User talk:JBradleyChen

Hi! One of the hardest things to get used to as a new editor, especially if you have academic background or some kind of independent knowledge of a subject, is that adding content to Wikipedia requires sources, and they have to be reliable and representative of the consensus of experts, at least if the added text is stated in wikivoice. If the content you want to add is the opinion or interpretation in a primary source and if the author(s) are notable experts, that can be included if it's attributed ("According to...,"). But editors cannot use their own reasoning to combine information from different sources to give an interpretation or conclusion that's not explicitly in the sources; see

That sounds like a sound policy. How does Wikipedia differentiate between sources and the relevant sources? How well do you think it is being applied on the Scientific racism page? I'm happy to continue via email if you prefer. JBradleyChen (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of details about which sources to use at

WP:RS

.

I think that Wikipedia policy is being applied pretty well at Scientific racism. That page has 680 page-watchers, so there are always several editors who are prepared to get involved if poorly sourced material is added. My impression is that it is mainly articles on minor or peripheral topics that can have major quality problems, because few editors ever look at those pages.

I don't use email for Wikipedia correspondence, since I prefer to edit pseudonymously, because of the contentious nature of some of the topics I've been involved with and the extreme hostility of a very small number of editors who defend racist pseudoscience. NightHeron (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I have been wondering if I should create a pseudonymous account myself. To be honest I think that page needs a lot of work. I hope I can find a way to be helpful. It would be convenient for me if there was a way to have a conversation with an experienced editor, but not in public view. But I don't expect my convenience to be the first priority for Wikipedia...

Thank you for the tips. I am grateful for your feedback! JBradleyChen (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might ask Rjensen as he is both an experienced editor and an academic. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If a person has expertise they should not hide it--it gives one credibility that is hard for anonymous editors to obtain. Rjensen (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here: Apologies; I didn't intend to assume your position. Later in the same dang post: VQuakr is opposed to including Malthus at all, asserts he speaks for the consensus, which is completely inaccurate. Doing stuff like this really isn't helpful. You've repeatedly been mischaracterizing what I've said in that thread. I don't think you're doing it on purpose, but I strongly suggest you quit trying to "sum up" others' arguments until you have more experience with Wikipedia. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I was not doing this to be irritating. My point in restating or trying to summarize your argument is to confirm that I understand it, or if I don't to give you the opportunity to correct me. If I was doing this behind your back that would clearly be underhanded. If I do this in the open forum I figured you would understand that I was not trying to misrepresent your position. JBradleyChen (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear I haven't thought at any point that you were doing anything with the goal of being irritating or sneaky. I know you are relatively new and I want to give you the tools to be able to edit without getting frustrated. Not all of Wikipedia's cultural norms are intuitive. VQuakr (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at

Draft:Allan Chase. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for having a look! At this point I'm wondering how long the review of the new article will take, and if I should add a disambiguation page now or wait until it is approved. I'm sure it's not hard but I've never done it before so not something I am inclined to rush into.

It looks like you have some experience with dispute resolution. I think I am about to start learning about that process too... JBradleyChen (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It can wait until the article is moved to mainspace. The new article would go to

WP:ONEOTHER. Unfortunately, AfC is severely backlogged so it may be weeks or months before the draft is reviewed. VQuakr (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Orphaned non-free image File:The Legacy of Malthus.png

Thanks for uploading File:The Legacy of Malthus.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a topic designated as

contentious

. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't to imply any wrongdoing on your part, just to let you know that the topic you're editing is contentious, and it is easy to make mistakes, especially for a new editor. Please strongly consider the advice given to you by experienced editors when editing in this topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've put together what I think would be the best format for the RFC at User:ScottishFinnishRadish/sandbox. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could read some of the archives/current discussions at

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by BuySomeApples was:

This submission is not adequately supported by

reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources

.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The article should primarily cite secondary sources, not the author's own work.

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:Allan Chase
  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.

BuySomeApples (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JBradleyChen! 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! BuySomeApples (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at

Draft:Allan Chase. Thanks! BuySomeApples (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Allan Chase (writer), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its

grading scheme

to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

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. 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]