User talk:Skubydoo

New to Wikipedia.

Welcome

Hello, Skubydoo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —Bagumba (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Help directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Skubydoo, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Michel Platini has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Qzd (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

April 2020

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Draft:Animal Products in Pharmaceuticals. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Diannaa,

Thanks for this message. I didn't realize I hadn't made the excerpt from the FDA document a blockquote. I've changed it to a blockquote now. Is there anything else you see that I need to change?

Stay safe,

Skubydoo (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Animal Products in Pharmaceuticals (April 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Animal Products in Pharmaceuticals and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Animal Products in Pharmaceuticals, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Skubydoo! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sulfurboy (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Animal products in pharmaceuticals has been accepted

Animal products in pharmaceuticals, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Sulfurboy (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thanks for guidance on the IP thing. Silly mistake on my part. Appreciate the help.

Kbhatt22 (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Systemic bias

Please refrain from comments like this:

I think the attempts to discredit specifically non-European scholars is part of Wikipedia’s systemic bias WP:BIAS. This practice of trying to assume a biased perspective of Indian writers (instead of creating the intellectual space to recognize scholarship from brown writers as valid, acceptable, and meaningful) and privileging European writers (as if they have no perspective at all and are inherently neutral, untainted, and superior) is extremely problematic.

I've clearly explained why I think it's wrong to pick-out Iva Patel while ignoring other sources, including Paramtattvadas. This kind of accusations can, and will, get you blocked. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Joshua Jonathan, I was surprised to see this response on my talk page. I am sure you are not disagreeing that the systemic bias in Wikipedia is problematic. Indeed, it is a well documented problem. This article[1] in the Guardian clearly explains how this affects representation of non-Western and non-English subjects, among others. See also: WP:WORLDVIEW. Rather than seeing my observation as an “accusation” could you consider the realities of systemic bias on Wikipedia? It is a problem, and we can be part of the solution. How can we all work to counter systematic bias? How can we carefully consider and make room for non-European authors? These are questions worth asking, and worth answering. Please know that including one author who is not of European origin is not enough. You have repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of non-European authors in the Swaminarayan Sampradaya talk page. I don’t want to parse out how many or which ones, because that is not the point I am trying to make. If you are offended by the idea that something you have said is reflective of Wikipedia’s systemic bias, then you know that this systemic bias is not okay. I hope we can turn our attention to how we can give the same consideration to authors of Indian origin as we give to authors of European origin. Thanks for assuming good faith and for your contributions. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

No doubt there is systemic bias. But to state that I question an author because she's non-European is misplaced; I question the source because she's not accurate, and cannot be used as a sole source, when multiple other sources, written by persons with more expertise (Hanna Kim is of Asian descent, I suppose?), have a different view. Framing that as systemic bias is not done. NB: I bought H.T. Dave, Life and Philosophy of Shree Swaminarayan (I wanted to verify one specific piece of info sourced to him; it may give you an impression how serious I take checking sources); British, I assume, and definitely not WP:RS. So, 'European' sources can be questioned as well. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Joshua Jonathan, after looking at your edits in a bit more detail I agree that you may not be biased against Indian scholars but take issue with scholars you perceive as religious. Of course, when there are monks writing books about religion, it is possible for that to be a religious perspective. However, when it is published by an esteemed academic press, that necessarily also makes it an academic perspective. Even though the perspective may be religious-- it is still necessarily academic. They are not mutually exclusive. The same is true for nonreligious perspectives. All of the material presented by the WP:RS in that discussion are published by reputable sources, and have been vetted by scholars who I am sure happen to be of various religious and cultural backgrounds. I think that, as per Wikipedia’s standard of encyclopedic neutrality, we should be more concerned with evaluating credibility and consensus than we are with positionality. While Wikipedia may not be the forum to address external biases, I believe (and I think you do as well) that it is important to be vigilant with regards to systemic bias within Wikipedia. What do you propose I do if I am concerned about a user’s biases, other than to discuss them openly? I am open to your suggestions. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

More content

There is a draft Draft:Vegan Medicines that overlaps in content with the article you created. I am copying content from that into the existing article, and will then ask that the draft be deleted. David notMD (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @David notMD, I saw that "Animal use during product development or production" was added to Animal Products in Pharmaceuticals. Thanks for adding that information! That's definitely an important issue that needs to be addressed. Were you planning on expanding on that section or should I go ahead and add to it? Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

GA nomination.

As you have made edits to Hinduism, I suggest that you nominate it for WP:GA, as I feel it is quite good. The rest is your choice.--Assassin77177 (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Note that an article needs to meet the actual GA criteria to be successful—for example, it needs to meet MOS:LEAD, which is currently doesn't appear to. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)