User talk:Seewhy06

Welcome!
Hello, Seewhy06, and welcome to Wikipedia!&#32;Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Kathryn Moore, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article.&#32;Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * Best practices for editors with close associations
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Drmies,
 * Thanks for all of your great advice. I would indeed like to update Kathryn Moore's page. She is someone close to me and I would like to make sure that no dis/misinformation is published. Some of the work cited is not the work she is recognized for. Many of her most important awards are missing and her biography is inexact. I do have a massive piece of text that I would have wanted to drop on wikipedia and that is actually a detailed description of her career but it keeps being edited out. Any suggestion as to how this can be corrected or differently approached ?
 * Best Seewhy06 (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Seewhy, I appreciate your help. Biographies on Wikipedia, especially on living people, need to have their information verified by reliable secondary sources. The sources you added, which were just added again by, are primary sources. Statements like "Moore showed how oxidized lipids..." cannot be verified by citing the journal article that she herself wrote or co-wrote. Same with claims like "She contributed to seminal studies showing...": a source by the subject cannot be used to verify a claim about "seminal" studies or even the contribution to such studies. (Whether Bearcan more or less reinstated your edits or did this all by themselves is immaterial--the principle is the same: Bearcan did not add secondary coverage, only primary sourcing.)In addition, awards and what not need to be verified by secondary sources if only to indicate that they are of encyclopedic value. No award is intrinsically noteworthy, unless it's an award that has been proven to be noteworthy, like a Nobel Prize or a Pulitzer Prize. The awards mentioned in the article do NOT have their own articles, and their very notability is therefore not established, and the sourcing is to the organizations that sponsor the award/grant/etc.As a result, we have an article that does not cite a single secondary source: ALL of the sourcing is either from the organizations who awarded things or employed the subject, or from the subject and her co-authors. That is how resumes and tenure applications are written, but not biographies, and unfortunately I have no choice but to revert to an earlier version. Again, what we need is secondary sourcing, not primary. Newspaper articles, magazine articles, reviews of books, discussions in books/articles by other scientists: that is secondary. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Drmies,
 * I understand your point, but I do have a question. How would someone say that a scientist studied something without referencing the paper itself, and how are you supposed to find a more reputable source for an award than the organization that presented the award (though the vast majority of the awards already had secondary sourcing in the first place)? I also do not see how it resembles a resume. It really doesn't make much sense to me. If you could explain these concepts, that would be great.
 * I had based this article on similar ones, particularly those of female scientists in or related to Kathryn Moore's field/institution. They all seem the same; the sources primarily include papers from the researcher themselves or information from their employer. Many of these articles also highlighted awards that it seems like you would remove. What makes these different from this article?
 * Finally, if I could find secondary sourcing for all of the information on the article, would you be opposed to me reinstating what I have written word-for-word?
 * Thanks for the advice and explanation, Bearcan (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If someone studied something and no secondary source picked up on it, adding that information is resume writing. We have lots of articles on similar topics that are resumes, and that's not good. I did not write those articles, I may not have edited those articles. If you cant to point at articles to compare to, it's best to point at Good Articles or Featured Articles (WP:GA, WP:FA), which demonstrate more clearly and unequivocally what the consensus is for writing biographies. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Seewhy,
 * I noticed your edits were reverted so I came here to tell you that I looked over much of what you had written. I also see that Melcous's message below was rather cold. Sorry about that, and welcome! You seemed to know a great deal about Kathryn Moore, so I pulled the facts from all that you said, found references, and used it to improve the edits I was already making. The missing award information is now fixed, and I believe I have fixed the problems with the works cited. Hope this is good news!
 * @Drmies hi, figured I'd tag you on this one just in case you missed Seewhy's last reply. They were asking for some advice from you.
 * Best of luck to you both, Bearcan (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Kathryn Moore, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)