Jump to content

User talk:Puddleglum2.0

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DriverSafety (talk | contribs) at 14:41, 2 February 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello, and welcome to my talk page! If you are here to talk to me, please remember to be civil, thanks.

If you would like to peruse my archives of past discussions, please feel free to go here where you will find what you need!

I will delete templated messages and spam after 2 days with no discussion without moving it to my archives; this makes it easier on the archive page.

Thanks for visiting!

The Signpost
4 September 2024

signpost-subscriptioniption|none}}

Teahouse Host - welcome

Teahouse logo
Dear Puddleglum2.0, thank you for volunteering as a host at the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a community of people working together to make knowledge free. You are an important part of that effort! By joining as a Host, and by following our expectations, you are helping new users get a hold of the ropes here at Wikipedia, and helping experienced users that just have a question about how something works. We appreciate your willingness to help!

Here are some links you may find helpful as a Host:

Editors who have signed up as hosts, but who have not contributed at the Teahouse for six months or so may be removed from the list of hosts.


Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You have some rather weird and confusing 'archiving' going on on this page. It makes it near impossible to view your past discussions. Do you need help with setting up automatic archiving? If so, errm, do ask at the Teahouse! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Moyes:: Thanks for the welcome! I am aware of how to set up automatic archiving, can you point to the problem you have with how I am doing so currentlyr? I seem to be able to view my archive just fine, but maybe that's just the computer I'm using? Thanks for your input, Puddleglum 2.0 01:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well, for a start, there's no visible link that I can see to any archive of past talk discussion, so where does a user look if they don't know about displaying subpages. At a quick glance, you seem to be deleting more than archiving, though I've not pored over every edit, of course - it was just a gut reaction that you seemed to be deleting every single discussion to leave a blank page, bar the Signpost, with no appearance of any archive. There's nothing wrong in this per se, but it looks very odd and, if I already had doubts about an editors intentions (and I don;t with you!), I might wonder if they were trying to obfuscate in someway. It's just friendly advice - not a ticking off, or criticism. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Added[reply]
@Nick Moyes: Thank you for the advice again, I appreciate it. I will make the link to my archive more visible, and make my rational for only deleting some t breads more clear. (All the ones I delete are just spam or template notifications, I don't see it necessary to include that). Thanks again for the advice, I appreciate it a lot! Puddleglum 2.0 01:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand. What I do is go to the individual post, edit, select and delete the text, then write 'delete as read' in my edit summary. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested

at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view before Friday.

Only 100 or so words. It should be fun and serious at the same time.

All the best,

Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: OK, doing that now! Puddleglum 2.0 00:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added @Smallbones: checkY OK, should be done. Didn't have much to say, but ah well. :) Puddleglum 2.0 00:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to our WikiProject

Hi Puddleglum2.0. I am the Lead Coordinator at Wikipedia:WikiProject History. I saw that you joined our WikiProject as a member recently. I would like to thank you for joining. Welcome!!

If I may, I would like to ask for your assistance. We are requesting input and assistance from all new members; our main reason for doing so is that this project has been semi-inactive for quite some time, and we are trying to get it to be fully active.

On that note, might you be able to go to the section below, and provide a brief introductory comment? you can feel free to let us know what type of items, topics, or articles you'd like to work on; or else, which areas of history you are most interested in; or else, you can simply say hello.

I hope that's okay? We would welcome any insights or input that you might like to share. We are going through a crucial period of reinstatement for WikiProject History at the current time, so right now, we are asking for "All hands on deck." You are welcome to add your comments at our talk page; or alternately, you can reply to me here if that is easier. We welcome any comments that you may have. Thanks for joining!! --Sm8900 (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Help

Hi, Thanks for the encouraging review of my submission. I have two questions, for now. Are you a Wiki editor? And can you help me draft a third submission that will be more acceptable to Wiki editors? ThanksDriverSafety (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I hope I am responding in the correct place. You asked that I use your Talk page, and I think, but I am not sure this is where I am. In any case, I greatly appreciate your offer of help. Tomorrow I will send you the last reference I found and an idea of how to possibly improve the submission. Thanks again.DriverSafety (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, DriverSafety, this is a good place to chat! I look forward to getting the reference, definitely no hurries, take your time! Thanks, Puddleglum 2.0 05:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, how shall we proceed? I have questions about how to interpret the rules governing notability. 1. Are newspaper articles that feature a company evidence of notability? Opinions seem to be mixed. One Wiki member said that if there are interviews with company executives, then the answer is no, the source is not independent. This seems silly to me, but I am new to Wiki. 2. Are peer-reviewed academic articles that evaluate the company's products, but were written by a company employee who worked with independent university researchers who collected and analyzed all the data, independent? The article submission is supported by four newspaper feature articles (three in major city dailies, one in a university paper serving 15,000 students). There are two peer-reviewed journal articles that evaluate the companies products and one peer-reviewed conference paper that describes the company's approach to working with clients to validate and improve the training programs.

