User talk:K. I. Forline

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

A cup of hot tea to welcome you!

Hello, K. I. Forline, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: S. Michael Hudson (October 19)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Please do not submit unfinished and broken pages
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 when they have been resolved.
David.moreno72 22:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advice regarding attempts to create an article about Michael Hudson[edit]

I am writing here because an editor has asked me for help in dealing with problems which have arisen with attempts to create an article about Michael Hudson. These attempts have been made by editors with the usernames SMHud, Tdwilson, K. I. Foeline, and K. I. Forline. (I am puzzled by the similarities of the two usernames K. I. Foeline and K. I. Forline. The obvious assumption is that it was simply a question of making a typing mistake in creating an account, and then making a new account to replace it, but the two accounts have edited concurrently, rather than one being abandoned, as I would have expected. If the two accounts are in fact the same person then I suggest sticking to using just one or the other, to avoid confusion.) I am posting this to the talk page of the one of those four accounts which has most recently edited, but I shall also alert the other accounts to this message.

I have looked at the editing history of all the four accounts. It is clear to me that the editors in question have made good-faith attempts to understand why draft articles have been rejected, and have put work into trying to put right what they believe are the problems. However, it is apparent to me that it has not, in fact, been clear to them what the fundamental problem is, which has clearly led to a sense of frustration. The editors appear to have gained the impression that the problem is with the way that sources have been used in the article, so that increasing the number of references, or changing the way that they are used, will put it right, whereas it seems to me that the fundamental fact is that the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and no amount of editing or changing an article will change the notability of the subject of the article. Wikipedia's notability guidelines seem strange to many new editors (they did to me when I started editing). Even a person who has held prominent positions in his or her field over a long period, as Michael Hudson evidently has, may fail to satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards if he or she has not been the subject of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. "Substantial" coverage means that brief mentions, inclusion in lists, and so on, does not count. "Independent" means that something one wrote oneself doesn't count, nor does anything on one's own web site, the web site of a company one has worked for, or that one has other personal connection to, or anything else similar. Looking at the references given in the article, I see that some of them are by Michael Hudson rather than about him, some don't mention him at all, others merely briefly mention him or just include his name in a list. However, the references in the article may not be the whole story: I thought there might be suitable coverage of him, but the editor who created the article had not known what to include, so I made fairly extensive searches to try to find suitable coverage.

It takes some care to do suitable searches: for example, a Google search for "Michael Hudson" is not much use, as this Michael Hudson is lost among large numbers of hits for more prominent and notable Michael Hudsons, including an economist, an actor, a journalist, and so on. However, by searching for terms such as "Michael Hudson" "Rolls-Royce" and "Sydney Michael Hudson" and "Michael Hudson" aerospace and "Michael Hudson" "Clayton Dublier" and so on and so on, I managed to find a good many hits which really do relate to this Michael Hudson. They included his profile pages on LinkedIn and bloomberg, a listing of the members of the board of Energy Systems Network on their web site, a page introducing him as a speaker at a conference, a list of members of a committee which includes his name, a page on one of those sites that provides peoples' addresses and telephone numbers for a fee which listed a Sydney Michael Hudson in Indianapolis (who may or may not be the same Sydney Michael Hudson), and so on and so on. Not even one single source that I found was the sort of substantial coverage in an independent source that is required by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Over the years I have seen many articles on subjects which have been the subject of discussions that have concluded with a consensus that they do not satisfy those guidelines, even though significantly more coverage than what I have found in this case can be found with 10% of the amount of effort I put into searching for it. Unfortunately, I really have to tell you that in my opinion no article about Sydney Michael Hudson is likely to survive on Wikipedia, no matter how it may be written.

A couple more points.

  1. Wikipedia discourages anyone from writing about subjects to which they have a close personal connection. This includes writing an article about oneself, or about one's employer, or someone who has asked one to write about them, and so on. There are various reasons for this, including the fact that experience over the years shows that in such a situation, even if one sincerely intends to be neutral and objective, it is almost impossible to write from the proper independent detached perspective required by Wikipedia. Also, if one's editing of Wikipedia is part of work one is paid for, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require one to disclose that fact, stating explicitly what one's connection is.
  2. My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. Probably this will seem irrelevant to you if you have no interest in contributing to Wikipedia in ways other than creating an article about Michael Hudson, but I mention it in case you do feel you would like to become involved in other ways. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016[edit]

Information icon Hello, K. I. Forline, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as K. I. Foeline (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Linguist If you reply here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to your message 13:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/K. I. Forline, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Linguist If you reply here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to your message 13:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: S. Michael Hudson (November 3)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MatthewVanitas was:
Did you copy and paste this from some other version? The formatting is just all kinds of messed up.

Or are you not sure how to format footnotes? I'll fix the first footnote as an example for you, and you can also look at WP:REFB for how to code footnotes.

First things first, we need to clean this up so it's readable.

I see you're deleting it though? If you change your mind on that, or figure out the cut-paste problem, you can ping me on my Talk page if you're moving forward again.
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 when they have been resolved.
MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:K._I._Forline&oldid=747685454"