User talk:WooNour

WooNour, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi WooNour! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Charles River edits

You added content to Charles River without supporting references. Wikipedia requires truth and verifiability. Going forward, you are likely to find your additions reverted unless adequately referenced. David notMD (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing the shortcomings. Going forward, there are several ways editors can react to additions sans references: 1) revert, leaving an Edit summary explaining why, 2) adding a citation-needed notice by typing {{ }} with the letters cn within, and 3) finding and adding reference(s) to support the newly added content. David notMD (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dec 2 accepted?

Time crunch, but not impossible. Strongly suggest you create an adequately referenced draft as quickly as possible and submit it. That way, the draft is in the to-be-reviewed pile. While waiting for a reviewer to look at it, continue to work on the article. Be aware it could be reviewed shortly after submitted, so make sure whatever content is there is referenced. If declined (it happens), address the reviewer's reasons and resubmit. Most often, a new reviewer will look at it - and may have entirely different reasons to decline. Once an article is accepted it appears in Wikipedia searches, but there is a delay for showing up in Google searches (that's a Google thing, not a Wikipedia thing). New articles can be submitted to the Did You Know section on Wikipedia's main page, which results in thousands of article views. Guessing here, but are you either at Tufts Nutrition Science & Policy or Harvard School Public Health? And how was the conference? David notMD (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David notMD, Thank you very much! I am fixing the Charles River links and citations now. And very good guess! My co-author and I are both Tufts Friedman students. The Tufts/Harvard White House Conference was excellent, drawing guests from the 1969 conference as well as important contributors to the field of nutrition from the last 50 years. Best regards, WooNour (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David notMD, Hopefully the Charles River Recreation section is much better now. Thanks, WooNour (talk) 00:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was on the MIT sailing team as an undergrad, and so spent many hours on the Charles and a few dunks in it, back in the 70s. And grad student when there was still a Nutrition Department. And more recently, Adjunct (not paid, a lecture or two a year) Professor at Friedman for a while. David notMD (talk) 04:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about an intersection of interests! Wow. Thanks again for your help. WooNour

I laud your competence in creating references - many new editors stumble on that task. Here is a shortcut for journal referencing: From PubMed abstracts, get the PMID number and enter in into https://tools.wmflabs.org/citation-template-filling/cgi-bin/index.cgi This will create a ref that can be copy/pasted into your draft. You and your co-editors should consider adding content to your User pages, so that editors viewing your draft can view information that explains your interest in the article(s) you intend to create or edit. Something as simple as being graduate students at Friedman. David notMD (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Mayer wrote about the conference

Mayer wrote several articles about the conference back in 1969:

https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article-abstract/27/9/247/1875780?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Mayer J. White House Conference on Food, Nutrition and Health, 1969. Postgrad Med. 1969 Sep;46(3):263-6. PubMed PMID: 5344255.
Mayer J. White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health. J Am Diet Assoc. 1969 Dec;55(6):553-6. PubMed PMID: 5349703.

Also see:

White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health, December 2-4, 1969, Washington, D. C. J Infect Dis. 1969 Nov;120(5):637-41. PubMed PMID: 5346542
Cross AT. USDA's strategies for the 80s: nutrition education. J Am Diet Assoc. 1980 Apr;76(4):333-7. PubMed PMID: 7391464.

Good luck. David notMD (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David notMD thanks so much!

