User talk:Dph0ghc

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dr. Bristol (Horse Bit) (December 15)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Wikiisawesome was:

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:Dr. Bristol (Horse Bit) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Dr._Bristol_(Horse_Bit) Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikiisawesome&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Dr._Bristol_(Horse_Bit) reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

/wia 🎄 /tlk 16:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Bristol
Given the deep rooted misconceptions over this bit I decided first to try a new page on it but the subject matter goes just as well into the existing bit mouthpeices page so I've put the main points there. I'll drop the idea of a separate page.


 * I can help get the article accepted for mainspace; the main thing you have to work on is formatting and, to be blunt, it reads like you are copying and pasting from some other source. The concerns the reviewer raised about primary sources are valid; I think I see the points you are trying to make, but it's better to explain them in plain English instead of technical jargon (for example, say "back" or "posterior", not "caudal" - these aren't medical articles)  Montanabw (talk)  00:10, 21 December 2015

I noticed your comment about "Gibberish" (!) and take it in good heart. My problem is that I am a senior academic in the Physics Department of a UK University and that is my Achilles Heel regarding written style. I do take the point though. The articles in the Neue Schule Academy are indeed technical in nature but not written in the style suitable for Wikipedia. I'd like to take your view on whether the Dr. B does warrant a new page or not. It is certainly the one about which there is most popular confusion. Are you happy with my contributions to 'your' original page?


 * The Neue Schule doesn't count as a Reliable source because it's a for-profit commercial site, though the underlying scientific articles can be (I am familiar with the work of Hilary Clayton, for example, she's OK). I'd say that the Dr. Bristol could warrant its own article, we have them on other bits such as the spade bit, pelham bit, kimblewick bit and so on... I've been adjusting your edits to bit mouthpiece, as the problem is that it's an overview article that isn't intended to get very technical.  (we also have bit ring and snaffle bit, just FYI).  And these aren't "my" articles, they were started a year or so before I began editing, I did pretty massive cleanup on them 5-6 years ago, but there is always room for more sourcing and better writing.   Montanabw (talk)  20:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

If I'm correct, the page now has reverted to a revision that contains only 2 or 3 Reliable Sources. In these circumstances I cannot now recommend it to students of the subject. The page content is now is either factually incorrect in places or contains, as noted, many points that are unsubstantiated and possibly un-verifiable. This is a very unfortunate state of affairs but rather than enter into a pantomime argument I will abandon the editing of it.


 * When the Dr. Bristol article is ready for mainspace, let me know and I'll do the move for you if you'd like; better than having random people do it-- sometimes the article reviewers make the perfect the enemy of the "good enough." The reality is that I agree that the overview bit articles need some work, but they don't need to be a physics treatise, and we can't use the Neue Schule site because we don't do free advertising on wiki.  (Trust me, lots of people try to sneak in free advertising by linking to their for-profit sites as a "reliable source" -- while some are accurate, there are enough fringe theories out there that we have to be pretty strict about that.)   I would, however, be glad if you would post any URLs to the actual scientific studies; but it is better to slowly improve the articles than just replace one set of material with a new set of equally problematic material -- i.e. with messy formatting, unclear writing and unusable sources.   Montanabw (talk)  18:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Dr. Bristol (Horse Bit) concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Dr. Bristol (Horse Bit), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Dr. Bristol (Horse Bit)


Hello, Dph0ghc. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Dr. Bristol".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the  or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. — MRD2014 T C 15:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)