User talk:Louister41

January 2023

Hello, I'm Premeditated Chaos. I noticed that you recently removed content from Daniel Ménard without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Daniel Ménard

Please do not remove information from an article without a good reason. If you want to work on a version of it, then you can use your /sandbox. ... discospinster _talk 20:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I know I just waned to save my progress and reasoned no-one was going to check.

My computer crashes often, and it erases all of my sandbox data. Louister41 (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

That makes no sense. If you're able to save changes to an article in mainspace, you can incrementally save changes in your own sandbox, then copy the information over when you're done. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay... so what is the sandbox, look i'm new and all my text just got deleted so I don't really wanna get into an argument. Louister41 (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Click on the red link labeled sandbox in my original message at the top of the page. That's your sandbox, and you can do anything you want in there. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

So would I copy my article into the edit zone and click publish then... seriously just askin'

I'm sorry if i was less accommodating earlier, all my work ha gotten deleted, but luckily i took pictures and found a photo to text app. :) Louister41 (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it fine If I ask you other questions if I need them or do you hate my face? Louister41 (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

No one hates you! Just trying to prevent disruption to the project.

Just write whatever you want to write in your sandbox, save as often as you need to, and when it's done, you can copy and paste it into the main article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I know, I know, it was humor... anyway thanks for the advice, wont happen again :D Louister41 (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Cheers :) If you have any more questions, you can write {{u|Premeditated Chaos}} in a message here (exactly like that in the curly brackets) and it'll let me know you're pinging me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, plus I salvaged the article in the sandbox.

Thanks, by god I was so aimless. :) Louister41 (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

SandBox

@Premeditated Chaos

I have submitted my article for revision, so how do I save the article and clear my sandbox?

Am I simply unable to use it until I decide to paste it onto a Wikipedia page?

Louister41 (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

To clear your sandbox, just go into the edit window and remove all the text, then save it. It'll be empty. I see below that you tried to create a new draft for the article - don't do that, there already is an article. If you're finished rewriting the article and you think it's ready, go into the edit window of your sandbox and copy and paste all the wikitext from there to the edit window of the Daniel Ménard page, then save. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay sure, also, how can I access a previous iteration of my sandbox article, must I undo every iteration to get back to it? Louister41 (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, I don't know how I submitted it as a new article... Louister41 (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

At the top of every page, there is a tab that says "view history". Click on that and you can see the past versions of any live page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but how do I make those the present versions, in other words, how do I choose them if they're better? Louister41 (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Click on the date to see whatever diff (that's what we call individual old versions) you want to look at. There should be a yellowish banner at the top that says "This is an old revision of this page" and some other stuff. Once you're looking at the version you want, hit the edit button. There should be another banner that says "You are editing an old revision of this page" and some other stuff. Hit save anyway.

You should generally avoid doing this on mainspace articles unless there's a really good reason to revert to the previous version, like if someone has added a whole boatload of problematic content. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be really douchie move.

I also noticed you were Canadian (*or at least live there), Me Too :) Louister41 (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I am indeed Canadian :) always good to see another Canuck kicking around here! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Also also, there is a notice that says "find sources", although I am certain that all of my information is cited properly. Louister41 (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for spamming, but you are the closest thing to a mentor, and I want to just get all my answers. :) Louister41 (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, couple things. First, please make sure your edit summaries accurately reflect what you're doing to the article (even a draft). This edit summary says you "changed some grammar", but you actually added about 2000 bytes of content, and also removed the AfC decline template. It's important to be clear about what you're doing so that other editors don't have to dig through the history diff-by-diff to see what was happening.

Second, where do you see this "find sources" notice? I don't see anything on the article or on this talk page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It appears as a triangle with an exclamation point in the center. Also, how is it that you can view my sandbox? I don't mind, but I would just like to know if we are talking about my sandbox or the genuine Menard article. Louister41 (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Also this Richbot bot keeps on removing my stuff...

