Hi Socialsciencenerd! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC) |
Thanks for your contributions, but I noticed an issue: Many citation styles are used on Wikipedia, but generally speaking you should not duplicate content from footnotes into an additional section. (This increases the maintenance burden) nor should you change citation styles without first conducting a discussion on the article's associated talk page. See WP:CITEVAR for details. - MrOllie ( talk) 15:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello MrOllie, Thanks for getting in touch. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, so I appreciate your comments. As far as I can see, I have not changed any citation styles. Rather, I have improved existing citations by adding missing information and by making inconsistent references consistent with the predominant citation style. Regarding the duplication of content from footnotes into a Reference section: As you know, this is standard practice in academic publications. There is always a Notes section and a Reference/bibliography section. The advantage is that readers can get a better overview of the works cited. The alphabetical order of the Reference section also helps them to locate individual publications. I have noticed numerous Wikipedia articles with Reference sections that duplicate Notes. These would all need to be deleted, according to your logic. Would it be possible for you to send me the link to the section in the Wikipedia Manual of Style (or related source) that prohibits duplication of content from Notes to References? I would appreciate your help. Best wishes, Socialsciencenerd Socialsciencenerd ( talk) 17:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi MrOllie, Thanks for explaining this. I have just realized that your deletion of the Reference section in the article "Rational Choice Theory" has caused a problem: Some of the full references that had been connected with Harvard style-notes are now gone. For example, Hollis and Nell (1975); Foley (1998, 2003); Schram and Caterino (2006). What do you suggest we do? Socialsciencenerd ( talk) 19:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi MrOllie, Thank you for your quick reply. I'm happy to help fix the citation style. But I want to make sure I got you right: The prevailing style in this article seems to be footnotes. So should I convert the Harvard-style references into footnotes? Also, at present, the works cited in the Reference section aren't listed alphabetically according to the authors' last names. Should I change this, too? Best wishes, Socialsciencenerd ( talk) 21:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello MrOllie, May I ask you for your advice? I have left a couple of queries on the Talk page of the article on "Rational choice theory". Could you please tell me how long I should wait for people to respond? Do you have any advice as to how I could proceed if nobody replies? I would be grateful for any guidance that you may have. All best, Socialsciencenerd ( talk) 19:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello MrOllie, Many thanks for your reply! I have just had a look at WP:BRD. Very helpful. And thank you for explaining how to use the talk pages. I have now moved my queries to the bottom of the page. I'll raise future questions in WP:TEAHOUSE, then. All best, Socialsciencenerd ( talk) 19:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Socialsciencenerd, and Welcome to Wikipedia!
Thank you for
your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the
help desk, or place {{Help me}}
on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to
sign your name on talk pages by clicking
or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the
edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing!
CommanderWaterford (
talk) 15:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, sure can I adopt you as new user - meaning I will have from now on a close eye on your contributions and will answer any question you have (if I can, I hope so). For the very first beginning I left you lots of stuff above to read and study - a warm welcome to Wikipedia !
CommanderWaterford ( talk) 15:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Novem Linguae, Thank you very much for your message! And many thanks for alerting me to the copyright violation detector. This is a pretty amazing tool that I hadn't been aware of. I will make the changes you suggested right away... Many thanks and all best, Socialsciencenerd ( talk) 09:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello Novem Linguae, Thanks again for your feedback. Can I ask you for your advice? I have now revised the section on political psychologist Rose McDermott's critique. But I'm not sure if I did it the right way. Rather than paraphrasing her, I used quotation marks to cite her directly. Is this ok? Or would it be better to get rid of some of the direct quotes and to paraphrase her? All best, Socialsciencenerd ( talk) 09:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Novem Linguae, Thank you for your kind reply! And many thanks for sharing your essay on the Problems with quotes. How interesting - I hadn't thought about quotes that way. Your point about quotes raising "undue weight issues" strikes me as particularly relevant. I will think about ways to reduce the number of quotes in the article (and in my future articles). Personally, I also find that the presence of many quotes makes texts less readable and more confusing. I think my position would be that quotes should be limited to important phrases that need to be cited in the original to ensure precision. All best, Socialsciencenerd ( talk) 10:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
.Thanks again, and happy editing!
