User talk:Ruhri Jörg/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Karl-Rudolf Korte - Need to pay proper attribution since you are not the original author

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ruhri Jorg, Greetings to you. You have copied and pasted the DE Wikipedia of the subject above and pasted intranslation into EN Wikipedia. You are not the original author of the DE Wiki page - see here [1] and you did not write the page yourself. For such you need to pay proper attribution to the original authors (PATT). I highly recommend you to write the articles yourself in the future. Please go to WP:PATT on how to pay attribution. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi CASSIOPEIA,

Thank you very much for your constructive feedback! Because I translated much from the original article in German, I added the note "Created page for Karl-Rodolf Corte - mainly by translating from the German article." to the page creation initially. For future records I will certainly pay attention to also use the "pay attribution" template.

Also I'm working on creating my own texts - sometimes it just doesn't seem useful to re-write what has already been written well.

In either case, thank you very much and have a great rest of the week!

Jörg--Ruhri Jörg (talk) 13:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jorg, Good day. You could PATT by creating a dummy edit (no text but jut a spacing) and put the PATT text on the edit summary. Also, PATT on the Karl-Rudolf Korte talk page. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi CASSIOPEIA,

I've tried to implement your suggestions but don't really have the impression, that I succeeded.

I couldn't manage to properly link the German-wiki page in my post on the talk page of the English Korte article.

I know this is probably not your level of work, but maybe you can help me out once more.

Thank you very much,

Jörg--Ruhri Jörg (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jorg,

Done see here - [2]. Happy editing. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi CASSIOPEIA,

Thank you! Hope I'll get it right next time ;) Many thanks for your support - and happy editing to you too!

All the best, --Ruhri Jörg (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Néle Azevedo

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Some of the content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/photos/14-artists-with-a-green-message/nele-azevedo or elsewhere online. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa,

Thank you very much for your feedback! You're absolutely right - i was in the process of changing the content yesterday and then didn't get to finishing it...

My intention was not to leave it this way and I have definitely learned for future edits to not "work on the page" but finish the content beforehands.

Thank you for paying attention and letting me know!

I will improve the edit asap and re-upload it afterwards...

Have a good weekend,--Ruhri Jörg (talk) 07:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

List of Columbian College of Arts and Sciences people moved to draftspace

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

An article you recently created, List of Columbian College of Arts and Sciences people, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Boleyn (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Boleyn,

Thank you for your feedback! You're right, I didn't yet get to sourcing the article properly and should therefore probably not have put it in the mainspace yet. I was hoping to have more time to work on it, than I ended up having...

Anyways, I will certainly keep that in mind for future article creations! Thanks again and happy editing,

--Ruhri Jörg (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice message, I've moved it to the mainspace. Boleyn (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lara Brown

Latest comment: 5 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

Hello Ruhri Jörg,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Lara Brown for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Sam Sailor 17:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Sam,

Wow - I seem to keep making mistakes. Thank you very much for your feedback - I will of course try to improve the article and follow your suggested steps. Because I certainly feel like it shouldn't be deleted... Can you specify where you suspect copyright violations? I thought I had put together the article quite well, but yeah... I'm still getting used to things around here. Sometimes it seems a bit hard to get a good balance of using good sources, finding good tone and words (esp. when it's not your native language). Thankful for any suggestions / tipps...

Best regards, --Ruhri Jörg (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: I just checked again - the only part that was close to the source was the list of her written articles / publications, which I didn't find useful to re-write (is there another way to present a list of articles / books?). The main article was, in my opinion, well written and sources... how do I get it back? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruhri Jörg (talk • contribs) 10:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Guten Tag, Jörg. The copyvio was reported by CopyPatrol. I am quite sure the c-v went beyond the work list. Sam Sailor 10:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: and @Ruhri Jörg: After the discussion on the talk page and a look at what CopyPatrol shows, I see this page as a case in point of how the reworking of a faculty/employer listing becomes merely a résumé, not an encyclopedic entry in which independent reliable sources are used to show clearly why the subject has the notability which justifies inclusion. – Athaenara ✉ 14:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear @Athaenara: and @Sam Sailor:,

Thank you both for your feedback! I have checked the article again - and from what I can see, I have really only stated encyclopedic facts about Mrs. Brown who, as director of one of the colleges of the George Washington University and from what I have seen around university articles, is notable. You're definitely right - and I didn't mean to make it a resume / CV extension and am more than happy to adapt (which of course also extends to the list of her articles / books which is too close to the original source). I will craft a corrected version and if you still think it's not correct / notable I will follow your experience - as I'm too just trying to improve wiki.