Before proceeding with a third revision, it might be wiser to determine if Wiki editors will accept the above references as proof of notability. What do you think?DriverSafety (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I believe both peer-reviewed articles and interviews should be fine, as long as they are not primary sources and as long as they have significant coverage. Does that make sense? We can proceed however you want, if you just want to ask me questions and then have me review the article before you submit it to AfC, that would probably work, but however you want really. I might have to enlist the help of a different experienced editor who helped teach me at some point if it gets to complicated for me, is that fine? If you do t want me to, I totally understand. Also, could you please skim this quick policy? It makes it easier to follow talk page conversations Thanks, Puddleglum 2.0 18:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am okay with all your suggestions. Wiki is a community and having more than one editor's feedback is a plus.

One of the newspaper articles is hidden behind a paywall. I cannot access that article without paying. How do Wiki editors get past the paywall? I send you a draft to review tomorrow. Thanks for offering your help.DriverSafety (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you can make a request here to get past a paywall. (Disclaimer: I've never had to do it, so I can't walk you through the steps, but it seems pretty intuitive, and I can direct you to helping you need it. I will be ready for the draft whenever, thanks! Puddleglum 2.0 19:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for the info about paywalls. I was mainly curious about how editors could properly evaluate the claim to significant coverage in articles that are behind these barriers. Now, thanks to you, I understand how this is achieved. You are being wonderfully helpful and I do not want to impose on your time. As I better understand the criteria for notability, I think that it might be worthwhile to canvas the editors you know to see if my references pass the test.

I have two categories of references that potentially demonstrate notability: Newspapers (4): There are three feature articles in major metropolitan daily newspapers and one feature article in a university campus paper serving 15,000 students, and; Academic papers (4): Two journal articles describing the results of evaluation studies of the company's training programs, and two conference papers, one describing the methodology the company uses to develop its training programs and the other describing the results of another evaluation study of a training program developed by the company. On the plus side, all the academic articles were peer-reviewed. On the minus side, all but one were co-authored by the research director of the company. Unfortunately, nothing inside the articles directly attests to the rigorous arms-length relationship between the company researcher and his university colleagues who were 100% responsible for collecting and analyzing all the data from the six separate studies.

I suggest that you ask your Wiki colleagues if all or some of these eight references demonstrate sufficient notability for Virage Simulation. Here they are. NEWSPAPERS: (1) Duquette, Esther Dec. 3 2008. "One PME montréalaise au volant d'une petite révolution". Montreal Campus. Retrieved 9 September2019.; (2) Mennie, James (June 7, 2009). "Steering a course to the future". The Montreal Gazette; (3) Prime, Martin. "Virage Simulation une expansion soigneusement planifiee". La Presser's. Retrieved 9 September 2019; (4) Jean-Sébastien Gagnon (12 février 2018) La Presse. Une occasion unique pour Virage Simulation. http://mi.lapresse.ca/screens/6cd089f4-bd9c-4a7d-bcca-a6aee00bccee__7C___0.html. ACADEMIC PAPERS: (1) Hirsch, P; Bellavance, F (2017). "Transfer of skills learned on a driving simulator to on-road driving behavior". Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2637: 67–73. doi:10.3141/2637-08; (2) Hirsch, P; Choukou, MA; Bellavance, F (May 2017). "Transfer of Training in Basic Control Skills from a Truck Simulator to a Real Truck". Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2637. doi:10.3141/2637-08; (3) Seecharan, TS; Donmez, B; Chen, W; Jardine, A (2016). Koskinen, K. (ed.). "Simulator-Based Eco-drive Training for Fleet Drivers". Proceedings of the 10th World Congress on Engineering Asset Management (WCEAM 2015). Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Springer, Cham: 545–552.; (4) Romoser, M; Hirsch, P (2012). "From lab to real life: A case study in the deployment of advanced driving simulator-based training systems". Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. doi:10.1177/1071181312561525.