CommanderWaterford ( talk) 09:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)Hello CommanderWaterford, you work faster than I can look! Thank you very much for your kind words. I'm glad you're happy with the article. That's really motivating. I look forward to working on the next ones. Many thanks for your time and help! All best, Socialsciencenerd ( talk) 09:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
CommanderWaterford is now blocked indefinitely for misuse of editing privileges'. He was my adopter too. I am sorry but you will now have to find a new adopter. I would be happy to answer any questions you have. Good luck! StarshipSLS ( Talk), ( My Contributions) 13:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Socialsciencenerd ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hi, for some reason, my IP address has been blocked. However, it isn't an open or anonymising proxy, such as a VPN service. Believe it or not, but I haven't used a VPN service for the past 5 years. Could you please help me get unblocked? I would be grateful for your support. Socialsciencenerd ( talk) 11:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
In order to look into this, we need to know what your IP address is. If you do not want to post it publicly, you may use WP:UTRS to provide it privately. 331dot ( talk) 11:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hello 331dot, thank you for your speedy reply! I'll do that. Thank you Socialsciencenerd ( talk) 12:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello 331dot, sorry to bother you again. May I ask you for your guidance? I would like to provide my IP address privately. However, when I just had a look at WP:UTRS I wasn't sure how to proceed. Should I click on “Submit an unblock request” and then click on “Appeal my Block”? Apologies for trying to steal your time with this. I would be very grateful for any advice that you may have. Socialsciencenerd ( talk) 09:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Rational choice theory into
Rationalism. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. —
Diannaa (
talk) 11:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Robin Vallacher. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. Dcotos ( talk) 17:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello Rich Smith, can I ask you for your advice? When I just had a look at my draft article on Robin Vallacher, I thought I had forgotten to include a reference to Jorge E. Hirsch's statement that a scholar with an h-index of 60 is "truly unique". So I inserted this. But then I realised that you had actually deleted this reference. Don't we need such a reference to provide information about the source of Hirsch's statement? Socialsciencenerd ( talk) 14:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to Robin Vallacher. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and not ready for main-space and have copyrighted content . I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Dcotos ( talk) 17:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I am perplexed that this article was marked as "not neutral", there is nothing of the sort in the article. I have therefore resubmitted and accepted the article. However, it could do with a few secondary sources, the Hindustani times is weak as it is hard to find. I suggest also linking a pdf of his thesis, which is probably online at the university. Ldm1954 ( talk) 00:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Socialsciencenerd,
Thank you for creating Robin Vallacher.
I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
An 81% match of copied and pasted content, as found here: https://copypatrol.toolforge.org/en?filter=all&filterPage=Robin%20Vallacher&drafts=0&revision=1195610193. Please address this issue be summarising in your own words, thank you.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Spinster300}}
. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. For broader editing help, please visit the
Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Spinster300 ( talk) 05:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Socialsciencenerd! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC) |
Thanks for your contributions, but I noticed an issue: Many citation styles are used on Wikipedia, but generally speaking you should not duplicate content from footnotes into an additional section. (This increases the maintenance burden) nor should you change citation styles without first conducting a discussion on the article's associated talk page. See WP:CITEVAR for details. - MrOllie ( talk) 15:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello MrOllie, Thanks for getting in touch. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, so I appreciate your comments. As far as I can see, I have not changed any citation styles. Rather, I have improved existing citations by adding missing information and by making inconsistent references consistent with the predominant citation style. Regarding the duplication of content from footnotes into a Reference section: As you know, this is standard practice in academic publications. There is always a Notes section and a Reference/bibliography section. The advantage is that readers can get a better overview of the works cited. The alphabetical order of the Reference section also helps them to locate individual publications. I have noticed numerous Wikipedia articles with Reference sections that duplicate Notes. These would all need to be deleted, according to your logic. Would it be possible for you to send me the link to the section in the Wikipedia Manual of Style (or related source) that prohibits duplication of content from Notes to References? I would appreciate your help. Best wishes, Socialsciencenerd Socialsciencenerd ( talk) 17:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi MrOllie, Thanks for explaining this. I have just realized that your deletion of the Reference section in the article "Rational Choice Theory" has caused a problem: Some of the full references that had been connected with Harvard style-notes are now gone. For example, Hollis and Nell (1975); Foley (1998, 2003); Schram and Caterino (2006). What do you suggest we do? Socialsciencenerd ( talk) 19:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi MrOllie, Thank you for your quick reply. I'm happy to help fix the citation style. But I want to make sure I got you right: The prevailing style in this article seems to be footnotes. So should I convert the Harvard-style references into footnotes? Also, at present, the works cited in the Reference section aren't listed alphabetically according to the authors' last names. Should I change this, too? Best wishes, Socialsciencenerd ( talk) 21:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello MrOllie, May I ask you for your advice? I have left a couple of queries on the Talk page of the article on "Rational choice theory". Could you please tell me how long I should wait for people to respond? Do you have any advice as to how I could proceed if nobody replies? I would be grateful for any guidance that you may have. All best, Socialsciencenerd ( talk) 19:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello MrOllie, Many thanks for your reply! I have just had a look at WP:BRD. Very helpful. And thank you for explaining how to use the talk pages. I have now moved my queries to the bottom of the page. I'll raise future questions in WP:TEAHOUSE, then. All best, Socialsciencenerd ( talk) 19:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Socialsciencenerd, and Welcome to Wikipedia!
