User talk:BoneClock

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, BoneClock! Thank you for your contributions. I am CNMall41 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! CNMall41 (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marcia Annisette (November 13)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for academics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Marcia Annisette and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Marcia Annisette, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BoneClock! Having an article 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! — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Marcia Annisette has been accepted

Marcia Annisette, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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!

— Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Hopwood article

Hi BoneClock, thanks for your question. In general it’s not necessary, and certainly nobody would expect you to feel you must do it as part of writing a Wikipedia article, especially if you don’t have a lot of experience. However, it’s a nice little addition sometimes–the two niceties it allows that I think are most important are linking to foreign-language Wiki articles, and to allow quick click-through to records of peoples’ published works via the authority control tag (so, for instance, you can quickly using WorldCat go straight from a Wikipedia article to where their books are on the shelves of your local library). In this case, as Professor Hopwood was a published author and there’s already an article on him in the German-language Wikipedia, both applied. But Wikipedia is voluntary and nobody makes you do things you don’t have time for.

Incidentally, while I patrolled your article as it was clearly a valid addition, there were a few standard finishing-off things I tend to do to articles that I didn't have time for, like making the categories active and adding an authcon tag. I've gone back and added them now. Blythwood (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. Thank you for the advice and for the work you did on the authority control and categories. Much appreciated! BoneClock (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation question

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I am trying to figure out how to deal with a disambiguation issue for a biography I am creating (see my sandbox). The bio is for Christine Cooper, an academic. There is a redirect for "Christine Cooper" in Wikipedia already, which takes readers to the "Tina Cooper" bio page. What is the best way of dealing with this situation? How do we decide whether the use of the "Christine Cooper" entry point as a redirect to Tina Cooper is more appropriate than using it to point to the new bio page I'm trying to create? Is it always first-come, first-served, or is there a way to cooperatively decide on the best way to resolve these questions? BoneClock (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going through Articles for Creation review, the reviewer can decide this issue when they accept the draft as an article.

Normally, we'd just put the new article for Christine Cooper, the academic, in place of the redirect and add a hatnote to the top saying "for the English paediatrician see Tina Cooper". When there starts to be more than two articles that want to have the same name, we start a disambiguation page. It is, in a way, "first come, first served", but always subject to later revision. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response, jmcgnh. Unless you suggest otherwise, I don't think I'll take this page through the review process. I've done quite thoroughly with other bios I created and now feel I have a handle on what makes for good quality. (This saves the 2-3 month delay for the review.) So, is modifying the redirect something I should do myself when I post the completed Christine Cooper article, or should it be done by a senior editor? BoneClock (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BoneClock, in order to preserve the edit history, we would prefer to see you MOVE your completed article into place rather than any sort of copypaste. In some cases, it's possible for the move operation to delete a redirect even when you are not an admin. This loophole is most often used when undoing a recent move operation. I don't know for sure if it will work for you. You should try it first, then ask for help at requested moves if the system won't let you do it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is excellent information, jmcgnh. There is so much to learn about working in Wikipedia, but I'm finding community members such as yourself really supportive and helpful. Thanks again. BoneClock (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions Regarding Public Interest accounting

Hello BoneClock,

I view public interest accounting as part of the critical accounting project but a part that is more explicit in its subject position and teleological orientation. 'Critical' accounting, for me, is a somewhat empty signifier in that it is opposed to an unnamed something (the status quo?): however, however as recent events show, this form of opposition can be against the institutions of social democracy. I recognize that the critical theory of the Frankfurt school and the critical approach of Dewey and the pragmatists, to name but two, tends to be concerned with a version of the public interest (in the former case, an elitist one)but I think that it is useful to be clear as to what is at stake in the research process. I also recognize that the term public interest is contested in that it is difficult to speak of a single public interest (since the public interest is an aggregation that presumed certain time horizons). This said, contestion over the term, i think, is healthy. To make a long story short, I agree with the thrust of your question that. the relationship between public interest accounting and critical accounting needs to be acknowledged and articulated. In terms of your other question, interpretive research seems to be a set of methodological/epistemological assumptions about the world and what needs to be studied.

Wethepeople1 (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)wethepeople1[reply]

Astute observations, Wethepeople1, particularly regarding attacks on social democracy. For me, this began back with Karl Rove, who seemed to explicitly misappropriate Rorty to suggest that truth doesn't matter because we just make it up with our language anyway. Just as with agency theory, what was originally a description of reality became a prescription. We are learning that much of social democracy depends on a particular kind of socialization that is easily exploited. In other words, empty signifiers will be filled, so I'd rather not leave them empty if it can be helped. I very much appreciate your PI accounting article. It is really well done. I'd like to do something similar for interpretive accounting and critical accounting. These articles will all overlap and should relate to each other in some way, probably through interlinks and a common root in the main accounting research article. Behavioural accounting and CSR accounting should be included, too, but they are not my areas of expertise or interest, particularly, so I'd like to create stubs for them and let others fill it in. Have you any other branches to suggest?

BoneClock (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]