User talk:VistaXL

Help me!

Please help me with... Looking to make changes to the History section of Recreational Vehicles - have asked some questions in the Talk section. Have drafted new text but warning box appears stating some of the citations/links are not likely to be accepted because they are blogs. I can refer to my book but how many references are acceptable? This is a highly specialised area and blogs are a useful source of information. VistaXL (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

VistaXL Blogs are rarely considered to be reliable sources as they usually lack fact checking and editorial control. If a particular blog is regarded as an authority on the topic and has some degree of fact checking/editorial control, it may be acceptable. If you have a book with the same information, citing that would be better.

Please understand that citing your own book is a conflict of interest; please review WP:COI for more information. You have correctly discussed your edits on the article talk page; to draw the attention of other editors, you may want to mark any edits you propose there as formal edit requests(click for instructions) to increase the odds they will be seen and acted on. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@VistaXL:. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your interest in improving Wikipedia. Can I add to the above comment by 331dot that it is unlikely your book is currently an acceptable reference for Wikipedia. On the talk page, you say the book :

will be published by Pen & Sword in early 2022
— User:VistaXL

As it stands, the source has not been 'published'. The book will need to first be published in order to be relied upon, so that it can be verified. So, it's really appropriate to wait until the book is published before citing it. 331dot is right about the conflict of interest in relying upon either source. If you intend to cite your own work, please carefully review this page: WP:SELFCITE. Thank you again for your intention to improve Wikipedia. Local Variable (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Help me!

Please help me with... Thank you both for your replies - I have read and noted the links provided.

I must admit that as a private researcher and historian who has spent five years researching and writing what I hope will become the definitive book on the history of the RV, to be told that this book is a "conflict of interest" is disheartening. May I suggest that the book is not a "conflict of interest" it is an "interest". Whether that interest becomes a conflict in the context of a Wikipedia article should surely depend on context, the nature and quality of the publication and the motivation of the author and publisher. I understand a lot of your work must be to protect the integrity of Wikipedia from unscrupulous self-promoters, but please do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

My publication is academic, unlikely to generate a profit, has a small print run and is published by a recognized transport history publisher. It is fully referenced with original archive material and facts sourced and acknowledged from reputable libraries, museums and institutions around the world, as set out in the 'Preface' extract in the 'Book' section of my blog. Quotes from other RV historians around the world are included.

In terms of motivation, I have derived much help from Wikipedia over the years as a researcher and writer and would now like to return the favour by passing on some knowledge gained in my specialist area. Nothing more, nothing less. My blog is non-commercial, has no sponsors, no social media links and is intended to supplement the information contained in the book. The same publishing standards that apply to the book apply to the blog. By contrast the current Wikipedia article on RVs has citations from commercial entities interested in selling or renting RVs(references 2,3,6), citations from private companies or organisations with an interest in promoting the RV lifestyle (references 7, 11) or simply make claims without any attribution at all (as with most of the History section). There are dozens of good books on the history of RVs but none is mentioned in "Further Reading".

I accept your point about my book not yet being published (although the first 50 pages are now on Google Books). I will wait for publication before submitting a draft update (end of Jan) but it will still contain references to both my book and blog, because I know these are up to date, factually correct, have no commercial bias and on some topics (especially early French and German RVs) are the only source available. I will be guided by you on whether, given the above, it is worthwhile me doing this knowing that it might still get rejected. VistaXL (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC) VistaXL (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@VistaXL: I'm sorry you feel it is disheartening. However a conflict of interest is not necessarily a bad thing, it's just something that needs to be managed. The intention was not to suggest any bad motivation on your part. You're clearly following what we are saying and I have a great deal of confidence you will be able to manage it.

There's four things to be aware of. First, our verifiability policy means that the article should match what is said in the source. Since you seem to be well read in the area, you might feel like you could write on this topic freehand, but just be sure to confine it to what is in the source so people can check the reference to verify what is said. In other words, you can't do original research on Wikipedia. Secondly, as referred to in the link I posted above (WP:SELFCITE), be judicious about use of the references: use it with discretion and don't go overboard. Thirdly, be aware other Wikipedians may choose to contribute to the article. They may change what you've written, and they may remove your references. This is allowed so long as they are contributing in good faith. A conflict may arise if you disagree with them and include the references anyway. In this case, discuss the matter with them on the article's talk page, rather than editing back and forth (highly undesirable on Wikipedia).

Fourthly, on my assessment, assuming the book is published by Pen and Sword, it looks like a good source. Pen and Sword appear to be a reliable publisher and don't publish original thought without some degree of scrutiny. It would appear to be a reliable source and can be cited to support propositions in the article. As has been alluded to above, the website is a bit more contentious, however it is possibly OK. The guidelines on self published sources says it is OK if:

The author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, except for exceptional claims. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.

So please keep that in mind. Again, nothing we have said prevents you from contributing. I hope you do. It's just being mindful about the perception in could create. Let us know if you have any specific questions. Local Variable (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

@Local Variable:I want to thank you Local Variable for your patience and understanding, especially during this holiday period. I have a much better understanding of the issues now that you have explained them to me. I will certainly submit the article taking into account your suggestions. I welcome edits from others as long as they are supported by reliable citations, since this helps to broaden the knowledge base. Information on many early RVs has only recently come to light thanks to the digitisation of early newspapers and images by the Library of Congress, Bibliothèk National de France, Deutsches Museum, British Library and others. I believe it's important to show those doing this work that such efforts are paying dividends in unearthing new stories from history and helping us to understand more about our social, leisure and transport history. I also want to thank you for the work you are doing in curating these stories for Wikipedia. Please keep up the good work - it is helping thousands of people like me. VistaXL (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC) VistaXL (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (April 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Rusalkii were: 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 User:VistaXL/sandbox 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 User:VistaXL/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Rusalkii (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, VistaXL! 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! Rusalkii (talk) 02:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

April 7 Edit

History section of Recreational Vehicles edited to include notable citations and as requested edit made directly in that section (not in sandbox). Citations had been numbered but not shown at bottom of article in the earlier sandbox version. VistaXL (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding User:VistaXL/sandbox

Hello, VistaXL. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:VistaXL/sandbox, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:VistaXL/sandbox

Hello, VistaXL. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Links to draft articles

Please do not introduce links in actual articles to draft articles, as you did to Aerocar (disambiguation). Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)