Thank you for
your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the
help desk, or place {{Help me}}
on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to
sign your name on talk pages by clicking
or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the
edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing!
CommanderWaterford (
talk) 15:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, sure can I adopt you as new user - meaning I will have from now on a close eye on your contributions and will answer any question you have (if I can, I hope so). For the very first beginning I left you lots of stuff above to read and study - a warm welcome to Wikipedia !
CommanderWaterford ( talk) 15:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Novem Linguae, Thank you very much for your message! And many thanks for alerting me to the copyright violation detector. This is a pretty amazing tool that I hadn't been aware of. I will make the changes you suggested right away... Many thanks and all best, Socialsciencenerd ( talk) 09:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello Novem Linguae, Thanks again for your feedback. Can I ask you for your advice? I have now revised the section on political psychologist Rose McDermott's critique. But I'm not sure if I did it the right way. Rather than paraphrasing her, I used quotation marks to cite her directly. Is this ok? Or would it be better to get rid of some of the direct quotes and to paraphrase her? All best, Socialsciencenerd ( talk) 09:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Novem Linguae, Thank you for your kind reply! And many thanks for sharing your essay on the Problems with quotes. How interesting - I hadn't thought about quotes that way. Your point about quotes raising "undue weight issues" strikes me as particularly relevant. I will think about ways to reduce the number of quotes in the article (and in my future articles). Personally, I also find that the presence of many quotes makes texts less readable and more confusing. I think my position would be that quotes should be limited to important phrases that need to be cited in the original to ensure precision. All best, Socialsciencenerd ( talk) 10:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
.Thanks again, and happy editing!
CommanderWaterford ( talk) 09:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)Hello CommanderWaterford, you work faster than I can look! Thank you very much for your kind words. I'm glad you're happy with the article. That's really motivating. I look forward to working on the next ones. Many thanks for your time and help! All best, Socialsciencenerd ( talk) 09:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
CommanderWaterford is now blocked indefinitely for misuse of editing privileges'. He was my adopter too. I am sorry but you will now have to find a new adopter. I would be happy to answer any questions you have. Good luck! StarshipSLS ( Talk), ( My Contributions) 13:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Socialsciencenerd ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Hi, for some reason, my IP address has been blocked. However, it isn't an open or anonymising proxy, such as a VPN service. Believe it or not, but I haven't used a VPN service for the past 5 years. Could you please help me get unblocked? I would be grateful for your support. Socialsciencenerd ( talk) 11:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
In order to look into this, we need to know what your IP address is. If you do not want to post it publicly, you may use WP:UTRS to provide it privately. 331dot ( talk) 11:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Hello 331dot, thank you for your speedy reply! I'll do that. Thank you Socialsciencenerd ( talk) 12:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello 331dot, sorry to bother you again. May I ask you for your guidance? I would like to provide my IP address privately. However, when I just had a look at WP:UTRS I wasn't sure how to proceed. Should I click on “Submit an unblock request” and then click on “Appeal my Block”? Apologies for trying to steal your time with this. I would be very grateful for any advice that you may have. Socialsciencenerd ( talk) 09:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
Rational choice theory into
Rationalism. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. —
Diannaa (
talk) 11:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Robin Vallacher. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. Dcotos ( talk) 17:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello Rich Smith, can I ask you for your advice? When I just had a look at my draft article on Robin Vallacher, I thought I had forgotten to include a reference to Jorge E. Hirsch's statement that a scholar with an h-index of 60 is "truly unique". So I inserted this. But then I realised that you had actually deleted this reference. Don't we need such a reference to provide information about the source of Hirsch's statement? Socialsciencenerd ( talk) 14:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to Robin Vallacher. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and not ready for main-space and have copyrighted content . I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Dcotos ( talk) 17:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I am perplexed that this article was marked as "not neutral", there is nothing of the sort in the article. I have therefore resubmitted and accepted the article. However, it could do with a few secondary sources, the Hindustani times is weak as it is hard to find. I suggest also linking a pdf of his thesis, which is probably online at the university. Ldm1954 ( talk) 00:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Socialsciencenerd,
Thank you for creating Robin Vallacher.
I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
An 81% match of copied and pasted content, as found here: https://copypatrol.toolforge.org/en?filter=all&filterPage=Robin%20Vallacher&drafts=0&revision=1195610193. Please address this issue be summarising in your own words, thank you.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Spinster300}}
. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
. For broader editing help, please visit the
Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Spinster300 ( talk) 05:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)