But for that edit, I don't know how I was able to remove the decline, unless it was due to me selecting a previous save, thereby erasing all edits/events from that point (including the decline template) Louister41 (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Everyone can view anything you post on Wikipedia. Nothing is hidden or private (unless it gets deleted, but even administrators like me can see deleted content). It's considered a bit rude to edit someone else's userspace without asking though, so userspace things like sandboxes generally get left alone by others barring extenuating circumstances. (Userspace is anything that exists with "User:" before the pagename, and your userspace is anything that starts with "User:Louister41/".)

It looks like the version you had in your sandbox was moved to draftspace when you accidentally submitted it for approval (ie it's now located at Draft:Daniel Menard Stuff instead of at User:Louister41/sandbox). Because your sandbox was moved, it is now a redirect to the draft page it was moved to. (Incidentally, this is why the bot keeps removing your sandbox template - because the content is no longer in userspace). Do you want me to put the draft back into your sandbox?

Yes, if you reverted to a previous version after the AfC decline template was placed, it would have removed the template, because you reverted the page to a state before the template was placed.

Finally, if you mean the white box that pops up in the corner when you use visual editor to edit the draft, that's just a helpful link to various databases and search functions that can help you find sources if you need them, since this is something a lot of new editors need help with. It's not saying you did anything wrong. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

thank you, you are a veritable godsend :D Louister41 (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I also posted my edits, I hope my first article (since that is kind of what it is) isn't a travesty and a disservice to the hardworking editors of Wikipedia. Louister41 (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you moved the article into mainspace when you're aware that there already is an article. I've moved it back into your userspace at User:Louister41/Daniel Menard; please don't move it back to mainspace. Instead, follow the instructions I gave you above about copy and pasting the contents over the existing Daniel Ménard article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand, I'm sorry, I thought I added it to the existing Wikipedia page.

I'm so lost. Louister41 (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Just in case, can you check the existing one, I think I posted both.

I had accidentally moved it to "article" when I tried figuring out how to move it back to Sandbox, I didn't think article meant posting it online... Sorry for having everyone clean after me, but I figured it out. Louister41 (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, no worries, I see what happened. Looks like you did both - you moved it and you copied it into the article a few minutes later. I'm doing some other stuff right now but tomorrow I'll have a look at the new version of the article to make sure everything looks okay. I may make some changes - please don't worry if I do, that's the nature of Wikipedia as a collaborative project. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't worry at all, If anything, I feel that it is lacking in other departments apart from the controversy.

Daniel Menard is one of those figures whois high profile enough that his scandals can be described in, but the rest of his life, or even military career, remains obscure. Louister41 (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• who is
• described in detail Louister41 (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Daniel Menard Stuff (January 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ingenuity 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:Daniel Menard Stuff 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.

— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Louister41! 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! — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 23:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Daniel Menard Stuff

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Daniel Menard Stuff. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Daniel Ménard. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Daniel Ménard. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Johnj1995 (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Emergency

@Premeditated Chaos

For some reason my sandbox was deleted, and when I press the option to create a new one, it says that it's invalid. Louister41 (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

When I checked the log, it showed that someone deleted the "Daniel Menard Stuff" article, but since I had moved my sandbox there, it had also deleted my sandbox, which would'nt be much of a problem if only I could create a new one. Louister41 (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

No, I moved the Daniel Menard Stuff article into your userspace at User:Louister41/Daniel Menard, I said so above. It might show as a deletion because I didn't leave a redirect.

Ferret separately deleted your sandbox because it was a redirect to a draft that no longer exists. Your sandbox at User:Louister41/sandbox is a redlink so you should be able to create it again with no problem. Try editing it like a normal page and saving something, just to test. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I can’t do anything, a pop-up saying “invalid” appears before I can do anything, much less press the “create page” button. Louister41 (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on, but I just created it for you; you should be able to edit it now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It works now, thanks!

