User talk:September 1988
Archive 1. Archive 2. Archive 3. Archive 4. Archive 5
Please include references[change | change source]
Angela, please start including references in your new articles. Including references is becoming more important here, because more and more articles are being deleted due to not showing notability. References are the best way to show notability, so please start including them.
For movie and actor articles, you could at least include a link to the IMDB entry for the movie or person. Just including that in an "other websites" section is considered a reference. IMDB is not considered a reliable reference, but it is at least a reference, and it's pretty standard to include an IMDB link for movies, TV series/episodes, and actors. For other kinds of articles, you can usually find other references in the enwiki article when there is one.
You asked me to guide you toward becoming an administrator. When someone is nominated to be an administrator, one of the things that people look at is the articles they have created, to see if they include everything they should. That would include indication of notability as shown with references. This isn't one of the specific requirements for being an admin, but it's something people usually want to see. A good step toward preparing to become an admin would be to make this improvement in your articles.
- Just to repeat, please start including references in all of your articles. When you base an article on an enwiki article, there should be references there. When you get the information from anywhere else, you could use that source as a reference. This is especially important with stub articles, because in a short article it's harder to explain notability in the text. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
- Angela, I'd still like to see you include references in all of the articles you create. I was just looking at Branford, Connecticut and I see that it doesn't have any references. You must have gotten the info from somewhere, and that place might be useable as a reference (if it isn't another Wikipedia). For articles about cities, you might be able to find the city's official website and use something from that. Please try to do this and let me know if you need help with it. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Talkback[change | change source]
Twinkle warnings[change | change source]
Hi, Angela. Thanks for all the anti-vandalism work you do! I'd like to ask you a favor. When you warn a user because they removed something from a page (like you did for changes to Stevie Nicks), could you use the warning option that says "Removal of content, blanking" instead of the general vandalism option? That would help us see exactly what kinds of things the user did. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Articles about people[change | change source]
Hi, Angela. Your articles in general are looking better these days! I just wanted to mention that at the beginning of an article about a person, where you give the birth date in parentheses, please spell out the word "born" instead of abbreviating it. There could be people who don't understand what the abbreviation means. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Honda Pilot[change | change source]
Would you add something to the paragraph about the Pilot being compared to other vehicles? Just saying it was compared to other vehicles doesn't really tell the reader anything. It leaves us wondering why we care that it was compared, and whether people thought it was better or worse than the other vehicles. Please don't just remove the paragraph, but give more information about it being compared. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Suge Knight[change | change source]
Angela, when writing about someone's criminal history, you have to be very, very careful to be absolutely accurate. You stated in this article that Knight had been in prison "because of many crimes, mainly assault". I carefully read through the enwiki article, and it doesn't say that. I see mention of only two times that he was in prison, which is not "many". Those two times were for violation of either probation or parole, not for assault. Wikipedia can get in serious legal trouble saying things like that when they aren't true. If it's hard for you to get this kind of information straight, it might be a good idea for you not to write about sensitive areas like this in biographies. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Ice Ice Baby[change | change source]
Hi, Angela. I just looked at Ice Ice Baby. I think you need to be more specific where it says that the song was not successful. How exactly was it not successful? Just saying that a song was or wasn't successful doesn't really tell the reader much. Please change it to be more specific. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Angela, you reverted the redirect and I waited to see you show notability. Unfortunately just writing "The album received very favorable reviews" does not show notability. But it doesn't seem this one can be fixed the same way as you did with So Real. To help you out I copied part of the section from the enwiki article which shows notability another way. Rus793 (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
MMMBop, and using references[change | change source]
Angela, thanks for including a reference in MMMBop. The reference was with the statement that the song hit number one in several countries. However, the site linked in the reference doesn't say anything about the song reaching number one. It doesn't say anything at all about the song's chart position.
The reason for using references is to have a source for the statement that the reference goes with. The reference tells our readers where we got the information in our articles. Sources have to include the fact(s) that they are used to support. The reference you used is in the enwiki article, but it's used for different facts. There is a reference at enwiki for the number one chart positions, but that reference is a dead link. Therefore, I am just going to remove it from the article. Please find a different, active source for something in the article.
If you use a reference from an enwiki article, you have to do one of two things:
- Make sure the source is not a dead link and use it for the same information as at enwiki. If you remove some information as part of simplifying an article, you have to also remove any references that go with the part that you remove.
- Read the source for yourself, find a fact in it that you are using in the article, and use the source for that fact.
I'm really concerned about this. The sources are very important here. If we don't source the articles properly, then what we have is called "original research", which is not allowed and which is not what people expect from Wikipedia. Please think about whether you might have done something similar with other references you've included in articles. Please be extra careful to make sure that any references you use actually have the information in them that they're used for in the article. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Gastric bypass[change | change source]
Angela, this article is the kind I was talking about when we talked recently about technical articles. I have just simplified and edited the article. I'm afraid that you ended up some statements in the article that were not true. The first one was about the stomach being redirected. The stomach is divided, but not redirected. It is other parts of the gastrointestinal tract that are redirected.
The other area was in the paragraph about the Roux-en-Y surgery being one of the most difficult. That appears to have been taken from the enwiki article, in the third paragraph of the surgical techniques section. That paragraph was talking about a specific way of doing the surgery -- "limited access techniques" (such as laparoscopy). However, you left that part out. The short hospital stay, reduced discomfort, etc. are benefits of doing the surgery in that specific way. Your text said they were benefits of the surgery in general, which isn't true.
In the past I've said that you need to make sure you understand everything you're reading before you try to simplify it. I know, though, that it's hard to be aware of when you don't understand something. At this point, if you want to work on technical, scientific articles, I think it would be best if you work on them in userspace and get someone to check them over before putting them in mainspace. I've tried to avoid asking you to do that. I know you aren't deliberately putting wrong information into articles, but you are putting wrong information into them, and I can't think of another way to prevent it. If you have any other ideas on how to prevent it, I'm interested in hearing them. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)