This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sander van der Linden article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Please let me know if I don't understand the nature of secondary sources well enough, e.g. references 23 to 27 are all secondary I thought. I can also help reword anything that sounds like advertising, please give me an example of what sounds inappropriate. I tried to write most of it in a descriptive neutral tone. User:Science_Contributor_101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.22.33 ( talk) 19:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I have clarified to multiple editors now that I simply work in the area of environmental social science so I know of the work of various notable scientists in this area but have no other connection to them. Yes I also created Sciencemaniac101 (because I lost my login info) and edit multiple people in this area (because I know about the field) not just van der Linden (for example, I also created Edward Maibach). Obviously I'm not very good at it as I don't understand how to sign a comment but thanks for your help in cleaning up the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science contributor101 ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand why you deleted the whole section on fake news though, it seems that is what makes him notable? I also spent a long time researching all of the awards, which is extremely common in acadmeic biographies, to establish notability. I would imagine people want to read facts about other people, such as what awards they have been given, what is said in the popular media about them, and what they are known for. You have just effectively deleted all of that. I must dispute all of these edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science contributor101 ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
For example, see /info/en/?search=Steven_Pinker
It says, "one of the world's most influential intellectuals" but no source is provided! I actually provided factual and objective references for establishing notability for van der Linden & others, how's that for integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science contributor101 ( talk • contribs) 20:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC) Where do I declare that I'm familiar with the work and decided to create a bio?
What is distasteful is that you randomly delete factual content, very disrespectful of people who spent good time writing that stuff. I already answered your questions, I do not know the few people I have written about directly, I clearly know of their work, I read their work, research their background (as do thousands of other people), but am not family nor a colleague or any direct relation. If you don't like my writing, you should have someone who frequently edits scientific biographies fix this page up rather than just deleting stuff, anyone can do that, takes no editorial skill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.22.33 ( talk) 14:25, 12 April 2018
The subject's Wikipedia sockpuppetry has become the topic of discussion on Twitter and a substack article by investigative journalist Paul D. Thacker. There doesn't seem to be a consensus on Substack as a reputable source and indicative notability, so I'll leave it for others to discuss and decide. - Reagle ( talk) 17:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sander van der Linden article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Please let me know if I don't understand the nature of secondary sources well enough, e.g. references 23 to 27 are all secondary I thought. I can also help reword anything that sounds like advertising, please give me an example of what sounds inappropriate. I tried to write most of it in a descriptive neutral tone. User:Science_Contributor_101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.22.33 ( talk) 19:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I have clarified to multiple editors now that I simply work in the area of environmental social science so I know of the work of various notable scientists in this area but have no other connection to them. Yes I also created Sciencemaniac101 (because I lost my login info) and edit multiple people in this area (because I know about the field) not just van der Linden (for example, I also created Edward Maibach). Obviously I'm not very good at it as I don't understand how to sign a comment but thanks for your help in cleaning up the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science contributor101 ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand why you deleted the whole section on fake news though, it seems that is what makes him notable? I also spent a long time researching all of the awards, which is extremely common in acadmeic biographies, to establish notability. I would imagine people want to read facts about other people, such as what awards they have been given, what is said in the popular media about them, and what they are known for. You have just effectively deleted all of that. I must dispute all of these edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science contributor101 ( talk • contribs) 20:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
For example, see /info/en/?search=Steven_Pinker
It says, "one of the world's most influential intellectuals" but no source is provided! I actually provided factual and objective references for establishing notability for van der Linden & others, how's that for integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Science contributor101 ( talk • contribs) 20:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC) Where do I declare that I'm familiar with the work and decided to create a bio?
What is distasteful is that you randomly delete factual content, very disrespectful of people who spent good time writing that stuff. I already answered your questions, I do not know the few people I have written about directly, I clearly know of their work, I read their work, research their background (as do thousands of other people), but am not family nor a colleague or any direct relation. If you don't like my writing, you should have someone who frequently edits scientific biographies fix this page up rather than just deleting stuff, anyone can do that, takes no editorial skill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.22.33 ( talk) 14:25, 12 April 2018
The subject's Wikipedia sockpuppetry has become the topic of discussion on Twitter and a substack article by investigative journalist Paul D. Thacker. There doesn't seem to be a consensus on Substack as a reputable source and indicative notability, so I'll leave it for others to discuss and decide. - Reagle ( talk) 17:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)