User talk:FeRD NYC
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you wanted to delete the section you tagged at the chaps article, I wouldn't cry or revert you; I'm sure not going to bother to go source it. That said, from past experience with same, it's apt to be readded later if removed, so maybe if you wanted to trim but source it, you would save the rest of us some drama wars. I just won't get into how much the terminology annoys me (all chaps are that way, if they weren't, they'd be called trousers! :-P ) Up to you! :-) Montanabw(talk) 01:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for reaching out Montanabw. Honestly, it was mostly the use of the word "colloquially" that gave me pause. While I agree that "assless chaps" is a (misguided) thing, it's mostly used by clueless people with no idea what they're talking about (at least in my experience), which I'm not sure elevates it to the level of "colloquially".
- Under other circumstances I'd simply Be Bold and word the sentence differently so that it doesn't use "colloquially", and that'd be that. Consulting the source reference(s) as a terminology/descriptive guide can be a good way of doing that fairly and in a manner that will satisfy other editors, and therein lies the rub. No amount of re-wording can change the fact that the entire claim is completely unsourced, and since it isn't built upon any of the other source material for the article it really needs something to support it.
- WP:Verifiability is absolute: Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.
- With the sentence already present in the article, I didn't see a reason to remove it immediately, which is why I tagged it . Hopefully, someone will be able to come up with a Reliable Source on "assless chaps", and can incorporate the source information into the article.
- If not, though, it will probably have to come out eventually, because as it stands right now the claim is entirely original research. As far as getting added back in, people are constantly trying to insert things into Wikipedia articles that they "know" are true, but can't back up. And they keep trying and trying, no matter how many times it's deleted. The fact that someone else will insert something into an article doesn't change anything about whether or not the information is properly sourced / verifiable / valid. -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I agree, but I can't fight every battle on wikipedia, so if you want to share the small task of watchlisting the article, I'd be glad (and so would the rest of the small but dedicated cadre of editors who work on equine and American west topics) to welcome you to the crew. While you're at it, adding whip and crop (implement) to your vandalism patrol watchlist would also be valued. Montanabw(talk) 18:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello FeRD NYC I'm Bob Zeller, the fellow currently making changes as SaveOurHistory to the Civil War Trust and related pages.
The intent of my work is to update the Trust Wikipedia entry and other related entries with the latest factual information about Trust activities, primarily its acquisitions of battlefield land. The non-profit makes more than 30 new purchases every year, and the latest factual information on the Trust's Wikipedia page dated to 2014 and needed or needs to be updated. This is my first assignment as a writer to make changes on Wikipedia, so obviously I'm learning as I go.
I have placed a Conflict of Interest statement related to being paid for my work on the Usertalk page but am unsure whether this is adequate. I am happy to make it adequate and place it where ever it needs to go.
Next, I plan to go through the text with the intent of removing any language that smacks of puffery or promotion. As a historian, I generally seek primary source information as the best information, so it's a bit confusing to me to see restrictions against primary source material and to get flagged for it. I presume the potential problem is that anyone can put up a website for an "organization" and fill it up with bogus facts and figures and then cite the website on the Wikipedia page.
The challenge I face is that I know of no other source than the Trust itself for the factual listing of battlefields where land has been saved and the number of acres, which is largely where I have thus far made changes, updating acres saved at some battlefields and adding new states and sites where land has been saved since the Trust Wikipedia page was last updated. Any comprehensive listing of these facts and figures at a secondary source would no doubt simply rely on the primary source I have cited, which is the comprehensive "Saved Land" list on the Trust's website. This was the same source cited for the existing facts on the Trust Wikipedia when I began to make changes. There were no warning flags that it was a problem, so I wasn't anticipating problems by continuing to cite this same source.
Is there a threshold of reliability that would allow the factual information at the Trust website be considered reliable for use as a source at Wikipedia?