I will be away from my computer for the next 10 days and unable to respond. Thanks again for your generous support.DriverSafety (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks. Real quick, can you link the draft here? do you know how to link? If not, you can just give the name of the draft and I'll find it. Thanks again! Puddleglum 2.0 16:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The name is: Draft: Virage Simulation. I will take the time to learn the protocols for linking etc in time. Thanks again,DriverSafety (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Pinging @Girth Summit:: can you help me look over Draft:Virage Simulation? It looks fine to me, but I wanted to get your opinion also. Thanks! Puddleglum 2.0 20:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Puddleglum2.0, hi - I'm about to log off to make dinner, but I'll take a look tomorrow. Cheers! GirthSummit (blether) 20:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Primefac and Girth Summit! Puddleglum 2.0 01:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Puddleglum - also pinging DriverSafety, since this concerns them - I've taken a look at the draft, and I have some concerns which I'll set out below in no particular order.
  • From what they've put on their user page, it's clear that DriverSafety is making a good faith attempt to abide by our rules by declaring their COI. However, as an employee of the subject they are writing about, I would strongly advise them to read WP:PAID and ensure that they abide by the requirements there - even if writing an article here is not part of their job, I think that this policy would apply to them, and since it is also part of the terms of use it is particularly important that it is followed closely.
  • For me, the article is still written in too promotional a manner. Some commentary from a reviewer of a product is permissible, but sentences like Independent testing by university researchers has validated Virage Simulation training programs for novice driver licensing, basic truck driver skills, and fuel-efficient, eco-drive skills simply aren't appropriate.
  • There are some assertions that don't seem to be supported by the references. For example, ...and is the first company in Canada to design and manufacture driving simulators - I read through the source and didn't see this stated anywhere (although it's possible that I missed it - feel free to correct me if that is in there).
  • There are seventeen sources there, some of which are in French which I can read, but not particularly well and it would take me some time. One of the previous reviewers' comments was that there weren't enough secondary independent sources about the subject to satisfy WP:NCORP. So, in order to help me satisfy myself about whether the subject meets NCORP, could you or DriverSafety point out the WP:THREE best sources, giving most significant coverage of the subject, so I can limit what I have to look at?
Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 12:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Girth Summit, Thank you for looking into my submission and providing feedback. I would like to respond to your concerns.

First, thank you for assuming that my efforts are in good faith, rather than the opposite.

Now, if a feature article on a company in a major newspaper includes interviews with company employees (a standard method for all articles), does this completely disqualify the feature as a secondary source. What other sources of information will a journalist have if interviews are excluded?

I understand that the sentence "Independent testing by university researchers has validated Virage Simulation training programs for novice driver licensing, basic truck driver skills, and fuel-efficient, eco-drive skills}} simply aren't appropriate" can be perceived as too promotional. I will gladly rewrite the text but this will not change the facts I wish to bring to light, facts that underlie any claim to notability. The company does not merely manufacture driving simulators, which on the surface appear to be software integrated into hardware. For training and testing purposes, this combination is inadequate. The company develops courseware that is validated using a cyclical method that is best described by a term from engineering called concurrent engineering. This means that programs are developed in collaboration with experts and end-users' needs and then tested and improved according to the results. The application of this method with one particular client is described in one of the cited conference papers, Romoser, M; Hirsch, P (2012). "From lab to real life: A case study in the deployment of advanced driving simulator-based training systems". Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. In 2017, a peer-reviewed journal article described four separate evaluation studies generated by that method with that client. Ref: Hirsch, P; Choukou, MA; Bellavance, F (May 2017). "Transfer of Training in Basic Control Skills from a Truck Simulator to a Real Truck". Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2637. doi:10.3141/2637-08 (https://doi.org/10.3141%2F2637-08). That article was given an award by the Transporation Research Board. (not mentioned in the submission).

The claim of being the first company Canadian driving simulator manufacturer was stated in the first line in fourth paragraph of the Campus Montreal article that reads "Ce simulateur, le seul jamais conçu au Canada, n’est ni le produit de l’Agence spatiale canadienne, ni celui de Bombardier." Reference: Duquette, Esther. "One PME montréalaise au volant d'une petite révolution" (https://montrealcampus.ca/2008/12/03/une-pme-montrealaise-au-volant-dune-petite-revolution/). Montreal Campus. Retrieved 9 September 2019.

Regarding the best three secondary sources, I have sent Puddleglum what I think are the best eight potentially acceptable secondary sources to review. I leave it to Puddleglum's judgment to send you the top three.

In summary, I am extremely aware that as an employee of this company, my submission of an article has the appearance of bias. That cannot be denied. My response is that I have made and am making every effort to represent unbiased and unvarnished facts. Also, I cannot conceive of any other method of bringing these facts to the public in a nonpromotional way other than to pass the close scrutiny of the Wiki community.

Thanks again. After Monday I will be away from the computer for a week. DriverSafety (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Puddleglum2.0&oldid=938815236"