project, WP:INDIA). I drop in-and-out from WP:MOTD. I also report bugs and work for Twinkle. I operate two bots, AnkitAWB and AnkitBot. The second one will run on the pyWikipedia framework. However, I am still working on it. The first one auto-assesses articles of all WikiProjects. Last but not the least, I am a vandal fighter. There are quite a reverts done by me. I also am involved in Long-term abuse and SPI on-and-off. I am proud of the my only two articles, Vocation (poem) and StarForge. I am also proud of my contributions to The Heritage School, Kolkata.
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    Throughout my whole tenure at Wikipedia, there's been only one editing dispute I got involved in i.e. I reverted some perfect edits of User:ShelfSkewed through STiki and I got into quite a fix. That time, since I was a novice, I got seriously messed up and pissed off and I started SHOUTING IN CAPS. BUT IN THE END, I as a novice understood to understand. The only other warning I ever received again was when I added a copyright addition to The Heritage School. Since then, the path's been clear. (And don't try clicking on this.)
  3. What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
    I don't want anything much. Simple feedback. That's all. I am planning to run for adminship. But only if I get nom-ed by someone. The reason is purely because then I can feel I am contributing to the community and the community is satisfied.


Reviews


Soham*[edit]

Soham (talk · contribs · count) Well I started editing 9 months back and have come a long way since then. I started with editing on Bollywood film articles, those which I had a connect with or liked. When I started I had good grasp of only 1 good policy of WP:VANDALISM so I started with vandalism fighting. Soham (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    As I've said earlier I started with fighting vandalism so I did with WP:TW and learnt on the way with the help of Edit summaries like WP:RS or WP:SPAM. While fighting vandalism the most I came across lots WP:PROMOTION of wannabe music reviewers, film critics, info-tainment sites primarily because Bollywood film receive huge attention and get frequently listed on WP:5000. I started eliminating these with edit summaries like WP:SPAM, WP:ELNO, unreliable source, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTPROMOTION and the likes. I strictly maintain WP:NPOV regarding BO figures where the only WP:RS is boxofficeindia.com in face huge fanboyship. Midway sometime I started file upload patrolling and have fair knowledge which are copy-vios and which are not. Also I am a big-time soundtrack contributor if one sees my user page with a section titled soundtrack contribs. I brought the comprehensiveness seen only in FA's or GA's with chronology of not one but all the composers along with individual composers and writers in the tracklisting section, with use of refs from iTunes India for release dates along with soundtrack covers but have stopped after WP:MOSFILM#Soundtrack ruled it out. Then after getting good grasp of the most of the policies I started creating articles, the first being O Heeriye followed by Tooh (song), Malang (song), Blue Eyes (Honey Singh song) of the first three I managed DYK's along with Ashchorjyo Prodeep and Boss (2013 Hindi film) which I am not the creator of. I also do content addition with primary examples being Once Upon Ay Time In Mumbai Dobaara!, Krrish 3, Dhoom 3 etc. I also am proud of keeping Wikipedia a place with zero tolerance for promotion of sites including entertainment.sandhira, Bollywoodmdb.com, download full mp3, film catch trailer and what not! Above all I would categorise myself as a Spam fighter.
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    No I have never been any dispute although I have engaged in discussions all the times I kept my real-life hothead really surprisingly calm and collected. I have always maintained a record of EW0 or Zero-edit war and want to keep it all through. One time I came very close to be in a edit war with an user called Film Fan over posters, here though.
  3. What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
    I just want to be better at doing what I am doing for the past 9 months, contributing selflessly to wikipedia.


Reviews


Dsimic[edit]

Dsimic (talk · contribs · count)

I'm hacking computers since my age of 10, and I want to share my notes with everyone else, through Wikipedia. I'd like my edits to be reviewed so I can see what I've been possibly doing wrong so far, and to see how can I improve myself in any weak areas. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    Articles about Linux, programming, computer hardware and networking – either by extending and improving already existing articles, or by creating (or starting) more than a few new articles. I take pride in all of my contributions, and I'm especially pleased with the creation of articles like M.2 or SATA Express – they've clearly filled important empty spots on Wikipedia. Additionally, I have a huge watchlist (over 1,500 pages), for which I review all submitted edits on a daily basis. In the end, I'm pleased to see that people really care about the content presented here, and that makes me very, very happy.
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    Of course, I've been there, and I'm pleased how well those ended up in most cases. It's all about providing facts, relying on published sources, and working out the whole thing through talk pages until a consesus or a reasonable compromise is reached. Of course, sometimes it's simply time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Beside one user conduct, I have pretty much nothing to complain about.
  3. What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
    I would like to see neutral-point-of-view reviews of my edits in general, so my weak spots are revealed – once that's available, I can work on any issues pointed out there, making myself better. In general, my edits are either providing new content, or doing various cleanups and smaller improvements – it would be great to have reviews of both edit categories, so to speak. Thank you!