I'm confused as well about the process of making changes. It appears that I'm not to make actual changes myself, but propose them on the Civil War Trust Wikipedia talk page. So who then actually makes the changes? The work involved time-consuming detail work making some 30 or more factual changes, each at very specific places on the page. Is someone else expected to come along and take the time it took to make each individual factual change? If I am not supposed to make the changes myself, what is the proper procedure to ensure that the changes that I request and wish to make are promptly and correctly made? As I understand it, anyone but me (or someone else with a conflict) can remove the template and warnings you placed at the top of the Civil War Trust page. However, is the proper procedure to get you to sign off on the corrective changes and remove the warnings?
I am trying to read the various information pages and learn from those, but there is a mountain of information on many different pages and I'm still working to sort through it all. My primary objective in making changes is to update facts and figures that are three years out of date. While most of my work thus far is on the Civil War Trust page itself, my assignment included updating a variety of subject pages, such as American Civil War, for which I added a new subject heading, "Battlefield Preservation" and added two factual paragraphs. The first is sourced to an offline published history. The second is sourced to a history of the preservation movement I just completed on behalf of the Trust. Should I add a disclosure to the note itself that I'm also the one who wrote the Wikipedia entry?
The Civil War Trust, in partnership with the National Park Service, has expanded the land preservation mission to include battlefields of the American Revolution and the War of 1812 and has already made at least four acquisitions. So my assignment also involves adding factual material to this effect at the related Wikipedia pages. Finally, Wikipedia pages exist for nearly all of the 132 American battlefields where the Trust has saved land. For quite a few battlefields, the land acquired by the Trust is the only land thus far saved. Working for the Trust, I wish to supplement the Wikipedia pages for most of these battles to include the fact that the Trust has saved land at that location and how many acres, with the intent, at least up to now, of sourcing it to the Trust's "Saved Land" site.
Thanks for your input.
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
FYI, you're not going to get through to that IP editor. Edits like that one are a hallmark of the Teenage Fairytale Dropouts vandal, who has made similar vandal edits over manymanymany pages over a period of years, Just revert (and maybe report to AIV) and move on. Happy editing. --Finngall talk 17:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Finngall: LOL, wow. Thanks for the pointer. I have to imagine whoever-it-is watching that page with glee, too, thinking "I'm faaaaaamous!". Ugh. (Really does seem like there's enough ammo there for an IP range block, unless those (pretty narrow) source ranges also correspond to some public space that also hosts lots of active non-vandals. Well, maybe someday...) -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
- IP ranges have been analyzed and they're too wide to stop the vandal without also hitting a lot of innocent anonymous editors. But whoever it is, they've never responded to other editors, never used an edit summary, and never given any reaction to any blocks or discussion of their activities other than to get a new IP address and continue after a seemingly random interval. (shrug) Nothing to do except keep an eye out and play Whac-A-Mole as needed. Thanks, and have a good day. --Finngall talk 18:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I noticed you tagged American Battlefield Trust and left a talk page message a while back because of the POV content. The main contributor is a declared paid editor, and while I appreciate this is a registered non-profit, the article reads like a webpage and is mostly unsourced or self-sourced. I'd like to take a hatchet to most of the article. Just saying. Cheers! Magnolia677 (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Magnolia677: Hey, thanks for reaching out. Yeah, I'm afraid I sort of let that fall by the wayside. I'm glad to hear that the user in question has (now) declared their conflict of interest, they hadn't even done that at the time I originally stepped into things. That's a move in the right direction, I suppose, but it sounds like they still haven't really read WP:COI and think that merely declaring their conflict gives them carte blanche to edit the page, instead of (at least as I interpret it) basically meaning they have a responsibility not to.
- I'm afraid at this time I have other projects outside of Wikipedia that are monopolizing most of my time, so I'm not sure how much help I can be with this, but you have my full support (for all that's worth) since as far as I'm concerned that article is and always has been one massive violation of WP:COI. So I say swing the hatchet, and swing it hard. And if you need any help building consensus on the talk page, to get the changes to stick, please feel free to ping me. Thanks! -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)