User talk:Arllaw

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 6 sections are present.

Sockpuppet investigations/Pampelonne - embarrassing

I welcomed more than a handful of those socks and even gave one them a tip on fixing dead links. Facepalm S0091 (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You assumed good faith. It'll happen. Arllaw (talk) 03:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021 Traffic_collision

Hello, Arllaw. Writing you back regarding my addition to the Traffic_collision page. Under legal I added information about what you typically do following a car crash. I believe it's makes for an encyclopedia post, as it offers a reader basic information about what to do from a legitimate lawyer. After reading the guidelines, it doesn't appear that I'm violating anything there. I've been contributing to Wiki since 2008, so I believe I know the process. Please let me know when you get a chance. Thank you. Jayo68 — Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the link I provided in the note indicates, WP:NOTGUIDE, Wikipedia is not an advice or how-to site. Further, the primary purpose of the added content and link was to promote a website, which is never appropriate. Arllaw (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

Sorry for mistakenly deleting your comment. It was my wrong choice after warning for editing conflict. Forgive me. --Joep Zander (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. Arllaw (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shower Page

You undid my edit on the Shower page, and I was just adding a citation for someone else's assertion there(and not spamming or anything like that). In this case, I could ONLY find a plumber site talking about the extra drains that get installed in Australia. I'm trying to understand and get better at editing: Should we remove the statement/assertion until a better source can be found? I'm not sure what to do in this case. I thought I had the right answers from the Tea House (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#How_can_I_add_a_citation_to_the_shower_page?) Please advise - Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benitag (talk • contribs) 20:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see from your talk page that you have been warned about spamming, and given at least three examples of when linkes that you added were not appropriate for inclusion. The link you added to the Shower article was another inappropriate addition, as was the link you added to the Expert witness article. You do not have a very long history of editing Wikipedia. If you truly do not understand why the links you are adding are deemed inappropriate and resulting in repeated warnings about spamming, you should seek some mentoring. Arllaw (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The charge of being a spammer seems to be related to websites I am adding where I see citations needed, but don't we need to find URLs to support what contributors have asserted in these articles. It seemed like an easy contribution I could make, and I am doing spelling/grammar changes also. I want to understand: 1. Why a plumber in Australia is not seen as the right source for plumbing facts about Australia. Who else would we cite? And 2. Why the the Expert Witness citation wasn't workable (that site is from Peter Kent, the author of "PPC for dummies" and some other books. I didn't cite his book, but a post that he made about being an expert witness. It looks like he's been involved in some big cases with Pinterest etc - so what is that source missing in notoriety? I cited him as a source of who usually pays the bill for expert witnesses, and found his site through a Google search. Should I just stop with finding citations? Isn't the Tea House where I go for mentoring? Thank you for helping me understand(which I did with the Shower page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benitag (talk • contribs) 18:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Start by reviewing Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you still have trouble understanding the problematic nature of the links you have been adding, why they are deemed low quality and appear to be spam, I suggest that you seek mentoring. Here is a resource. Arllaw (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from a newbie

Hey there, Arlaw! I noticed you refined a couple citations I added (to Expert Witness and Pearl), and I wanted to thank you. Also, to apologize for making an edit that required you to clean up after me!

I was hoping I might ask you for some advice, if you have time. Outside of the fields in which I work, I've found that my Google-Scholar-Fu is weak. Specifically, when I search to find a citation, I either get too many irrelevant results or else none. For things like economics and medicine, I can usually find what I'm looking for, but less so for others. (E.g., law, aquaculture.) So my question is: how did you find scholarly sources so quickly? I settled for what I could find on google, but sources from a journal (such as you added) are by far preferable. I'd like to avoid making editors like you clean up after me, if possible!

In any case, thanks for your time in reading this, and your help in getting better sources! EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no short answer that I can give you. Finding scholarly articles involves developing some research skills through practice, ideally having access to larger or more complete databases than even some of the best online resources, and having or finding ways to access the full text of the articles in order to ensure that a citation is relevant and accurate. Google Scholar is a great resource, and for some articles it will provide links to free online versions, but it takes some effort to learn how to get past the quirkiness of its search results. Arllaw (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Arllaw! That's the answer I was afraid of, but it makes sense. After all, if it were easy, everyone would do it! I have one more question, if you'd be willing to indulge me. (No worries if not; time is valuable, and you owe me nothing!) I don't want to make more work for experienced editors, so should I keep finding some source (even low-quality) to add for citation needed tags, or leave them entirely if I don't have a high-quality source ready? Thanks for your help; I really appreciate it! EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have references that most would regard as of high quality, and others that most would regard to be of low quality. If a reference is in place that is not pretty clearly on the side of insufficient quality, and I don't have the opportunity to replace it with a better reference, I might leave it in place rather than leaving the content without any reference. (A notable exception: if I'm cleaning up after a spammer. Also references that fail verification, that is, that don't support the material in the article for which they are provided as references.) But I would not add such a reference merely because nothing better had yet been identified -- if a poor reference is correct, there will be a better reference somewhere, and if it's not then adding the reference can introduce or perpetuate content problems in an article.

If I add a reference, I want it to meet the appropriate standard for the project and subject -- see, e.g., WP:RS, WP:RSMED, WP:RSLAW, and similar standards. If I make an edit that leaves dubious references in place, I will generally note the issue in the editor note (e.g., "editing to clarify content, references still need improvement.") Arllaw (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your time and detailed answers. It sounds like I'm better off slowing my roll on the citation hunt, and only adding one if it's high quality. I'll read WP:RS again; it's been a year, and I could do with a refresher. Thank you for your time, and for helping to guide me to be a better wiki-gnome! Hope your week goes well! EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not received my papers and I did them in October

I would like to receive my papers or my money back 65.35.0.62 (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]