Reviews

  • The main problem when writing a NPOV review about Dsimic is that this user does many small edits. It is hard to detect NPOV issues in those edits. It would be easier if he provided some potentially controversial diffs to be reviewed.
Dsimic seems a cautious editor, not being involved in risky subjects, although those subjects would be a good way to test neutrality. He works towards reaching compromises,[20][21] thus balancing possible bias out.
The articles the user has created do not seem to have NPOV issues. Regarding the Laravel article, there could be a problem with this edit. While the article content is faithful (according to the source, "listed as the most" would be more accurate), it would be better to smooth some conclusions: "popular in 2013" is neutral, "promising for 2014" is tendentious.
When talking about OpenLMI, the comparison section is biased because it only mentions when OpenLMI "is favorable". There is a missing "unfavorable" out there, something like "Puppet is better for cloud deployments" or "OpenLMI is not as mature as other solutions". However, I have been unable to find such source, so this is not Dsimic's fault. Perhaps the user will be able to find this counterbalance. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for a review! I've already slightly improved these two articles, so the wording is more neutral. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Bailmoney27*[edit]

Bailmoney27 (talk · contribs · count) I have been editing actively on Wikipedia for nearly a year and would one day soon like to run for adminship. I am also looking for just a general review. Bailmoney27 (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    Usually when editing, I try to welcome new users and review new users' edits (and take appropriate action when needed). I also recently have been reviewing topics of which I am particularly knowledgable about, or update articles in which the subject has currently changed.
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    I have not been in an editing dispute, but should I ever have to partake in one, I would intensely research the topic at hand and provide references that support my standpoint on the issue, and take the appropriate action from there. If I am wrong, obviously I will happily concede.
  3. What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
    I would like to run for adminship in the very near future, though I am also looking for a general review of my edits as I become more active on Wikipedia.


Reviews He did revert my edits on a page I made for a school, but I didn't do anything to do with vandalism. I didn't use crude humor or blank any pages so I am confused. But, I do like it when people help me, so I will give him a 3.5/5. Kurtisawesome01 16:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


Rehman[edit]

Rehman (talk · contribs · count) Hi. I have been around since mid 2008, and have been an admin at Commons since late 2010. I have been a very active content writer until about a year ago when I changed my job (and had to cut down on wikitime). Since then, I was only able work at deletions, and attend any email/talkpage inquiries that came up on my watchlist, as these was the quickest to work on. During the past few months, my local edits were largely low, but I was quite active globally right throughout since my joining in '08.

I have written, created, and improved a lot of articles and templates and I'm very familiar with policies across en.wiki and wikicommons (I was also behind the creation of a handful of policy pages at Commons including COM:CSD, etc). My global contribs exceed 19k (which includes a fair chunk of deleted edits as a result of working on deletions). I was identified by the WMF in early 2011, and known personally by a handful of other editors and admins.

Please take your time to review my activity. Rehman 15:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    The three largest areas of contributions I have made on Wikipedia includes article writing, template creation, and file transfers to Commons. The articles that I am largely involved in writing relates mostly to renewable energy. A subject that I am quite familiar with. I have also designed many templates across Wikipedia and Commons, with the largest on Wikipedia being {{Infobox power station}}. Nearly all articles relating to renewable energy in Sri Lanka (my current location) are either entirely written or largely expanded by myself. This is something which I am particularly pleased with.
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    I have been in moderate disputes long time ago (>3 years ago). All parties were able to come to an understanding, and no hard feelings were left bottled up. Open/matured discussions were the key in quick and peaceful dispute solving.
  3. What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
    In addition to obtaining general feedback, this review is mainly to bring out and study any unresolved issue that may not be a favouring subject during a future RFA.

    At present, a large proportion of admin actions I do at wikicommons include deletions (page and files), protections, history merging, history splitting, and rights assigning. I used to tag a lot of files here at en.wiki for deletion (over CSD F8) after transferring, but that largely seemed to be a waste of time, considering that I could have easily deleted them myself if I had the necessary rights.