Maybe you could clarify a step in going from the draft created with the Article Wizard to a document that is open to being edited by my co-author. The Article Wizard mentioned adding a submit code at the top of the draft but then it seems as though as soon as it is published out of the initial draft it is meant to be eligible for publishing...that there is no intermediate phase of publishing that has a hold on review...Is this clear as the Charles? (i.e., not very.) WooNour (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not the first time "Publish changes" has been misunderstood. Once a draft is created with Article Wizard it exists as an unsubmitted draft. Submitting with the submit code is a separate step. See Draft:FoodMaven as an example of a draft that was created, submitted and declined. Once created as a draft it is there for you, your classmate, any other editor, to edit. However, it will not appear for a search within Wikipedia on the topic, nor at Google, or any other search engine, as a Wikipedia article, until submitted and accepted. For example, try a search for FoodMaven in Wikipedia. Hope this helped. David notMD (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David notMD, Perfect. Thanks again. Best, WooNour (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the example I provided, the STOP response from the reviewer was a strong signal. If the reviewer believes the topic has merit but the draft is flawed, a milder "Declined" applies. Editors are expected to address the criticisms and resubmit. Most times it is then picked up by a different reviewer (who may have different criticisms). David notMD (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, no

Your draft has content - the conference program - copied verbatim from the 1969 Nutrition Today article. I believe this is copyright infringement, and have brought it to the attention of a copyrightvio expert. If she agrees, it will all be deleted. You can write about the conference, even describing in your own words what the sections/sessions covered, but not be copying content from a citation. David notMD (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David notMD! With great respect, I'm not so sure I agree with your verdict about copyright, although I do recognize much of the content of the list in question is near verbatim and that seems to be an issue - and maybe is not desired if for no other reason than it implies plagiarism or copyright infringement - although I hope to show you that neither can be the case here.

Please consider, I urge you:

1. Reading the text of the announcement, it seems clear the Nutrition Today issue where this was found posted the exact copy it received from the Conference as a means of publicizing its existence. There is no authorship claim on the document. This was a federally funded event and Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States is clear that federally funded work is in the public domain. I would be surprised if this exact copy was not published in other places. Nutrition Today would have a hard time claiming copyright, since they clearly didn't write it.

2. There is no way to paraphrase titles of committees and people on them. Titles are not subject to copyright or plagiarism and this list is all titles. To convey the information precisely and concisely, I see no other way apart from listing it out.

3. This is a draft and we have been contemplating adding additional comment to these sections or revising it entirely, perhaps deleting it because there might be a more useful way to get at the amazing scope of the conference and the acutely political nature of the panels. However, maybe not. So, we aren't done with this page. Also, we will attempt to bring into the information included in this list what actually occurred and not what was announced. In particular I hope that the panels on Social Action and Organizations can be fleshed out with the names of the Chairs and Vice-Chairs who occupied those seats. Also, there is at least one interesting discrepancy on this list which need to be reconciled. Labor was announced as a participant but was replaced. I'm curious why! Also, the names of some panels were changed according to the Final Report. That needs to be added and reconciled. With those potential changes would it seem exactly like the same sort of violation?

4. The changes in each line of the list are small (Chair instead of Chairmen and omitting the names of extraneous cities) but the narrative paragraph which leads the announcement is very slightly touched on by me with no similarity in the choice of words. I clearly did not desire to short cut or use someone else's ideas by copying verbatim.

I am convinced there is no copyright to violate. I have attributed the source and limited copying to titles which cannot and should not be altered.

And, again, this is all in process as a draft.

I plead innocent! Please pass my plea onto the copyright expert.

David, I hope I have convinced you!

Again, with real appreciation for all your help and interest.

Best regards,

WooNour (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted your private information (not done here). I will defer to the editor more experienced in copyright issues. I did point out to her that this was a federally funded conference, but the question of the journal holding a copyright or not is not settled in my mind. Secondly, my own opinion is that the level of detail you have included is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. All that is needed is a sentence along the lines of "The conference consisted of eight sections, each with several sessions." with a ref for the Nutrition Reviews 1969 article so that people can go to that to see the program. Naming the session chairs and vice-chairs adds nothing of value. What you are writing could still have sub-sections for the sections, and paraphrased descriptions of what was presented. David notMD (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright expert opined that a list (in this case the program for the conference) is not copyright protected content. David notMD (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi WooNour! You created a thread called Co-authoring a new article at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]