User talk:Drobertpowell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
Hi Drobertpowell! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 18:17, Monday, November 20, 2017 (UTC)

Get Help
About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

I will be adding 2017 award winners to the Australian Skeptics page. Drobertpowell (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Jill Tarter[edit]

I am in the process of editing Jill Tarter's page. Drobertpowell (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Jill Tarter[edit]

I have edited and expanded Jill Tarter's page. I am open to any further suggestions. One thing I can think of to get back to is to archive the web citations that have not yet been archived. Thanks. Drobertpowell (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Great work on the Jill Tarter article. Kyle(talk) 20:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Drobertpowell (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Congressional Freethought Caucus[edit]

@Everymorning: Hi! I added back the Category:Caucuses of the United States Congress just because that doesn't seem exactly redundant to have both that one and the Ideological Caucuses category. Does that make sense? Drobertpowell (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg Thanks for developing open science with a sentence and citation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Drobertpowell (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

COI[edit]

Hi! It appears that the bulk of your edits in recent months have been to add references to the Skeptical Inquirer. This is probably fine, but I am a bit concerned that this focus may be due to a connection with the journal, in which case you might need to be aware of the conflict of interest guidelines and the risk of adding such links to be perceived as spam. If you do have a conflict of interest, it might be best if you raised the articles on the talk pages of those articles first, rather than directly inserting them, as while editing articles with a COI isn't prohibited, it is better if this is managed transparently. - Bilby (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Reply posted on sender's talk page. Drobertpowell (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Epistemic virtue, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Objectivity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


I corrected this link. Drobertpowell (talk)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Drobertpowell. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Drobertpowell. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Refspam[edit]

Hi Drobertpowell. You may not be aware of this, but what you are doing is WP:REFSPAM - adding references in order to include those from a particular source. You give the impression that you are looking for excuses to add references to the one publication, rather than trying to improve articles by finding appropriate sources. In some cases the references do add something, whatever the reason you add them may be, but in others this is not the case, and the text comes across simply as an excuse for the link. When I asked you about this before you stated that you did not have a COI, and that may well be the case. However your editing has been almost exclusively adding references to the one source - hundreds of times, in fact - and while you may not have a COI, you certainly give the impression that you are primarily acting in the interests of the journal. - Bilby (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