I really don’t know what was happening, I hope I wasn’t blacklisted for what must appear to be ignoring an admin’s instructions and posting the article anyway. Maybe I should clear my name, but I feel like trying to reach the admin must be a Kafkaesque effort. :) Louister41 (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Uh, speaking of your name, not to be a dick, but... is Daniel Menard a relative of yours? Because if so, that's considered a conflict of interest and you need to be aware of our guidelines on that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, should I delete it, I don’t want to be part of the bad boys/girls club of Wikipedia. Anyway I don’t think I was unfair… but don’t worry I understand the guidelines. :/ Louister41 (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me… now about the edits, should I just leave the info on the talk page so other editors can pick it up and add it, or should I just plain old delete the thing/undo my edits. Louister41 (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit late for deleting what you've self-disclosed; now I have to act with the awareness that you have a COI regarding the subject. You may as well just leave the article be, I was going to go over it anyway. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Well I have nothing to hide, also by self-disclosed, are you referring to my relation to Daniel Menard or my publishing of the article.

As the implications are sorta important. :| Louister41 (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm referring to your self-disclosed full name and relationship to the subject. I have some concerns about the article already, to be honest, and I haven't even gotten past the Tarnak Bridge section. How can you cite Michael Yon to dispute Michael Yon's criticism of Menard? At best, this is inadvertent original research (which we don't allow); at worst given the conflict of interest it could be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to whitewash criticism of Menard. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay... jeez I really gotta shape up.

Anyway thanks for revising it, If you are worried about primary sources, then there are more for the later jobs as information is really limited. Louister41 (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

But how am I to analyze claims epistemically (for fallacies and such) if one can't analyze the claims.

I don't mean to argue or create conflict, but I would think that formal papers would include unbiased analysis of the premises .

This is of course assuming that the analysis is unbiased, which may be the root of the issue in my case.

Anyway thanks for helping out. :) Louister41 (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

We do not allow original research, point blank. We're an encyclopedia, our job is to summarize and report the content of what reliable sources say. If another reliable source disputed what Yon said, we would say that as well. But we don't get to interpret or analyse the content of sources.

This isn't a minor thing. This is exactly why we strongly discourage people from editing articles about subjects they have a relationship with. It's a difficult enough needle to thread for experienced editors who know and understand our policies, never mind people who are brand new and don't have that understanding. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

noted. Louister41 (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

There are also sentences directly lifted from your sources, which is a copyright violation and another serious issue. We must paraphrase, not copy. I'm sorry to be hard on you, but these things are really problematic and need to be nipped in the bud. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

No I really get it, I know about paraphrasing, but sometimes you simply can’t think of a more concise way to express the information. I understand that I should sacrifice conciseness for originality.

I’m here to learn :) so don’t worry, also I’m the one who is making you scoop up all my mess, so really I should apologizing :D Louister41 (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Anyway I am going to work so I can’t respond for a while but I will be back (terminator voice) Louister41 (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

So… is the article really bad, or simply amateurish. Louister41 (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

It was largely cobbled together, recognizably, from lightly paraphrased chunks of the sources, which is very much not good. If you want to continue editing other topics here, you absolutely cannot do that. I basically had to rewrite the entire article. On the other hand, I've been meaning to do something about the article for awhile, and now I have, so there's that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Ayoye Louister41 (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Excuse my vulgarity, but holy crap you're amazing at this! Louister41 (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, cheers, I've been doing it a long time :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

) Louister41 (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, simple question, do you use "visual" or "source" editor, as I have a feeling that all the pros do. Louister41 (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

and I meant to write :) Louister41 (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a bit of an outlier in that I prefer visual editor for most things. I find source editing almost impossibly visually cluttered and I usually only swap to it when VE can't do whatever I'm up to (it chokes on some templates and it really hates columns). Plus, VE automatically generates references from URLs and ISBNs, and that's gold. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, yes it is...

I guessed that there was a culture among the Wikipedia Elder Ones to use source simply because of that one tendency for experienced individuals to adopt a more complex practice or methodology.

I never learned the proper psychological term for it, but I am sure you understand, unless of course, that is just the False Consensus Effect... :D Louister41 (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, sorry for spamming, but what are the green "+" signs and the red "-" signs beside edits, I noticed that they are green whenever I add to an article, but are red when I used talk and removed a paragraph.