All the best, --Ruhri Jörg (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: I've just checked WP:NACADEMICS again, which I try to use as a guideline in these contexts. Notability criteria state that a person is notable if "6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution" which Mrs. Brown does. So if I see it correctly, I made an honest mistake by copying a list of articles / books from her bio (still don't know how to re-write a list of publications though, which are quite common in acadmic bios...but I will just take it out for now) and will gladly correct my mistake. Thank you both for your friendly and constructive feedback!

@Ruhri Jörg: The only difference between your re-creation of this résumé and the previous one is the length of the book list. This is user sandbox material and that is where you should be working on it. You've repeatedly said things to the effect, "thank you for pointing out my errors, I will do it all differently", and then proceed to do the same as before. Stop. If you re-create it again in article space without substantial improvement I will block you for at least a week, perhaps longer. – Athaenara ✉ 04:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear @Athaenara:,

The article was originally flagged, because I had copied too much of the book list from the university website, thus violating copyright rules. That error has been pointed out and corrected.

Subsequently you also pointed out that Mrs. Brown was maybe not notable, which I think my last post showed she indeed is. Since you didn't replay any further, I thought that you agreed and went on to re-create the article - in my thinking after the two questions had been addressed properly. Apparently I misunderstood something...

In my understanding the general style and content of the article is as encyclopaedic as I think it should be, especially given the early stage of the article. It is citing both external, quality sources and describing Mrs. Browns career as objectively and short as possible. If you have any other suggestions on how to improve a (stub like) academic profile of a notable person (who has not been in office for long - thus limiting the amount of additional external coverage) - I'm more than happy to hear and include your suggestions. However, if you read the page you linked, it states that "The focus of user pages should not be social networking or amusement, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration.". The article I crafted doesn't appear to be an attempt to amuse or help people socialize with Mrs. Brown, but does exactly what the article requests: It includes only limited autobiographical information and helps people to collaborate with her (mentioning her writing and her current position as the two points of focus).

Therefore I would be thankful, if you could re-publish the article or make specific suggestions for any additional improvements I might make...

I know many people try to include non-notable people (often themselves) and, especially in academics, there seems to be a trend of people trying to extend their résumé to wiki. But this is not what I'm trying to do here...

Thank you for your effort in making this a better article - and have a great start in the new week!--Ruhri Jörg (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear @Athaenara:,

Have you read last weeks message? I would consider it polite and be thankful for some feedback or the re-publishing of Lara Brown's article. If you still have some specific suggestions to make, following the clear notability of her article and my corrected mistakes, I'm still more than open to it...

Thank you, --Ruhri Jörg (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ruhri Jörg: User:Ruhri Jörg/Draft Lara Brown still reads like an institutional public relations piece put out to announce a recent hiring, not an encyclopedia article. – Athaenara ✉ 20:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Athaenara, Ruhri Jörg, I don't know the whole backstory here, but I think it reads like an institutional bio mostly because to a large extent it is one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear @Athaenara: and @Justlettersandnumbers:,

Thank you both for giving me additional feedback. I think I might just be giving up on this one for now and come back to it later... looks like there's still too much similarity to the main bio and I don't really know how to re-write it at the moment. Anyways - always hard to give up on work already put into something, but thanks for talking it out with me.

I will let you know, when I make a new attempt :D Thanks again, --Ruhri Jörg (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I did have some additional time today - and went over the article in my userspace. I've submitted it for review and re-reading the public bio, I really hope that any possible similarities (aside from some of the key-facts, that simply are what they are) are now removed... --Ruhri Jörg (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Binder moved to draftspace

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

An article you recently created, Sarah Binder, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your page to draft space (with a prefix of Draft: before the article title) where you can work on it with minimal disruption. When you feel that it meets our notability and neutrality requirements, and is thus ready for mainspace, please submit it using the Articles for Creation template on the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear Justlettersandnumbers,

Thank you for your feedback. I was just about to reply that I don't really know how much better an article at that stage could possibly be sourced, but have seen that someone else apparently agreed and already re-published the article. Nonetheless thanks for reviewing - if you have any specific suggestions that I could incorporate in my future articles, please feel free the share them, as I'm definitely still learning... :)

All the best from Germany, --Ruhri Jörg (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of The Graduate School of Political Management people (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to James Carter, Michael Edwards, Michael Cohen and Chris Bender

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Lara Brown, from its old location at User:Ruhri Jörg/Draft Lara Brown. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 16:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

General advice

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

As an administrator here, I frequently review articles on academics (and, especially, clean up translations from the German WP) , and I've been checking several of yours. German is your native language, and you also know how to write grammatical English, which is much better than what we often see here. You might want to look at the information given at Wikipedia:Translating German Wikipedia for some specific points, because the two WPs are quite different.If you base your article on the de WP, remember to always give attribution, preferably to the exact version which you used . And , even if you write from scratch about someone with German connections, check if there is by chance an article in the deWP, because you need to add the connection to the Languages area in the left margin.