    In addition to other tasks here at Wikipedia, I believe I can make significant contributions at the en.wiki pending deletions with the time I have, along with added value as there seems to be fewer admins in my timezone.


Reviews


EuroCarGT[edit]

EuroCarGT (talk · contribs · count) Hello! I'm EuroCarGT, just want an editor's review. I've been more active here during the page few months & over the summer. ///EuroCarGT 23:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    I'm mostly a recent changes patroller, fighting vandalism, reviewing new pages and general maintenance. Often I get involved with AfC, AfC, RfA and more. I'm pleased with my work at the Teahouse because I think helping users in a friendly way is a great thing to do, and doing that makes me feel positive and happy.
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    No, once I got into a "revert war" in which I reverted vandalism and the user who vandalized reverted my revert then it went back and forth, then later I reported the user to AIAV and it stopped.
  3. What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
    I just want to get feedback from peers, getting that feedback will help me become a better editor. I'm thinking of running for adminship, probably on the next 2 years, when I get more edits, content creation, participate in more discussions and show I could become a good editor. General feedback and review is always welcomed but is optional.


Reviews

First off let me just say I have only been a Wikipedian for a few months now so you have a lot more experience than me in handling affairs. I am judging my criteria of a good editor based on the WP:Civility as mentioned above for reviewing editors. If any of this feels improper or incorrect, let me know and I will try to clarify or reevaluate.

I looked at your talk page and surprisingly the criteria I am evaluating on is pasted right there: things including be polite, welcome new users, assume good faith, avoid personal attacks, and seek dispute resolution. I feel you have a strong understanding of what it means to be a Wikipedian and at the very minimum, you do a great job of spreading it. I have only looked at a handful of your edits and a majority of your recent edits have dealt with article creation and helping out at the Teahouse. I love how you sandbox edits before actually committing them (I feel all Wikipedians should do this so they don't clog up revision history) and the way you go about handling vandalism is polite and spot-on (such as here and here). Overall, I feel you have done a great job in terms of edits. I will say I did look at the reverts yo u did and I feel half of them you do post insightful comments but others you didn't (some of these reversions were minor but there were some where a lot of text was removed although it was obviously because of vandalism such as this one).

I looked more at your Talk page and you do a wonderful job of responding to people who have talked to you. There have been several people who have thanked you for your edits and I can completely understand why. I did find one Talk which was left hanging here and I did not find any mention of you actually responding to the user. However, this was the only instance I really found so I am uncertain if this was intentional or if it's actually an issue. You handle criticism very well as shown here which correctly aligns with many of the things mentioned before regarding Civility.

Overall, I feel you are a wonderful Wikipedian and truly deserve the utmost respect. You have done a lot for the Wikipedia community (and you have earned a handful of brownies too on your Talk page!) I really appreciate how you are welcoming to new users and you take criticism positively. I found little evidence of disputes or vandalism on your account. Keep up the great work :) Augbog (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


Buffbills7701*[edit]

Buffbills7701 (talk · contribs · count) Hey, I'm Buffbills7701, and I just wanted to see what other users thought of me. buffbills7701 20:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    I mainly fight vandalism, but sometimes I review AFCs as well. As for the ones that I'm pleased with, my favorite is Taysom Hill, the first "article" I've created.
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    I have once, and I responded by trying to be as calm and reasonable as I could. If I ever got in another argument, I would do the same thing.
  3. What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
    Mainly, I just want to see what users think of me. Maybe in a year in so, I would run for adminship, but other than that, I just want a general review of my edits.


Reviews


Please consider this only a partial review of a single aspect of your editing.

I recently saw this question you posted at an RFA:

"5. What word would you best describe for your attitude for becoming an admin, and why?"

