User talk:BurgeoningContracting/Archives/2023/February

History afficionado
Makes edits. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I sure will. Thanks. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hi BurgeoningContracting! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing!

ANI discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023
Your recent editing history at MacCarthy dynasty shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.This is an early warning of your having potential to break this rule. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

MacCarthy dynasty
Dear BurgeoningContracting, you need not apologise to me. I understand that like any newby you want to contribute in grand style, create new articles, and show that you can master difficult problems. I have been the same. Then I realised that I need to take small steps and begin with easy tasks. I started editing Wikipedia about 5 years ago in 2017. I must admit that I have never done a merger. I started with trying to improve existing articles by adding content and then above all citations. Many articles are very short and and cover their subject very incompletely. They are called stubs. It is sometimes quite easy to improve stubs. They often have obvious shortcomings. To improve Wikipedia is of course what we want to do. Each edit we make in Wikipedia mainspace should be a real improvement, however small it might be. I started with some articles about buildings and then went into Irish historical biographies. I created my first article in 2019 when my edit count was about 500: Jean-Antoine de Mesmes (diplomat), a biography of a French ambassador to 17th-century Ireland. I am still working mainly on Irish biographies. I am trying to get the better ones rated as GA (good articles). If you want "your" article to be rated, you must also help others to get their articles rated, so I had to learn how GA-rating is done.

So sit back, learn how things are done in Wikipedia. Be modest, patient and take small steps. There are many specialties in Wikipedia, not everybody is a writer of content, some for example correct grammar and spelling. If you want to write as seems to be your case, you need to learn how to add citations. Wikipedia needs generally to be verifiable. Read the corresponding Wikipedia guidelines. Search for WP:V and for WP:CITE to find the two most important ones. Think about what you want to achieve in Wikipedia, where your interests are and what you are good at. Try to collaborate with other editors. That is perhaps the most difficult as you have already started to see. You need to be polite and respectful. Try to understand why other editors behave as they do. Never revert an administrator ;) . Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the advice. I appreciate your help. I simply realized I may have asked of you something that was hard to interpret to what it precisely meant. And yes, I agree, citations are very important. I look forward to working together with you to bring the MacCarthy article to order. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste moves
I see that you are involved in a disagreement, which in part involves the question of how to properly move content from one place to another. Possibly this page will be interesting or helpful to you. In particular, it contains the instruction Do not move or rename a page by cutting and pasting its content, because doing so fragments the edit history (and also explains what to do instead). Happy editing, JBL (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of the American legal profession, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Done for you, my robot friend. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Your draft Ó Ríordáin
Dear BurgeoningContracting, sorry I jumped on this draft because I thought it was by you. I just realised that a User:Thesraid created this draft. I see this draft comes essentially from an article in the French Wikipedia that was created by a user Contrib08 in 2010 and is rated Start (or the French equivalent of it). Despite living in Ireland, I have no knowledge of Irish. It is not spoken here in public. When I encounter Irish in the English Wikipedia, I want to run away. I do not understand, I do not know how to pronounce these words and can therefore not even discuss the subject orally with anybody. I believe that in the English Wikipedia, Irish should be avoided whenever possible and when this cannot be done, which admittedly does occur, the Irish terms must be carefully introduced and IPA pronunciation should be provided.

I therefore believe your draft should have been entitled "O'Riordan (surname)". I also see that there is already an article called Riordan, essentially a list of people of that family name. I found at WP:Wikiproject Anthroponymy that there is a GA called "Spencer (surname)" and an article Spencer. The article "Spencer (surname)" gives history and origin, whereas "Spencer" is a List page that gives the list of biography articles for people of that surname.. I think this GA is a good example to follow. There is an FA called Yuan (surname) about the Chinese surname.

The lead is too short and does not summarise the main text, which could perhaps be shorter. It seems the NPP reviewer mainly critises the citations. I feel somewhat unjustly. I think 26 citations is not bad at all for a Stub. I would say that most stubs have less than 10. Of course, reviewers have recently become more demanding and the English Wikipedia is more demanding than the French (or German or Italian) Wikipedia. I think the primary/secondary distinction is difficult to apply to the description of an Irish family (clan). However, please consider that the NPP reviewers are human and pressed for time. They try to cope with a huge flow of submissions and a big backlog. They have no time to read all the sources. They will typically only make a few spot checks. Your citations should appear in a separate section, possibly called "References". What is wrong with your citations is that the source descriptions are often incomplete and the precise location in the source is sometimes absent (no page number). You cannot cite Wikipedia articles as sources. For example The Annals of the Four Masters, as a source, should be cited not in Wikipedia but as a book thus: (assuming you want to cite the 4th volume of the 2nd edition of O'Donovan's English translation):

And of course, the page number needs to be given. Most mere Internet websites do not qualify as reliable sources. Besides, in the English Wikipedia, citations are given after the punctuation, whereas it is the opposite in the French one. Articles about families and dynasties are probably difficult to write.