The only real way to learn what we expect from articles about academics is to follow the discussions about them at WP:AFD We have elaborate rules, but what matters is not the rules, but the way they are interpreted. For example, in general, the rule for head of an academic institution applies to the university president, not the head of divisions. The rule for making an impact upon their field is normally satisfied for people in the humanities by having at least two books by major academic publishers; in those fields where publication is primarily by journal articles, it requires at least a few articles with citation figures that are exceptionally high for for the field--I must admit that how we interpret it for the social sciences varies. We do not include minor publications: book chapters, reports, speeches, conference publications, book reviews: it's better not to even list them, because it gives the impression there are insufficient major publications. For books, we list them all.For journal articles, just the most heavily cited along with citation figures.

When we include honors, they need to be honors from outside the university-- not teaching awards, and not junior awards or fellowships. We pay attention to rank--give the exact title of each position. We count major public service, but not such routine activities as testifying before a congressional committee, or giving an interview. We do not count board memberships unless they are in some way relevant. We include being a President of a national professional organization, but not mere memberships. We include being a Fellow for those organizations where it is a special honor., such as the AAAS or the NAS. We include being a visiting Professor, but we just mention it, giving the dates.

For people with a primary career in public service, that they hold an association with a university as a Fellow is possibly worth mentioning--but they are not regular members of the faculty and should not be included in the university article. The same is true for adjunct positions--it just means they taught a course. it's routine for outside professionals to do that.

For people with a dual career in the academic world and in public service, there is often difficulty in organizing the material. For someone who goes back and forth between the two, it is sometimes better just to give the positions chronologically.

One reason some of your work has run into difficulty here, is that you are including minor material, which detracts from the major material and can even give the impression there is no major material. Another reason is that you're writing in disconnected sentences; that's a style appropriate for a CV or a newspaper, not an encyclopedia . You might want to keep track of the changes I and other people make to your articles, and ask if you do not se the reasons. If you need help for anything, ask me. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear DGG,

Wow - I'm really thankful that you took the time to write all of that! It's really helpful and I wish I had known parts of it earlier - that would have probably helped me avoid some (major) mistakes I made and stay away from some confusion (or confusing people)... I will definitely make sure to (re-) read the articles you suggested and am especially thankful for your pointing out of the "groundrules" for academia... I will try to follow your suggestions, keep educating myself and am definitely looking forward to learning from your (and other people's) suggestions.

Just a few days ago I found and read WP:DNB and thought to myself "I wish that people would actually take the time to read this and cut me (and other newbies) some slack". I'm therefore glad that you did - and will try my best to learn and not keeping offending people... ;) If there's anything more specific - I will also gladly take you up on your offer and ask!

Again, many thanks, and all the best from Germany,

--Ruhri Jörg (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Ruhri , thanks! One of the main reasons why people bite newcomers here is because a little more than 3/4 of the submissions from new editors are promotional spam or attempt at autobiographies. This is true of articles on academics also, either by one of the department staff adapting a CV, or the university Press office writing the sort of blurb they do when a professor gets an honour. Taking my first look at your most recent work, I was concerned that you might be doing it for George Washington U., but a check of the whole sequence of contributions made it clear that it was rather your general interest. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

DGG, you're definitely right! And by now I've been starting to understand that a little better... but it really helps to get that sort of "overview" from people like you... Because if you don't have that, and you're also still lacking the experience, the feedback I received sometimes just felt a little overly critical / it simply wasn't explained with as much patience as you have displayed (which is especially painful if you invest hours and hours in research and writing because you enjoy finding out about people etc. - and then the entire article just gets deleted with a few words notice and no real explanation). But yeah - I guess I'll just have to (learn to) live with it like everyone else ;) and meanwhile improve my articles so I don't run into the same problems again...

So in any case - thanks again and have a great start in the new week!

--Ruhri Jörg (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Cecilia Prewett moved to draftspace

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

An article you recently created, Cecilia Prewett, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). Not acceptable as sources are press releases, staff listings, fleeting mentions, or YouTube/Vimeo videos. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear Kudpung กุดผึ้ง,

Thank you for moving the article. I will see when I get to revisiting and improving the article!

Have a good start in 2019!

--Ruhri Jörg (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Gabe Rozsa for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gabe Rozsa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabe Rozsa until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey DGG,

Just added my thoughts to the discussion page. Hope it was in the right place?! ;)

--Ruhri Jörg (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lara Brown has been accepted

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Lara Brown, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Theroadislong (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Cecilia Prewett has a new comment

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Cecilia Prewett. Thanks! ~Kvng (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cecilia Prewett (March 24)

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Praxidicae was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

No evidence she is independently notable outside of her position in SKDKnickerbocker.

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:Cecilia Prewett 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:Cecilia Prewett, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" 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 will 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.

Praxidicae (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Ruhri Jörg! 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! Praxidicae (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)