User talk:Fruff71

Your submission at Articles for creation: Patrick Ian Condon (November 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Johannes Maximilian was:  The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Patrick Ian Condon and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 22:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Johannes, Thanks for reviewing our draft so quickly and for your feedback. Maybe it would be better if we simply deleted the qualifications, as I am not sure

a) if they are necessary and

b) how we would improve them. We could add more detail, but I am not sure that is of any interest to the reader.

Best regards

Fiona Fruff71 (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Patrick Ian Condon

Hello, Fruff71. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Patrick Ian Condon, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Patrick Ian Condon

Hello, Fruff71. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Patrick Ian Condon".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Sources

Hello. I'm wondering if you have questions about sources on Wikipedia, such as what we mean by reliable sources and independant sources, or how to cite sources, or what kind of information needs citations, etc.?

I'm asking because you seem confused, as when Draft:Patrick Ian Condon was declined you asked about the "qualifications" section instead of addressing the sourcing issue, and when it was restored you said you "don't understand exactly what improvements we need to make to the text to get it approved and published." I would be happy to answer any questions you have and help you understand.

When you respond to this message, please ping me so that I will be alerted to your response. You can do so by typing the magic text {{ping|ONUnicorn}}. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi there ONUnicorn,

I very much appreciate your offer to help. Thank you. Sorry to bombard you with these questions.

When I review the draft I can see there are improvement suggestions inserted in the sections.

It says we need a citation for "Irish Fight for Sight". Would this suffice? ICYMI: Listen back to documentary about Paddy Condon's Fight For Sight | WLRFM.com

It says we need citations for the Education and Qualifications section. Where do we get this? This is also not publicly available on the internet, so how are we to link it to a reliable/publicly available source?

It says that a citation is needed that Patrick Condon was the son of Richard and Helen Condon. And that Patrick has 4 children. Where do we get such a citation? This information is not available on the internet, is it?

If we find a way to amend the above, have we fixed everything and will it therefore be published? Or are there other issues?

Many thanks again for your help.

Fiona Fruff71 (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, did you see my message? Your help would be much appreciated here. I have copies of the qualifications that I could upload somewhere if that would help. Many thanks. Fiona Fruff71 (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: Hi there ONUnicorn, I probably forgot to use this "magic text" as you call it and that is why you did not respond to my previous questions. I really need your help, as I do not understand how I can make the required adjustments to my text.

Regarding the comment on Irish Fight for Sight, I think the link I made was wrong. I assume it should just link to the homepage, right? Or does the homepage need to document that Dr. Condon was the founder?

Otherwise my questions above are still relevant and I cannot find the answers to these questions anywhere in the help sections of Wiki.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Best wishes and many thanks. Fiona Fruff71 (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me to bring my attention back to this.

Sources don't need to be on the internet, offline sources are fine, but they do need to exist and have been published. If sources don't exist, the information should not be in the article. I'll take another look at it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the hour long documentary, I haven't watched it, but from a first glance it looks like a good source. You'll want to cite the specific timestamp where the information comes from, just like if you were cutting a book you'd need to specify the page number. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: Hi there, THANK YOU so much for responding so quickly. So I understand your suggestion about putting the timestamp on the documentary.

Could you please directly respond to my other questions? You say sources don't need to be on the internet but they do need to exist. What exacly does that mean when it comes to Dr. Condon's university qualifications. He has the certificate, but it is not on the internet. However the qualifications was criticised and "Site citations" was asked. The same with his 4 children. Yes they exist and so do their birth certificates but how to "site citation" on that?

Thanks. Fiona Fruff71 (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so sources need to be published, and they need to be secondary sources. An example of a published secondary source that might not be available online would be a book published pre internet, but not old enough to be public domain; or pehaps a sign by a historical building. A birth certificate or a diploma are not published sources, and even if they were, they are primary sources, not secondary ones. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 03:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: Hi there, I really appreciate your response and your help and I apologize for being such pain. But what EXACTLY should I do about the criticised points here (Dr. Condon's qualifications and the point about his children)? Do I simply delete these data points? Or what exactly do I need to do to keep them in the text? Many thanks. Fiona Fruff71 (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, delete all information that cannot be cited to a reliable, independent, secondary source. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The best way to think about this is that Wikipedia exists to summarize the existing literature about a topic. So, when writing about a person (like Dr. Condon), we should only summarize what other people have written about him. We also try to avoid using what people or companies have written about themselves. If no one else has written about a person, company, theory, or other topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about that topic.

In regards what people have written about themselves, if there is enough independant sourcing that we can write an article, but there are a few details that would make it more complete that we can get from what they have written about themselves, then we can make limited use of what they have written about themselves, but it should be minimal. But every fact in an article needs to be traced to previously published material, and at least 75% of it needs to be sourced to sources that are both secondary and independant. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Patrick Ian Condon (November 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vanderwaalforces was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Patrick Ian Condon and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Fruff71! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Vanderwaalforces, Thanks for your nice message, despite the rejection. Yes I am very disappointed and I am having trouble understanding what I need to change. You give us two reasons for the rejection:

1. All claims must be backed up by citations to reliable sources and are independent. In our opinion, we have done exactly that. Every award and every qualification are linked to a secondary source. Where is that not the case?
2. Remove the external links in the prose: Do you mean we should not simply link our claim to a secondary source using the Link button, but rather use the Citation button?

I would be grateful for any help you can provide. Thanks. Fiona / Fruff71 Fruff71 (talk) 08:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)