Obviously I can't speak for the candidate, but I suspect that at least part of the reason they ignored this question while answering others that were submitted later is that it actually does not make any sense. I mean, I think I get what you are asking for but it is phrased so badly that it is basically gibberish. I am not one of those users who makes a habit of criticizing others over their grammar or sentence structure, but this is into the realm of broken English. I see from looking at your edits to talk pages that you almost always use automated tools to speak for you. When you do actually write something it is often written in this same disorganized, semi coherent style. The ability to communicate coherently is important and will certainly be a big obstacle if you plan on running for adminship yourself one day. You clearly are able to read and understand English well enough, so I am guessing that this is just a result of going too fast and not double-checking your posts to make sure they actually make sense. That shouldn't be too hard to fix. I would suggest that whenever you post a comment or question, preview it, read it aloud if necessary, and make sure it makes sense before you save it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The reason I use automated tools to speak for me is because most of the time I just use talk pages to give a user a warning, or alert them about an article I CSDed. buffbills7701 21:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

GSK*[edit]

GSK (talk · contribs · count) If you've edited a gaming article, chances are, you've seen my name. I'm GSK, which stands for GameShowKid; the connection to GlaxoSmithKline is nothing more than coincidence. Now that I've reached 10,000 edits, I feel that it's time to gain some perspective on how I edit, and how I act with other editors. It's not an excuse, and it's not intended to be an excuse, but I feel that I should disclose that, up until February of this year, I had a deficiency in my body that would cause me to become more irritable than normal, which might explain some of the negative situations I've been in in the past. I've certainly noticed a different collaboration style since February, and I hope others do too, so please take this into account when reviewing. If you don't have a great review for me, all I ask is that you make it as constructive as possible: let me know where I went wrong, and any suggestions you have of correcting it for the future. Thanks, and I look forward to your feedback. GSK 17:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    My primary contributions are to mostly gaming articles, but I patrol the logs for new pages and new users frequently, and even more frequently file reports at UAA and AIV.
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    I have been in multiple disputes, which, as I explained a little bit about above, can be attributed to a deficiency that would cause me to experience stress, agitation, and irritability far more quickly than normal. I've personally noticed that I have been involved in far less disputes since correcting this, and that number can only go down in the future.
  3. What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
    I primarily want feedback on my editing style, how I interact with others, and what I can do to improve this. Since the beginning, I've had a clear plan for how I spend my time on Wikipedia. I wanted to reach at least 10,000 edits, at which point I'd request a review, then I'd use the results of the review to determine whether or not I should file an RFA.


Reviews


Tikuko*[edit]

Tikuko (talk · contribs · count) I've been on and off Wikipedia on this account nearly since I was in 8th grade - I am now a sophomore in college. Although my activity the last month or so has been spotty, in part because I work a full time job, a part time job, and attend college full time, now that summer's arrived I'd like some critique so I can improve my editing. I am aware that I can get a little hot-headed at times, I'm working on it the best I can. TKK bark ! 13:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    My primary contributions to Wikipedia have been almost exclusively in the domain of WP:DOGS. I spent a lot of time weeding out "my german shepherd accidently mated with a chihuahua and wow look at this designer dog!" type pages that are unheard of except for the owners of the dogs themselves; i feel it might not be in the spirit of Wikipedia to say I'm proud of this but I am. I also completely rewrote several pages, two of which are now good articles - Whippet and Bedlington Terrier. I made substantial changes to Giant Schnauzer and Sled dog as well. I am also proud of my work creating the pages for the best in show winners of the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show.
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    Yes and yes. One of my first major 'things' on Wikipedia was nominating Tamaskan Dog for its third deletion; i was promptly attacked by numerous breeders of this particular type of dog and it has left a rather bad taste in my mouth. The same events occurred when I nominated the Murray River Curly Coated Retriever - the members of their breed club attacked me, calling into question my intelligence and accusing me of being ignorant; one of their messages remains on my talk page actually. With the both articles, I was unable to find any sources outside of self-published sources and so promptly put the articles up for AfD, as one would do when finding a (apparently) non-notable, self-promotional article. (I still can't find sources for either breed). When the MRCCR group began to snap at me, I reacted in anger, having expended my patience with the Tamaskan dog group. I should have kept my cool, stepped away from the Wiki, made myself some tea and maybe ignored them; I admit I made a mistake and I'm surprised no one noticed it to slap me on the wrist for it.
  3. What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
    I am primarily looking for general feedback on my editing and behavior on the Wiki. I would run for adminship, but none of the tools seem like they would serve the kind of editing I like to do and it would be more of a "wow cool im a wikipedia admin" - if I did run, it would be so I could work on the various fD projects, but I feel like I have not participated enough in these areas to really need adminship.
  4. What kind of checks do you perform before you nominate an article for deletion on grounds of Wikipedia:CSD#G12? I am asking because this edit just caused problems, as explained here. I am not aware of having crossed paths with you otherwise, so don't have further remarks or questions. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    The site that I found the copy on, ReadCubed, didn't really have any liscensing information that I could find other than 'free access' at the top, which doesn't tell you anything about the liscensing of the article; since I scrolled though and didn't see anything pertaining to the CC license, and navigating the site was proving to be painful to my rather shoddy computer, I just presumed it to be incompatible.
    Now that I scroll the article, I see copyright information at the start, which is not where I'm familiar with it being. Part of the problem, then, is indeed on my end with sheer ignorance of the article formatting. --TKK bark ! 19:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Reviews


