User talk:Pboyle094

Copyright problem on 41 Service Battalion
Please don't add copyright content to this wiki, not even temporarily for editing. Please do your amendments before you save the page, or use an external editor. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

January 2020
Hi, you do know that an important guideline here involves transparency re: conflict of interest, per the following. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Pboyle094. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

41 Service Battalion
Hi. Thank you for your continued efforts with the 41 Service Battalion article. I can see that it is an area of keen interest to you. Unfortunately, the style and content of the article currently don't align very well with our policies and guidelines. This has been brought to our attention at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history so fellow editors will be popping by to help you reformat the article to our standards. What we would really like to do is to improve the quality of your article to reach Good Article status like 6th Battalion (Australia) or 76th Infantry Division (United Kingdom). As a longer term goal, the article could be improved further to Featured Article status like 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines. In the short term, you may notice a lot of the information you have added to the article being removed. This is because information in Wikipedia needs to be supported by reliabe sources so that the information can be verified. At the moment, a lot of the information appears to be based on your own personal knowledge, which we are unable to verify. If you have been using sources to support your content, such as books, newspapers, websites or other publications, it would be useful to include those details in the references. If you have any questions about editing military articles or would like some more help from experienced editors, feel free to leave us a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi again. In order to improve the article, I'll begin by explaining a little about our policies.
 * A good place to start is to see our definitions of primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Wikipedia can make use of all three types of sources but should mainly be based on the secondary ones. Sources also have to be reliable.
 * The other key policies are that information has to be verifiable and neutral.
 * The first major problem to resolve is that your article is lacking in reliable, secondary sources. An editor has added a notice to the article advising that the subject may not be notable; this means that as your article doesn't appear to be noticed by any secondary sources, it shouldn't have its own Wikipedia article either. If you have details of any newspapers or books that refer to the 41 Service Batallion, we can add those to the references section of the article. The more secondary sources you have available, the less likely it is that your article will be deleted and the more sources we have from which to construct the article text. If your article is deleted, we should be able to merge any sourced content to the Service battalion article.
 * I note from the Service batallion article that there are articles on other service battalions. They may include some secondary sources that are also relevant to the 41 Service Battalion, or they may too be lacking in source material. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Good evening. I am wondering if I am mis-understanding sources in this context. I have 56 citations for sources in the article which seems like a reasonable amount for the length of the article. I would like to re-write this in line from some of the advise (above) into a more paragraph based story by time period. I am a bit reluctant to do this until I get a better idea what is being looked for regarding sources. Please let me know when you have a moment. Thanks, Peter
 * Hi, sorry for the delay in replying. I hadn't realised that you had left a message. As a little tip, you can notify another user that you want to talk to them by typing:
 * Add your message here and sign your message with 4 ~ (unsigned messages don't generate an alert). ~
 * That should send an alert to the user you named that you want to talk to them. Alternatively, you can visit their own talk page and leave a message there, which will also generate an alert.
 * To answer to your question, I'll refer to this old version of the article (as a side note, you can retrieve any of your old text from here if you find that any of it is useful).
 * Some of the text you were using for references were purely descriptive footnotes; for example, footnote ix. talked about the redesignation of units but didn't say where the information came from. Often this type of text is what we would like to see in articles as it describes a situation. You then need a separate reference to provide the source details (did the information come from a book, newspaper, etc?). Other examples of this type were footnote xiii., xvi. and xli.
 * Some of the text you used for references were supported by records of military orders but it is unclear if these were published or are stored within a private archive. To meet our verifiability policy, all sources have to be accessible to other editors. There would be plenty of organisations that would love to change their articles and say "this fact is true, our privately held document says so." Because the document is privately held, it can't be verified so is automatically rejected. If you have been using a publicly accessible archive, then it would be useful to include details of the archive with the reference. For example, "General Order 31, 15 Feb 1922, XX City archive, catalogue reference 34567." That gives us clear details of what document you are referencing and where another editor can access it for verification. Examples of this type you were using are in footnotes i., xii., xv. and xxxviii.
 * In general, if you are giving details solely about where to locate your source then you should record the entry as a reference. If you are giving additional description about an issue but you don't want to include it in the article body, turn it into a footnote.
 * The sources that I left in the "references" section were closer to the form that we are after but they would have benefited from being filled out a little more.
 * There are a number of citation templates to prompt you for information to include with your sources but the key aspects to include are: What is the document title, who published it or where can it be accessed if it isn't a published document, when was the document created/published, who created the document (individual or organisation) and any catalogue references to help readers or editors to find the document (for a book you would normally use an ISBN).
 * Another issue I noticed about the old article is that I think you have misunderstood the structure of Wikipedia a little. A large amount of the text related to "Antecedent units." Because Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, we generally talk about a single topic on one page and any predecessor or successor topics on other pages. You mention that one of the antecedent units was the Canadian Provost Corps. We would normally include something like:
 * 41 Service Battalion has been formed from the combination of several former units of the Canadian military. These included the Canadian Provost Corps, the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps and the Corps of Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers.


 * The 41 Service Battalion article includes these summary details but then the specific detail for the older units you have discovered can be considered for addition in their own articles. A reader simply needs to click on one of the links to find the detailed information about those units. See WP:Summary style for some guidance on the level of detail we like to see in individual articles.
 * Feel free to send me a notification if you have any further questions. I have a busy period at work at the moment so I may not be able to reply straight away. You can always visit the Military History project for advice if I'm unable to respond when you need. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)