Long lists of notable members are annoying. Leave exhaustive lists of biographical article to the corresponding List pages. The "surname" article should mention only the most famous. The article seems to name-drop this one or that Riordan and give some arbitrary details. It sounds more chatty than encyclopedic in this regard. Most of this detail should be left to individual biographies. Some of them need still to be written.

Dear User:Thesraid, I am interested in Eleanor, daughter of Charles MacCarthy, 1st Viscount Muskerry. I thought she married Charles MacCarthy Reagh. If I understand you right, you say she married a Daniel O'Riordan. Is this so? Do you have a citation for this? Perhaps I have misinterpreted who the "he" in your sentence is.

With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Johannes Schade, I am sorry for not clarifying the article draft was by @Thesraid. I am glad, however, that you were able to provide that user with constructive information regarding his or her article, to which I contributed in very little and only cited as an example, and intend to help improve. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Drafting
Dear BurgeoningContracting, I think we should discuss "Drafting" here on your talk page in the User space and not under Talk:MacCarthy Mor dynasty in Main space. It is sometimes not so easy to determine what should be discussed where. I have the impression you do not yet know how to find your way through Wikipedia, other than the Main space and the User space. When you search e.g. "Draft" in the search box at the top of a main-space page (e.g. Main_space), it will search only the Main-space and will find the Wikipedia articles such as Draft (sports) or Draft (hull). You have probably already understood that to reach user pages, you need to use the prefix "User:". To find Wikipedias instructions, rules, everything that concerns Wikipedias "inner workings", you need to use the prefix "Wikipedia:" or "WP:" for short. Searching for WP:Draft will bring you to the Wikipedia Drafts page (WP:Drafts). You are an autoconfirmed user (did you know this? dDo you know how to find out whether you are?). To find out what that means search for WP:Autoconfirmed. It means you can use the Draft space and can created new articles. However, your new articles need to be patrolled before they becomes visible in Main space. This is done by the users of the "WP:New pages patrol", which is abbreviated as WP:NPP. They can reject unsuitable new articles. There is another process in place to help new users to create new articles, which is called "Articles for creation", abbreviated WP:AFC. You, being autoconfirmed, do not need to go through this process, but it may help. With best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this to my attention, @Johannes Schade. Thank you for the advice, however, I believe I am knowledgeable enough about navigating Wikipedia to the point I do not believe my access to WP help or policy articles would be lesser. Yes, I am aware I am an autoconfirmed user, (user levels may be viewed at UAL) and have created pages (mostly in the form of redirects) as such. I understand that pages are reviewed before being made available to a wider audience. I also understand the Drafts, which brings me to one of my concerns. The current MacCarthy Mor dynasty page relies heavily upon unsourced material, which might put the approval of the communal article McCarthy dynasty in jeopardy, such as what happened to O' Riordain draft prior to experiencing an administrator rejection.
 * That being said, I would appreciate your input on what I most recently tagged you on the talk page. And again, thank you for help and guidance, it does not go unappreciated. [] BurgeoningContracting (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear BurgeoningContracting, I have second thoughts about the overarching article. I do not really have experience in writing articles about families or dynasties and do not seem to find good examples to follow. I think you would agree with me in finding the article MacCarthy Mor dynasty is poor, but I might not be the right person to improve it. My experience is in biographies. See below some remarks about your draft "Ó Ríordáin". With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies @Johannes Schade for not having replied to this message. I had not seen it and I suppose I must have marked the notification as read. I understand your concern when bringing these changes to the article(s). I believe it can be a learning experience. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is to be BOLD. I have decided to add as many sources as possible to the MacCarthy of Muskerry and MacCarthy Reagh articles to prepare to make an overarching article. I have not yet accrued enough information to make a standalone MacCarthy Mor branch article, but I will be sure to try. By that point, I plan to add brief summaries to each branch for the overarching article. However, if the MacCarthy Mor article is too short, I just might integrate within the MacCarthy dynasty article. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am writing to you once more, @Johannes Schade, to ask for your opinion in the matter of the renaming of MacCarthy Mor Dynasty. I have found that "MacCarthy Mor" is a title of a man, not the name of a branch or dynasty of McCarthy. Due to this, I have decided to make a request for a "controversial move" (WP:PCM). I understand that you may not be willing to participate in a formal, prolonged discussion, so I'd like to ask what your opinion is before I proceed with the request. BurgeoningContracting (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)