VPL Strathcona
VPL Strathcona, you are invited to the Teahouse! edit
|
Hi VPL Strathcona! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC) |
Edits to Nike Dattani edit
The article mentioned above was listed as needing copy editing, so I streamlined the information, removing anything that was overly promotional, not notable, or unsourced. Because the article is about a living person, all information must be sourced with trustworthy, independent sources in order to remain in the article. Any information that does not meet that criteria can be removed at any time. The information I left in the article still needs more sources, however I believe I left in the information that fairly portrays the notable achievements the person made, without describing the results of every study he has participated in. Wikipedia articles are not meant to be a complete collection of all information and trivia about topics; they are meant to contain noteworthy information that readers can verify by going to sources mentioned throughout the course of the article. If there were no sources in any Wikipedia articles, then there would be no way to prove that any information were true or false. Therefore, if you want to add information to the article that was removed, provide trustworthy, independent sources backing up that information, and write that information in a factual, encyclopedic tone.
- CoolieCoolster (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with a lot of the things that you are saying. But you severely desconstructed the entire article and reconstructed it in your own way which frankly was too extreme, badly inappropriate, and was damaging to the project: It was an act of vandalism, whether intentional or unintentional. You introduced factual errors, which are completely unacceptable. You did this all, without consulting a SINGLE PERSON who had been involved in the writing of the article over the last 9 months or so.
- You say the article was listed as needing copy editing. What specifically did it say, and where? All the tags you mention, were added by Lila Kari, who has multiple times tried to distort the facts about Nike Dattani. Look at the edits on May 6 (look at the IP address that did that edit and the User Contributions of that user) and look at the edit on December 6 which was responded to with "The last edit simply removed the mention of Lila Kari's name, it comes from an IP address that did a total of 2 edits before this one, both of those edits were extremely minor edits to Lila's own Wiki page. The IP address hostname is: lila-macmini.cs.uwaterloo.ca, meaning that the edit was likely made by Lila's Mac Mini computer. Un-doing COI edit"
- Unless you think there is a different "Lila" at the CS department at the University of Waterloo (this can probably be verified), I think you and I both know 100% who was making those edits. You keep adding back tags that she added 2 days ago, even though no one else agrees with you. She has vandalized this page on a number of occasions, and you are just propagating and emphasizing her errors. You have shown an utter disregard for the person who is the subject of the article, by for example making your own uni-lateral decision about what his most important contribution was (you say it was the MLR potential, but in fact his most cited paper was his variational master equation paper, that you would have been able to see earlier because of the Google Scholar link that was added by BountyTJ. Now it is totally gone !!! How is it that you removed the reference to his MOST cited paper ???
- We Wikipedians have to be responsible. People's reputation can be badly hurt by what we do or don't do. You cannot just do what you did.
- Notability was already discussed. Categories is supposed to go at the bottom. Reliability of sources was already discussed.
- If there is anything you want to change, discuss it on the talk page. For example if you believe the Heatherington Prize should be removed, then mention this and we can discuss it. Why on earth would you want to remove this? If you believe the "Influenced by: Robert LeRoy" should be removed, then you're going to have to win a rather large battle with the rest of us because it seems crystal clear that he was influenced by LeRoy. You have taken down his website. Why? Articles of academics usually have a link to their webpage. You have taken down links and references to his works. Why don't you take them down from here too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endre_Boros ???
- You should look at Wiki pages of other academics and see what the standards are.
- Anything you want to change, discuss on the talk page. Please.
VPL Strathcona (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- I will not modify the article again until a consensus is reached at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors#An_article_I_copy_edited on the state of the article. I invite you to share your perspective there. CoolieCoolster (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know Guild of Copy Editors but it seems they're your friends and they know you or at least recognize your name, but won't know me or the other people that edited the article in question. Why not discuss among the other people that had interest in editing the page in question? I've never seen a situation like this get discussed on the page of some group, rather than on the talk page of the article itself. But thank you for agreeing to do this. It did not feel good to press "undo" .. I always hate doing that .. in this case the choice though is the present version or the version that existed for several months before, and at least that version lasted several months without too many complaints, so I preferred the seasoned version. VPL Strathcona (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- I have not edited Wikipedia on a regular basis for years before the past couple of months, with my involvement with the Guild of Copyeditors only going so far as copy editing articles for the current copy editing drive. Since the guild has much more experience with copy editing than I do, I am seeking their input on the state of the article. I want what is best for Wikipedia, and I genuinely believe that this article does not describe the person as an encyclopedia should. For the specific reasons I added to my post at the Guild of Copy Editors, I believe that the view of the article is slanted in favor of the academic, with unimportant information such as his "Erdos number" being included. If you genuinely believe that things in the article should stay, then elaborate on them and add more sources. Just because some other articles don't have sources doesn't mean this one has the right to skip on sources. CoolieCoolster (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- Please see WP:OWN; no one "owns" an article. The GOCE doesn't look for work to do, the article was tagged for copyediting, which CoolieCoolster tried to do in accordance with WP's policies and guidelines. WP:BLP is policy, and "I like it" (or "I added it") is not a good enough reason to retain policy-violating content. All the best, Miniapolis 13:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- I have not edited Wikipedia on a regular basis for years before the past couple of months, with my involvement with the Guild of Copyeditors only going so far as copy editing articles for the current copy editing drive. Since the guild has much more experience with copy editing than I do, I am seeking their input on the state of the article. I want what is best for Wikipedia, and I genuinely believe that this article does not describe the person as an encyclopedia should. For the specific reasons I added to my post at the Guild of Copy Editors, I believe that the view of the article is slanted in favor of the academic, with unimportant information such as his "Erdos number" being included. If you genuinely believe that things in the article should stay, then elaborate on them and add more sources. Just because some other articles don't have sources doesn't mean this one has the right to skip on sources. CoolieCoolster (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know Guild of Copy Editors but it seems they're your friends and they know you or at least recognize your name, but won't know me or the other people that edited the article in question. Why not discuss among the other people that had interest in editing the page in question? I've never seen a situation like this get discussed on the page of some group, rather than on the talk page of the article itself. But thank you for agreeing to do this. It did not feel good to press "undo" .. I always hate doing that .. in this case the choice though is the present version or the version that existed for several months before, and at least that version lasted several months without too many complaints, so I preferred the seasoned version. VPL Strathcona (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Welcome! edit
Hello, VPL Strathcona, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!
−
- It seems you haven't been welcomed yet, VPL Strathcona; this section contains links to pages you should read before getting down to editing on Wikipedia. Some of these pages describe rules and guidelines that will help you avoid confrontation. I'm sorry you've had an abrasive start to your editing here; please understand that experienced editors don't always recognise inexperienced editors. Learning the Wikipedia culture can help avoid such confrontations as you've just experienced. Happy editing; Baffle☿gab 04:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)