User talk:Rcborden2

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Rcborden2

Hello Rcborden2,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged User:Rcborden2 for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

JustBerry (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because have tried to eliminate the offending material. Please note, I believe you are wrong for the following reasons:

a. SERDP and ESTCP have published written descriptions of their programs. Anything I write that is not exactly the same as what they have posted is inherently less accurate.

b. The automated search tool indicates that different pieces of text are very similar. That is because both my wikipedia page (rcborden2) and the project description were written about the exact same topic by the same person (me).

c. SERDP/ESTCP clearly state on their website (https://www.serdp-estcp.org/Copyright) that "Information on the website is considered public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission unless a copyright is otherwise specified."

I have made the changes immediately because I am new to Wikipedia and did not want to have my page deleted. However, I have no idea if the changes are acceptable to whoever reviews this. I really do not know how to talk about the exact same topic (me and my project) without using the same words.Rcborden2 (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! The speedy template has been moved for now. I apologize if you feel as though the tag was a threat. Unfortunately, copyright information cannot be maintained on Wikipedia for legal reasons, but I see the corrections you have made and the licensing that you have pointed out. However, the user page seems a bit like an article, making me concerned about WP:U5 ever so slightly. @Samtar: I'll ping a fellow admin for their thoughts, if that's okay. --JustBerry (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I understand the user page looks like an article about the ERwiki. I did this because I got dinged because I was making edits as a paid editor. The wikipedia guidance says you are suppose to disclose that you are a ::paid editor and I was trying to be as complete as possible. I am frustrated by the process. If I write too little, the edits get deleted because I did not disclose enough. If I write too much, there is a problem. Rcborden2 (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, and I apologize that you feel frustrated by Wikipedia's guidelines. The user page seemed somewhat like an article per third person references to yourself and an informative description of your organization's work. To better clarify that the posting on your user page are a part of your paid COI disclosure, I have modified your user page here. --JustBerry (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Rcborden2! Thank you for your contributions. I am JustBerry and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! JustBerry (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes

Hi Bob

Please use relatively recent sources. We don't need refs from the 1980s.
Please use literature reviews and sources from government (EPA etc). Please don't use any primary sources (where scientists publish their experiments)
Please review MOS:HEAD. section headers are sentence case, and also should not repeat the title of the article.
Please template your sources. It is really easy and fast using the template tool in the toolbar at the top of the edit window. Over to the right you will see where it says "cite". If you click the little triangle another toolbar appears below, and on the left side of that is another pulldown menu that says "templates". In any give template you will see fields that have a little magnifying glass by them. For instance in the "journals" template there is a "pmid" parameter with such a symbol. If you put the pmid in there and click the magnifying glass, the whole thing auto-fills. Click "insert" at the botton, and viola - a templated citation complete with a link to pubmed. Nice! Good for everybody.

Happy to discuss if something there is not clear... Thanks for working on the bioremediation article! It needs a lot of work. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concern about old references. However, much of the best work on hydrocarbon bioremediation was done in the 1980s. The later sections on anaerobic bioremediation contain more recent work.Rcborden2 (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide advice on how to do large scale editing that would be greatly appreciated. I have just spent several hours adding sections on enhanced reductive dechlorination, bioaugmentation, and pH buffers to the bioremediation article. Then someone deleted all my work. I am totally frustrated and about to give up.Rcborden2 (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying! Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. You already have this down -- but at the end, we "sign" by typing exactly four tildas Those who things -- indenting and aigning, are how we keep track of who said what to whom. I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we are getting into the some of the challenges that experts face when they come to Wikipedia (really helpful advice, is at WP:EXPERT - please take a moment and read that).

I understand that as an expert, you know that the best work on hydrocarbon bioremediation was done in the 1980s. But a reader has no way of knowing that information sourced to content from the 1980s is current (there are lots of places where Wikipedia content is bad and outdated). And likewise other editors are likely to go back in and re-do the work as part of the ongoing maintenance of Wikipedia.. so since you are doing a major update, it really makes sense to use current references, for everybody's sake.

There is a learning curve to editing Wikipedia, and my advice to you would be to do make edits in small chunks -- do a few things, ask for feedback, study and learn from the response, and then do more. That way nobody wastes time.

If you want an as-brief-as-I-could-make-it overview of Wikipedia and how it works, please see User:Jytdog/How. Please don't give up! Just use a process that gives yourself space to learn.... Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I refuse to replace excellent references from the 1980s with more recent references that are not as good. I give up.Rcborden2 (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are bringing your own definition of "good". Wikipedia has a different definition of "good". Please adapt! Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been searching through the WP policy guidelines trying to find information on what WP defines as a 'good' reference. I have found information on "Verifiability § Reliable sources". In the policy on "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources", the lead sentence in the guidance states "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Based on this section, WP does not exclude primary sources, but indicates that articles should be based primarily on secondary sources. I have not been able to find anywhere where WP specifically excludes citations more than 20 years old, especially if these are the best secondary sources available. I have also not found anywhere where WP excludes literature reviews or summaries in preference to government reports. Please point me to specific locations in the WP guidelines that exclude: a) references more than 20 years old; b) literature reviews in high quality journals; c) books that summarize and interpret the a large body on information written by eminent scientists (for example, members of the National Academy of Science). If you cannot quote WP guidance that excludes these references, please refrain from deleting these references without discussion of their merits on the talk page.Rcborden2 (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus WP:Wikilawyering. You are new here. Look you have training as an engineer right? How does it go when the new guy shows up and think he knows everything and is untrainable? Do you want to be that guy, really? Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy's Disease Association

I won't remove the "Research" section on Kennedy's Disease Association however, for future reference, you can create draft pages in your WP:SANDBOX before uploading to the mainspace. Hope this is helpful! Meatsgains^(talk) 19:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Rcborden2 (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]