You have made - literally - hundreds of edits adding a single journal to articles. It is clear that you approach is to find excuses to add the journal as a reference - you are looking for Wikipedia articles to insert the source. If your goal was to improve the articles, your focus would not be so clearly on the single journal. This is exactly the same approach used by others seeking to promote websites and publications in WP. You need to rethink your approach. - Bilby (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for jumping in here but I'm also doing exactly what Droberpowell is doing, and are others. We are editing backwards. This involves taking a notable source with journal articles in it and adding it to Wikipedia pages that need more content. This keeps our edit history varied, and we are learning about a lot of interesting Wikipedia pages we might not know of elsewhere. This isn't spanning. It isn't any different than someone sitting down the daily NYT's over breakfast and trying to see if they can use it for many different articles. When we are done with all the Skeptical Inquirer articles, we will move to another journal. And on and on and on and on, improving Wikipedia as we go. Sgerbic (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Editing backwards is exactly what refspam involves - looking for articles in which to insert a desired reference, rather than looking for an appropriate reference to improve an article. I see this all the time in job ads, where people are being hired to insert references into articles in order to promote the sources. Our goal should be to improve articles by finding the best references to support the content, not to promote journals by finding excuses to add them as references in Wikipedia. - Bilby (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure you and I agree on what refspam is. This is a different way to edit, and different does not equal wrong. Are you saying that Drobertpowell is a paid editor? Sgerbic (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm saying that a goal of inserting the same source, over and over again, into as many articles as possible, has been regarded by the community as spamming. Your "editing backwards' is exactly the same method of inserting promotional content that is used by spammers trying to promote their websites, research and publications. This does not mean that Drobertpowell is in any way a paid editor, (I am absolutely sure that they are not), but it looks like Wikipedia is being used as a means of promoting the Skeptical Inquirer, whether or not that is the intent, and the mechanism is identical to that used for spamming. - Bilby (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Well we aren't using the same article over and over again. We are using articles that are all different, but are published in one journal. And we are using multiple issues of this journal. We also use other journals and other publications. I once went through an entire book and used it on multiple Wikipedia pages, and I know others that do this also. You say the community sees this as spamming. We have been backward editing for years, hundreds of people edit this way. You are the first editor to raise any concern. If the goal is to improve Wikipedia articles, then I'm not seeing a problem if we are using one journal or multiple journals. You see this as promotion, I don't. If Drobertpowell is not a paid editor, then I do not see the issue. If the journal article is relevant to the Wikipedia page it is being used on then that should be the only thing we are concerned with. If we were to take one website and use it multiple times over and over, and try to add it to a Wikipedia article that it was not related to, then that is spamming. But using a RS with different articles on different topics is not. As I stated in my comments above, we could just as easily be sitting down to breakfast with the NYT and spending the next few hours adding every story they write about on various Wikipedia pages. Just because we want to, or maybe because we have some form of OCD that compels us to complete the entire newspaper. Or maybe we really love the NYT and think it needs to be used on multiple Wikipedia articles because we think it is excellent. The end result is the same, you would call that spamming, I would call that improving Wikipedia correctly using backward edits. I'm about to go to bed, so let me try one more example. You are I have the same goal, improve Wikipedia, I assume good faith and I think you do also, so let's see if we can understand each other. I think I understand that you see this as spamming because you feel that you should start with a Wikipedia page that requires researching citations to improve that page with. I get that, we do that all the time when we are wanting to improve a Wikipedia page. That is how most Wikipedia editors work. Wonderful. BUT there are hundreds out there that also do these backwards edits, finding a RS first and then looking for a Wikipedia page to put it on. It is a quick and satisfying way to edit and improve pages. Also we keep our edit history diverse and read so many interesting pages on Wikipedia. Imagine this as my last example, you are following a prominent notable scientist on social media. That scientist publishes well-written and researched content every week and Wikipedia sees that content as RS. Would you see it as spamming if one Wikipedia editor weekly took that content and added it to the relevant Wikipedia pages that it fit on? Is the problem with it being the same editor every time adding the content? Is it a problem because it is weekly, what if it were daily, or several times a day, or would it need to be monthly? I would argue that as long as it was done correctly however the content ended up on the page it would not matter if it was done by multiple editors or one editor every week for years. Each edit should be evaluated by those editors that are interested in the specific Wikipedia page. Sorry my response is so long, I'm probably not going to see your response for multiple hours. I hope I don't come across as difficult, it is only the nature of the medium of text and need of sleep that I plead if so. Sgerbic (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi! I'll try and address some of your main points in turn:
  • "We aren't using the same article over and over again". Very true. The problem is that you are using the same publication over and over again - hundreds of times. My concern is apparent spamming of the publication, not an individual article.
  • "I once went through an entire book and used it on multiple Wikipedia pages". This is good. Drobertpowell, however, almost exclusively edits to insert references to a single publication. That you personally include other publications doesn't seem particularly relevant.
  • "You are the first editor to raise any concern." If I see a problem, I think I should raise it, rather than check to see if other people have spotted it before.
  • "If we were to take one website and use it multiple times over and over, and try to add it to a Wikipedia article that it was not related to, then that is spamming." Yes, that would be spamming. It could also be spamming if you added links to one website over and over to multiple articles, even if it was more-or-less relevant. The "spamming" comes from adding it over and over to promote the site, not from its relevance.
I have now had the opportunity to read your article "Editing Backwards - GSoW and Skeptical Inquirer Magazine". In that, you describe a challenge where you set out to find a way to include every article from an issue of Skeptical Inquirer in WP. When you are editing with the purpose of including references to a given source, then you are spamming, and that's largely what you describe. I note that you even described the promotional value of doing this:
"Another by-product of this task is that we are getting the magazine’s name and all those articles onto one of the most viewed websites in the world including citations that people can follow if they want more information. This action not only supports CSI and Skeptical Inquirer, but it also supports the authors of those articles, helping them and their work get more exposure. Just think how many school-children will be plagiarizing Wikipedia with these articles. Seriously, that is a something I’m striving for. How many students are learning about Skeptical Inquirer because they saw it mentioned on a Wikipedia article about some obscure topic?"
The question that needs to be asked is if text is being added because it is a necessary and valuable addition to Wikipedia, or because it just happened to be from an issue of Skeptical Inquirer? For example, why was a reference to Alan J. Scott [1] added? Is he a leader in cognitive science and the philosophy of mind, as per Daniel Dennett or Alfred Mele, the other two people mentioned in that paragraph, or was it because he happened to publish an article in the Skeptical Inquirer? Too often it looks like these are being included because of what publication they were included in. This overly strong focus on searching for WP articles in which to add references from Skeptical Inquirer is the wrong way of approaching things. - Bilby (talk) 08:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Well it looks as if we are at a stalemate. I don't think this is spamming. I don't think that there is anything wrong with the intent of a Wikipedia editor to use one source, the overall goal is to improve Wikipedia pages. I do think that it is a case by case issue on specific pages whether the specific edit is warranted or not. Skeptical Inquirer is RS and are most of the people we quote. I don't think this can be policed, nor should it. Measuring the intent of the editor is really getting into an area that I don't think anyone wants to deal with. As I said with the example given with the NYT's newspaper, it either belongs on the article or it doesn't. That is determined by the editors of the specific article it is being edited into. If an editor has a RS in front of them that they want to use, then who are we to say they can't use that RS, just because they use it over and over? You know the next question would be raised are how many times can a single editor use one publication? How much time needs to pass between each edit? Who decides this? I know I have better things to do than police this. I would rather assume good faith. Sgerbic (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really surprised that you don't see it as a problem, in spite of encouraging people to perform this action in part in order to promote a publication which you are involved with. This is not about "how long should pass between each edit". This is about a process - looking for a reason to insert a given source, as opposed to looking for sources to improve an article. If the intent is to find reasons to use a source in articles, then the focus is on the wrong side of the process. - Bilby (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bilby! I think we are in the area of the subtlety of spamming as noted in the policy statement. There have been many instances where I have not inserted any material or citations from given SI articles because they did not add any information to relevant Wikipedia pages or I thought the author was not speaking from a position of authority. I will only add material and citations when I think it improves a given page. The methodology of starting with a reliable source might have superficial similarities to spamming, but when said improvement to Wikipedia is taken into account, to the extent that is the case on a case-by-case basis, it is clear that we are not spamming. We are only ending up at the same point from a different direction. Drobertpowell (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

