User talk:Gary Gaulin

Hi - I stopped by to review your new article, Gaulin Dinosaur Tracksite - I couldn't help but notice the similarity between your username, and the name of the subject of the article. Can you confirm please whether you have any connection to this subject? Please see WP:COI for guidance on editing about subjects with which you have a conflict of interest - it is not forbidden, but there are certain steps that you need to take. If you can let me know what your connection with the subject is (if any), I'll be happy to advise you on what you need to do, and to proceed with the review of the article. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 09:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the owner of the tracksite. I more or less ended up in charge of creating the entry stub, for others to add to. Additional information will be added in coming days, including professional dinosaur illustration showing what the site looked like in the past. It was assumed I would be the one best able to supply the basic information concerning discovery, and most makes the site of scientific interest. If one of the researchers (see entry's "ongoing academic research" link for Google Scholar compiled list of some) composed that part then it can be accused that there is a conflict of interest due to self-promoting their scientific papers, by their keeping the entry current. Value of their work towards changing the prevailing view should be described by someone like myself who grew up being taught what that was and witnessed THEM change it. I write no ichnology related science papers at all, just help provide new scientific information for others who do. Going overboard would make it look like I'm a proud mom describing them, and only become comical to their peers anyway. Gary Gaulin (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And after checking to make sure it was still there I noticed that the above mentioned ongoing academic research link had been removed. Gary Gaulin (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gary Gaulin - thanks for clarifying the situation. I removed the external link from the article yesterday, for a couple of reasons. First, per WP:ELNO, we don't put external links into the body of articles. It is possible to have an 'External links' section in an article, usually at the bottom of an article, and this would be the place to put a link to an official website about the tracksite for example, but we wouldn't put a Google Scholar search as an external link. A search like that might be a useful link to put on your own sandbox to help you find articles to use as sources, but it isn't appropriate to add it to the article.

With regard to your ownership of the site, I think that would pretty clearly give you a COI when it comes to writing about the site, even if it doesn't lead to any financial gain. This wouldn't necessarily apply to academics adding information, while using their own publications as sources - as discused at WP:SELFCITE, basically it's OK provided it's done in moderation and neutrally. I think it would be a good idea for you to read WP:COI carefully, and comply with the recommendations there, including the addition of a COI notice to your userpage, and using edit requests to make changes to the article rather than editing it yourself.

An alternative approach, which would be compliant with the COI guidelines but allow you to continue editing the article, would be for me to convert the article into a draft - you could work on it in draft space until it has all the stuff in it you want, then you could submit it via the AfC system, for review by an experienced editor - they would check its content based against its sourcing, and hopefully publish it for you. Let me know if you'd like me to do this.

In the meantime, I've removed the assertion about how the site has changed our scientific understanding, since it was not supported by the cited source. To be clear, for an assertion like that, you would require a reliable, secondary academic source saying as much - we can't look at twenty or thirty articles showing that new knowledge has been created, and then infer that it has changing the prevailing view - that is WP:SYNTH, a form of original research which we are not allowed to indulge in - we must restrict ourselves to summarising and paraphrasing what reliable sources say.

Please let me know how you'd like to proceed - I'll be happy to help you with the article if you can make some suggestions for new content, and provide some sources, on its talk page; or, I'll be happy to draftify it for you to continue working on it yourself. You might also want to take a look at the WP:TUTORIAL, which has lots of useful hints to help you get started with editing. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 07:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gary Gaulin - thanks for clarifying the situation. I removed the external link from the article yesterday, for a couple of reasons. First, per WP:ELNO, we don't put external links into the body of articles. It is possible to have an 'External links' section in an article, usually at the bottom of an article, and this would be the place to put a link to an official website about the tracksite for example, but we wouldn't put a Google Scholar search as an external link. A search like that might be a useful link to put on your own sandbox to help you find articles to use as sources, but it isn't appropriate to add it to the article.

I primarily included the Google Scholar generated list so that in addition to the most vital one I referenced you have everything else needed to verify the text, in case the one that paints the picture was not enough. Now I have the problem of needing to put what at least worked well enough for now in a reference section that is expected to keep getting longer, long after I lose everything then die broke trying to meet all the countless seemingly harmless political expectations!!