Raeky*[edit]

Raeky (talk · contribs · count) I'm a long user of Wikipedia and firmly believe in it's mission statement and goals. I take a strong policy stance, and have taken great effort to familiarize myself with all the useful policies governing editing. My main focus when I edit is usually to either patrol pages for POV pushing editors or vandalism within some narrow pseudoscience and creation/evolution related pages. I also contribute heavily at the Featured Picture process and have nominated, uploaded and contributed MANY images during my tenure. Although I've been involved in some disputes, I'd like to know if anything in my past would rule me out from applying for adminship in the future, or of there is some behavior changes I should make. — raekyt 17:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)\


Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    I've pretty much been mostly focused on reviewing and adding pictorial content to wikipedia. There's a couple article's I created specificly for pictures (Elakala Falls and The Periodic Table of Videos). I've also done quite a lot of anti-vandalism patrolling and have in my watchlist many Pseudoscience Evolution/Creation type articles that I watch for POV editors and POV-Pushers.
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    Patrolling Pseudoscience articles and Evolution/Creation articles for POV editos and pushers, and vandalism, often turns up some problematic editors who are editing just under the threshold of vandalism but obviously WP:TE editors and cause quite a lot of stress dealing with them until they ultimately flame out with a ban, and they almost always do or give up. As a result I've been discussed at ANI and been involved in disputes...
  3. What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
    I'm aware of the deficit in admin promotion and although I have a checkered past at times with dealing with problem editors, I feel that I have a very firm grasp on policy from my years of editing, and would consider running for adminship at some point if it's possible. So a review of my past editing history with that in mind would be useful.


Reviews


Inijones*[edit]

Inijones (talk · contribs · count) I was asked to participate in a dispute. I am having trouble determining whether other users are acting in good faith, and I thought I would start assessing the matter by getting an evaluation of myself. Inijones (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    In the past I have worked on a number of articles under a different user name, though that was years ago, and in this recent round of editing, I have been more or less by chance focusing on the Second Amendment. The intro to the 2nd Amendment article had been un-editable for well over a year due to a group of editors guarding the page zealously. After I was approached to help, I have helped draft a new second paragraph in the intro that adds some balance and useful context, which I am proud of.
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    I feel that other users are causing me stress by not addressing the substance of my comments, evading the issues, engaging in the artifice of discussion while backing away from anything that might accomplish anything, and levying inaccurate accusations against me.
  3. What do you want to get out of this editor review? Are you thinking of running for adminship? Would you like feedback on a specific area of your editing? Or would you just like a general review of your edits?
    I want to know how I am navigating issues around a specific edit that I have proposed that other editors have supported. I want to know how I am navigating the talk page with respect to conduct standards, and how my proposed contribution squares with WikiPedia quality standards and editorial guidelines. The issue I am encountering can be found on this talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#protects_vs_concerns and the specific edit I am proposing, along with summaries of other user support, can be found beginning with comment dated 18:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC). Some additional background can be found in my opening statement on the DRN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution at 14:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


Reviews


DCI2026 2*[edit]

DCI2026 (talk · contribs · count) I have been an editor since 2008, reviewing largely articles falling into the realms of history and fiction. I've also helped out with some processes, and, despite a fairly long absence recently, have edited consistently. This is my second editor review. dci | TALK 20:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Questions

  1. What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
    My primary contributions to Wikipedia have been in the areas of content creation and review. I am particularly pleased by my reviewing and assistance with Lewis Nicola and various other GAN's I've reviewed, and am also pleased by my work on articles such as The Fall of Hyperion. My reviews of Crac des Chevaliers, as well as other articles, also don't strike me as negative.
  2. Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.
    My activity on Wikipedia has not caused me much stress. On the contrary, I find it enjoyable and constructive to help work on this project; in the case of a potential dispute with another editor, I would review my actions and those of the other person before taking further steps.


Reviews

  • Please list all accounts that you have used, otherwise checking your contributions of one is just frustrating. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)