Are these meaningless or are they a quantified measurement of my edit/activity's constructiveness. Louister41 (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

VE can be buggy and doesn't always perfectly render the output of more imperfect pages. It's also no longer really worked on by WMF staff (don't ask me why) so the bugs are likely to remain, which some people find frustrating. Some find it faster to work with the raw markup. It's mostly personal preference. Me, I'm lazy, so I go with the system that lets me be lazier.

The number is the net size of the edit. Green/+ says that many characters were added, while red/- indicates that many characters were removed. It calculates this across the edit overall, so it's not always a perfect indicator of how much was changed - if you were to add a new paragraph that's 500 characters and in the same edit where you remove 400 characters, you would have green +100. It's also not an assessment of quality - an edit adding 1000 characters of fluff is measurably worse than an edit that removes 1000 characters of pointless detail. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

okay good, I was frightened it was some sort of good boy point system, which means I haven't touched "talk" since that first experience.

thanks. :) Louister41 (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hah, no. We try to judge people on the actual content of their contributions :) Talk pages are one of the major ways we collaborate, although talk pages for obscure topics don't always get a lot of traction. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

yeah... Louister41 (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello :)

@Premeditated Chaos

Hi! I just wanted to ask if you have some go to websites that serve as starters when learning about a topic.

I have

- Semantic Scholar

- NCBI

- Plants of the World Online (Kew Science)

- Global Plants (JSTOR)

- CIA World Factbook

- Encyclopedia of Life

- eHRAF World Cultures

- Jewish Encyclopedia (.com)

for starters, but I would like to have more sites like this, (if you have some).

Also.. how was your day? I don't know the conditions out west, but it's still winter, it's still Canada, and the adults are going back to their jobs. Louister41 (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

By that I mean I hope you had a nice day. :) Louister41 (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Also I am a pretty big generalist, so you can give me foundational sites for pretty much anything, from International Relations to Computer Programming to Microbiology.

Anything would be much appreciated. (＠＾◡＾) Louister41 (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey Louis! To be honest I don't tend to approach Wikipedia research that way - going from specific sources to a topic, I mean. I usually go the other way, where I have a topic in mind then Google search aggressively to find whatever sources come up. Occasionally I'll add info & citations from a book I'm already reading, but that's not my usual MO. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

So you don't begin researching with Reference articles or databases and then expand/fill in the holes with supplementary sources?

Jeez, talk about a research ninja Louister41 (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we may be cross-communicating here, I'm not sure. What I meant to say in my original post is that I typically go from article concept > research > writing, but in your original post it sounded like you meant going in the order of research > article concept > writing. I do use research sites like JSTOR to find sources, but that's typically after I've decided on what I'm looking for. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I do the same thing, what I meant by foundational sites are sites that you use to get a general picture of what you will have to research.

Sorry if I was to vague. Louister41 (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

All good :) Yeah I generally use Google, which can produce all kinds of good stuff if you're good at playing with search terms and ignoring chaff, supplemented by the many databases at The Wikipedia Library. Depending on the topic area I might check Newspapers.com and Archive.org. Archive especially has lots of older books that can be difficult to access online or at libraries, and it's free. Then I usually dump everything in a pile in my userspace and start working through the sources in detail one by one to actually build the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

By Archive.org, do you mean the Internet Archive?

Also, many thanks about The Wikipedia Library, that is a really cool find. :) Louister41 (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Internet Archive :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I had just added that around 3 hours ago, very useful.

(I currently found a copy of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" on it, and I hope to read it. :D) Louister41 (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

by "currently" I meant recently.

But now I have to wait a little over 6 months, and multiply my edit count 5 in order to access "The Wikipedia Library" :( Louister41 (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

New quest acquired I guess :) I hope you H2G2, it's a classic for a reason and it really holds up. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a class coming up for Science Fiction, and I decided that I should probably read it before, if only just to build up my knowledge. :) Louister41 (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yay! an update :D

@Premeditated Chaos

There's an update

٩(◕‿◕｡)۶

Louister41 (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Update on what? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

On Wikipedia...

_{plus an update for TAWOG} Louister41 (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Did you not see the new "skin".

They have changed the site's look, so now things appear more user friendly. :) Louister41 (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I opted out of that skin, I really don't like the whitespace look. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)