With regard to your ownership of the site, I think that would pretty clearly give you a COI when it comes to writing about the site, even if it doesn't lead to any financial gain. This wouldn't necessarily apply to academics adding information, while using their own publications as sources - as discused at WP:SELFCITE, basically it's OK provided it's done in moderation and neutrally. I think it would be a good idea for you to read WP:COI carefully, and comply with the recommendations there, including the addition of a COI notice to your userpage, and using edit requests to make changes to the article rather than editing it yourself.

Having to wear a badge of shame for having attempted to create a stub for an easy to find on Google Scholar trace fossil site is more insulting than you can probably imagine. I'm not even sure whether I am expected to use its link to the tracksite's blank discussion page to apologize then promise to never touch Wikipedia ever again, or do my best to defend myself against your allegations then judge how it went by whether the entry is still online a week later.

An alternative approach, which would be compliant with the COI guidelines but allow you to continue editing the article, would be for me to convert the article into a draft - you could work on it in draft space until it has all the stuff in it you want, then you could submit it via the AfC system, for review by an experienced editor - they would check its content based against its sourcing, and hopefully publish it for you. Let me know if you'd like me to do this.

I don't at all mind help getting the wording right, love that. Problem is I do not plan on or even want to write/edit any of the technical details, my mission is to start it off with a short as possible "explain it to me like I'm 5" for PhD level editors to take from there, when college is on vacation and they have time to add a new section. Other than including a picture of the Eubrontes Giganteus trackway, to follow the beautiful artwork by James Kuether, what I had (and even still do) already made it in my opinion the nicest looking tracksite entry on Wikipedia. A large number of sometimes paper thin layers of information that could take a person several lifetimes to get even half of the information out of adds up to reconstructions that without words takes you there. What the tracksite lacks in area was more than made up for by the number of trace fossil rich layers, each with a different story impressed upon it.

In the meantime, I've removed the assertion about how the site has changed our scientific understanding, since it was not supported by the cited source. To be clear, for an assertion like that, you would require a reliable, secondary academic source saying as much - we can't look at twenty or thirty articles showing that new knowledge has been created, and then infer that it has changing the prevailing view - that is WP:SYNTH, a form of original research which we are not allowed to indulge in - we must restrict ourselves to summarising and paraphrasing what reliable sources say.

Then to this issue a secondary academic source replied "My fish trail paper doesn’t address gregariousness, although multiple other ones do." so they half sided with you but once again it's back to how my sentence was being referenced, not lack of existing references. It's something we should not even need Patrick for, at most only to provide a full list of what needs to be referenced.

Please let me know how you'd like to proceed - I'll be happy to help you with the article if you can make some suggestions for new content, and provide some sources, on its talk page; or, I'll be happy to draftify it for you to continue working on it yourself. You might also want to take a look at the WP:TUTORIAL, which has lots of useful hints to help you get started with editing. Cheers

I can welcome your help planning changes and if I'm OK with them then I don't mind your editing it in, but you are going to have to accept that on my end it only adds further insult to injury and lost time to pull the plug on the existing Wiki entry or force me to make a public scene on a discussion page best left for discussing trace fossil related matters. I only need a shell where sections like maybe ==Trace Fossils== would only contain the most basic lead in information such as "Trace fossils that have been discovered include dinosaurs, fish, insects and their burrows, mud cracks from lake drying up,,." then leave it at that.

It absolutely has to state the purpose and policy that is in this case mine to set according to zoning and other considerations, and link to where access to the trace fossils that researchers require forever having easy public access to is instead provided.

This link should be useful too maybe as a reference for my name in the "discovered by" part:

https://www.earthtouchnews.com/discoveries/fossils/for-some-of-the-best-prehistoric-tracks-all-roads-lead-to-this-massachusetts-backyard/

I also eventually but not now need to include what the fossil evidence has provided for new information that replaced misconceptions, but other than that I cannot think of anything else it needs right now.

Gary Gaulin (talk) 06:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gaulin Dinosaur Tracksite has been accepted[edit]

Gaulin Dinosaur Tracksite, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]