Talk:Joaquin Fuster

Archived

 * Admin Watson asked that we keep the previous page up a few days (which we did). I've archived it in a user page for reference, but since EENG and now a new rescue editor has re-initiated the article with a stub, hopefully we're off to a new start... Phoenixthebird (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Fresh start
I've created a stub of biographical background. User_talk:Phoenixthebird: Please, please, before adding any more material, review wp:RS, wp:BLP and wp:COPYRIGHT. In particular: Whether you are or are not an attorney, an MIT professor, a PhD in molecular biology, or any of the other things you've claimed to be -- nobody cares. Credentials don't matter here. Evidence and reason matter. If you think the rules should be changed, you can start a discussion in the appropriate forum, but in the meantime you must respect them. You have a lot of energy and can make a real contribution to Wikipedia, and I look forward to that. Good luck. EEng (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is not OK to copy-paste from www.joaquinfuster.com, or to uncritically paraphrase what's said there (whether or not any "OK to use" notice is present there) for the reasons given above and at wp:SELFPUB.
 * 2) Reliable, third-party sources will be needed for statements about the importance of Fuster's work, what it might lead to, etc. -- see the discussion just above re "puffing" material.
 * 3) www.sciencejournalnews.com, which was cited in the deleted article, is a self-published blog with a single, pseudononymous poster. It is not a reliable source under any stretch of the imagination.  Same goes for www.opedian.com.  See wp:SPS.
 * 4) Emails you receive from the subject of the article cannot be used as sources.


 * An article rescue contributor has re-initiated the article, and I put the old article in a sandbox so the new editor can decide what is acceptable (eg: awards) since he has much more experience with the gauntlet here than I do. I'm focusing on adding material to other neuroscience, legal and molecular biology articles rather than bios, because although any layman can criticize bio material, it is much harder to attack juried facts from science itself. For every item I thought EENG was teaching me about procedure here, an admin modified that with a number of exceptions. I find it interesting that EENG makes the statement "credentials don't matter here" when in fact, the new Wikipedia strategy has "getting help from expert contributors" at the top of the list for improving quality, and in fact there is a template that specifically asks for help from expert contributors! I think he means that any grade school kid can edit in this system, and in that he's right-- credentials don't matter! I don't think any rules should be changed arbitrarily, I just think that letting non experts delete things like pictures that are fine under creative commons, public domain, release and many other tests will discourage new editors for no good reason. In particular, we need to be careful not to say things like "the subject could be lying about himself" on a subject's talk page-- that in itself can create liability, if not at minimum hurt feelings in important people with great contributions who know little about Wiki! I'm not for censorship (obvious to all by now!), but think comments like that should be on the author/editor's talk, not the talk of the subject, who is arms length, at least in the cases of the articles I've done, from our Wiki community. It's great for the encyclopedia itself that a rescuer took the time to get this going again, and thanks to all of you again for your advice and especially your valuable time. Phoenixthebird (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Added categories and his recent induction into the AAAS-- a very prestigious award. Used UCLA honoree site instead of the news articles for credibility, hope that reference/source is acceptable to all. This should also help with notability, for sure. This might be repetitious to add in awards, but the two additional reference links also link to UCLA Med School affiliation, which is itself a good objective site on his current research. Phoenixthebird (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, well, actually, his membership in AAAS is already in the article, higher up. The article doesn't need any more evidence of notability -- once notability is established, it's done -- see the article's history and the edit summary here. Our job isn't to pile on the subject's prestige -- it's to write a good article about him. Which certainly means mentioning important awards, but that's not the main goal. From one of the links you added I found a link to Fuster's faculty webpage at UCLA, which supplies some of the facts we need like his birthyear. EEng (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Good sleuthing EE, thanks for adding the link and working on this! Phoenixthebird (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Formatting comments on Talk pages
Bird, try to use indenting (with one or more : at the start of a line) to help others follow the flow of the conversation. There's a very popular way which involves each new comment being indented an additional level, like this:

''I have an idea etc etc etc etc -- User X
 * ''I think that might be a good idea, but it could be difficult to do. -- User Y
 * ''What kinds of problems do you see? -- User X
 * ''Well, it could be difficult to tell which articles need that fixed, and which are OK as they are -- User Y
 * ''I have something to say. I think this might upset other editors who have been handling this problem in the old way -- User Z
 * ''Well, if you know any of them, why don't you leave them a message on their talkpage and have them come join us? -- User X
 * ''I do know some of them -- I'll contact them. -- User Z
 * ''I do too. -- User X
 * ''OK, let's contact some people to get them into the discussion and wait a few days for more comments -- User Y
 * ''Hi there! I got a message on my talk asking for input. I'd like to help figure out what we can do about this!  -- User J
 * ''Great! What do you think about our discussion so far? -- User Z

I personally don't like that format. I prefer to have each participant have his own intent level, like this, so it's easy to see who's talking at any point.

''I have an idea etc etc etc etc -- User X
 * ''I think that might be a good idea, but it could be difficult to do. -- User Y

''What kinds of problems do you see? -- User X
 * ''Well, it could be difficult to tell which articles need that fixed, and which are OK as they are -- User Y
 * ''I have something to say. I think this might upset other editors who have been handling this problem in the old way -- User Z

''Well, if you know any of them, why don't you leave them a message on their talkpage and have them come join us? -- User X
 * ''I do know some of them -- I'll contact them. -- User Z

''I do too. -- User X
 * ''OK, let's contact some people to get them into the discussion and wait a few days for more comments -- User Y
 * ''Hi there! I got a message on my talk asking for input. I'd like to help figure out what we can do about this!  -- User J
 * ''Great! What do you think about our discussion so far? -- User Z

Anyway, just remember to use some form of formatting to help people follow the conversation. Also, you have a habit of copying your comments to several places -- first in an article Talk page, then also to someone's userpage, etc. There's no need for that. Most people, once they've entered a conversation, keep an eye on it for futher developments, so just continue the conversation where it already is. If for some reason the other person doesn't pick up on your latest comment, you might put a short message on that person's talk page, "Hi! I've added some new thoughts to the Talkpage of the XXX article -- could you take a look and tell me what you think?" That way the discussion stays centralized in one place. I feel good about how things are going now, don't you? EEng (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I tabbed and it went to the edit summary, talk about SLOW, oops, sorry! Maybe those colons will work... I got the Wiki "missing manual" a while ago duh, maybe time to read it, right? I know there is a template a lot of people use to say "info for you at... page" instead of copying for a response. You're saving me time by not having to copy for sure. I don't know what that template is yet. THANKS again for the coaching... yes the article is looking great and you and the rescue guy have really bulletproofed it by knowing the procedures. I'm hoping your hard work pays off many dividends with Doc Fuster's students contributing to neuro articles, I sure am asking mine to help! Thanks again for taking the time to coach, I want you to understand how valuable I know your time is, especially since this is all volunteer work. Phoenixthebird (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the "tab" key won't work. It's the colons you need. And remember, this is my personal way of indenting -- some people seem to like it, some hate it. EEng (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)