User talk:EagleRaymond

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Manta Matcher into Sharkbook. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies! Thank you! EagleRaymond (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done Okay, I have added the the source talk page and the destination and made an edit that includes the suggested copying language in the log - I'm sorry I made this mistake, and thank you for pointing it out! EagleRaymond (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Sharkbook moved to draftspace

Unfortunately, an article you recently created Sharkbook, is not ready as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage with citations from reliable and independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. I've moved your article to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's WP:GNG guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

 DoneHi! Added cites to NYT article, National Geographic, CBS News, ZDNET, multiple peer-reviewed journals, etc showing both significant scientific impact & years of mainstream media coverage. I would appreciate it if you took a look to see if this is acceptable to you and for you to move it back to the mainspace. EagleRaymond (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I’ve reread the docs about draftification and I believe that my article is sufficiently cited now and likely was at the time of draftification. (Particularly because it cited a highly referenced scientific paper discussing it). I would have preferred a different first action but respect suggestion that it be better cited. So unless @M.Ashraf333 objects I’m going to expand it a little more to reference notable uses/discoveries using sharkbook and then I will move it back to article space. I am trying to expand the sharks space generally and will take this feedback with future articles. Thanks! EagleRaymond (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

COI check for Simon J Pierce and Marine Megafauna Foundation

Hello. Do you have any connections to this person or the foundation that he...errr...founded? :) Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in my edits. I dont have any formal connections. I am a recreational scuba diver and have read a bunch of their work as an institution in both mainstream media and academic papers. Mostly my interest is in citizen science and conservation. The article on Simon Pierce was reviewed by an editor who wants to see more people in New Zealand.

TBH given the high quality and extensive coverage they have received I figured this was a really good place to start contributing.

I subscribe to their journal but it’s free. I bought a book on Amazon they wrote. I have met a few of the MMF team on dives & attended presentations they have given.

I donated a little to support the foundation a while back.

I edited Wikipedia in the past and had a really terrible experience and stopped. I’m frustrated here - I extensively cited mainstream publications and found that many editors seem hostile or poorly informed on to highly cited peer reviewed scientific papers and then got told that I was over-citing. I based my style on similar research institutions. i really don’t agree that this is overly promotional as you are saying in your post. I am summarizing the claims in mainstream media. EagleRaymond (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I reread my contributions. I feel like the tone is pretty factual and literally every line has multiple citations to support the statements. There’s absolutely nothing original here.

The mainstream press coverage is in an exciting positive tone. I edited that out in my summary. The papers are being so heavily cited in major journals. That’s why other notable people and institutions are talking about it.

I’m open to suggestions on how to improve my edits. EagleRaymond (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I’ve also edited a number of other articles to add citations, remove bad material, remove PR and bias such as Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences where the org creates accounts and just overwrites with literal press releases. 🤷‍♀️

I added disclosure that I have donated before and have a discovery channel subscription. Anyway, every time I try to contribute here I end up wondering why I bother.

I think that the encyclopedia should our evolving understanding of marine life and notable conservation initiatives, organizations, and individuals. EagleRaymond (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)