It is exactly the same process used by spammers, rather than a superficial similarity. It is up to you how you choose to continue. - Bilby (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Thanks for creating Vegan design.

User:Rosguill while reviewing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

The article's subject is clearly notable based on an internet news search. However, a lot of the article's content is improperly cited. Articles should be written based primarily on secondary coverage of the subject: drawing conclusions based on announcements that various designers will be undertaking vegan design projects is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Additionally, you've cited the same sources over and over again: it is better to cite multiple different sources, particularly since the ones currently cited are not particularly well-known and thus are of unclear reliability.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

signed, Rosguill talk 00:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Thanks for bringing this up. I created this page at the suggestion of someone who is involved with vegan design, and I myself was not convinced of the notability of this idea. I'm glad you see it as notable, but as I recall it was a challenge to come up with the sources that I used. If there are enough other reliable secondary sources out there to bolster the acceptability of the page, as you seem to indicate, that would be great. Drobertpowell (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I was able to find [2] and [3], which have some (if not a ton) of info. You may also have better luck searching academic publications, or professional magazines focusing on fashion or design. signed, Rosguill talk 19:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Thank you! I did some digging in academic sources (I work in an academic library) but didn't find much. I will try again at some point.... Drobertpowell (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Walmart addition[edit]

Thanks for your addition to Walmart! Just one small note, when referencing this URL you appeared to assume it was a journal in this edit since it uses the volume and issue terminology commonly associated with journals. Skeptical Inquirer is a magazine however, so it's more appropriate to use {{cite web}} or {{cite magazine}} than {{cite journal}}. Also, the magazine is subscription-only, which isn't very helpful for the reader to verify your addition. I added a ref by Forbes that is accessible to anyone, we prefer that. I have corrected it with this diff. If you have any questions feel free to message me, just remember to ping me. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Waddie96: Thanks very much for finding and adding the fully accessible Forbes article as a reference. Sometimes Skeptical Inquirer provides full text online, and other times it does not. You are right in pointing out that this is, unfortunately, a case of the latter. Regarding the question of the literary status of Skeptical Inquirer, I am quite familiar with its format as a subscriber. I would argue that at worst it walks the line between a popular magazine and a journal. Its authors are often experts in the field about which they are writing, and the articles are footnoted. I wonder whether we can compromise around your edit. It provides fair warning that the full text of the article is not available online. However, it is not clear in the citation that the reference is from a print publication, and not just a web site. I would like to see information such as volume/number, date, and page number restored to the citaton. Is there a way that you would be willing to do that and still maintain the information you have added? Thanks for your help! Drobertpowell (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I add the point that journals are peer-reviewed which further strengthens their correctness, unlike magazines. With {{cite web}} one can add volume and issue but once again I suggest not doing so as this is a magazine and not a journal article. {{cite journal}} should only be used for journal articles. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Editing without edit conflicts[edit]

Just a note to continue our discussion at the article talkpage. I forgot to mention, you can put {{Under construction}} or {{In use}} at the top of the page to indicate its status to other editors. Plus everything spelled out at Help:Edit conflict#Prevention. Happy editing! ☆ Bri (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bri: This is great, thank you! Drobertpowell (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)