Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2021 December 18

= December 18 =

06:13:17, 18 December 2021 review of submission by Mwill66
This is a nightmare. I have responded to a message from something named TheChunky in relation to Draft:Hume's Pass about ten minutes ago. I have no idea if it went anywhere. The response that I was given to the Draft:Hume's Pass was that it should use independent sources, not be opinion, and look like an encyclopaedia, or words to that effect.

It is an article of the highest imaginable historical credibility and veracity and is entirely made up independent sources that happen to be ancient as they go in Australia. It is the assembly, surveying analysis and translation of journals and maps prepared by Hamilton Hume and Captain William Hilton Hovell in 1824 and 1825 when they made the first journey into what became the State of Victoria. This journey made Australia a viable country for the first time in its history. The revelations are considered to be of the highest historical importance to Australia. The whole of the material is of the finest primary source documents that exist on the subject in Australia.

Consequently the comments are incomprehensible.

I would appreciate it if any person can make any response so that this turns into a communication.

Thanks,

Martin

Mwill66 (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Folks,

I am making another attempt at communication. This is the message that I received.

"This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner."

This response has zero usable content. This writer has an entire career in internationally published refereed research in science and now history.

There are zero "opinions". Where is the of lack of "secondary, reliable sources". Every assertion is extracted from the highest quality independent primary source documents that exist on this subject and includes foundation documents of Australian history that are 197 years old and are as important as any that exist in this country.

Is TheChunky conveying that "original research" precludes the use of these foundation primary source documents?

Did the reviewer TheChunky actually read the citation list? It includes publications in the most reputable double-blind refereed Historical Journal in Australia? Does the reviewer know how difficult it is to get past double-blind refereeing?

I seek assistance

Martin

Mwill66 (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that you look at some other articles about geographic features(perhaps Independence Pass (Colorado) or Cottonwood Pass or others similar) to get a better idea of how they should be written. It is true that an article should primarily be based on secondary, independent reliable sources and not primary sources. For further comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating a new section. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I make yet another attempt to communicate with a human being. A good-nature person left this response:

Mwill66 (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Mwill66 I would suggest that you look at some other articles about geographic features(perhaps Independence Pass (Colorado) or Cottonwood Pass or others similar) to get a better idea of how they should be written. It is true that an article should primarily be based on secondary, independent reliable sources and not primary sources. For further comment, please edit this existing section, instead of creating a new section. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea how to respond to that person. There is nothing whatever on the page of mess that indicates a method of response.

I shall try this. My counter is, please look at Sugarloaf Creek, Victoria, Australia. I wrote that in 2019 with brand new information that had never been seen by the human race before that came from original research that continues to be acclaimed by historians. Nobody at wikipedia complained about it and that page was published.

Draft:Hume's Pass has nothing to do with a routine geographical article on a feature like Cottonwood Pass. It is about lost knowledge of a major historical feature whose location was lost to history for 197 years. Nobody cares whether it snows on Hume's Pass or not.

It is just ludicrous that wikipedia suddenly wants "secondary" sources. Do you have a new policy that you want a twitter sentence, or some bizarre backwoods web page written in sublime ignorance? Of course you do not.

You have before you information that was subjected to double-blind, independent review by professorial level historians in order for it to appear in front of you.

Pleas now be quite explicit. Please write this if it is true: Wikipedia has a new policy that it does not accept the findings of double-blind professorial level review for its articles, making it the only organisation on this planet that perpetrates such rejection. Please put that explicitly in writing.

This sentence: "based on secondary, independent reliable sources and not primary sources" entirely obviates the Research Method. Do not come up with anything new. Just drag out your 1835 medical dictionary and quote that. The one about sawing off legs without anesthetic. That is not sarcasm. It is a desperate attempt to communicate.

You are looking at very important brand new factual information about Victoria, Australia.

So far it is good enough for the world acclaimed Royal Historical Society of Victoria, but not to wikipedia. You know that that is ridiculous.

Martin

182.239.187.222 (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Make sure you are logged in before posting. You are communicating with me now, I am here, you can address me directly. You may find this easier if you use full desktop mode in a browser(not the app or mobile versions, which do not have full functionality). In desktop mode there should be an "edit" link in the section header, allowing you to edit this section without creating a new one.
 * Wikipedia does not suddenly want secondary sources, this has always been the case. If your sources consist of a historian other than yourself analyzing primary sources, that would be a secondary source. This isn't as hard as you seem to think it is, but I can understand your frustration. Writing on Wikipedia is different than scholarly writing. Please understand that this is a volunteer project. If the reviewer was confused about your sources, please communicate with them directly at User talk:TheChunky. We really do want to help you. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

08:25:53, 18 December 2021 review of draft by 2603:8000:BF44:AB93:4C75:A5DB:28E:6B3E
2603:8000:BF44:AB93:4C75:A5DB:28E:6B3E (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you check and let me know if you can verify the content I'm submitting. Thank you.


 * I have left a comment on the draft. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 09:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

11:38:20, 18 December 2021 review of draft by Lmical
Hi, thanks for your attention and sorry to bother you. I'd need some help with the sources. They seem not to be enough and I've been pleased to add sources which are not "self published". But actually my sources are 1) the official page of the Journal of Computational Physiscs: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-computational-physics/editorial-board 2) the official page of the International Congress of Mathematicians: http://www.icm2014.org/en/participants/registration/participants.html 3) the official page of the Mathematics Genealogy Project provided by the NDSU Department of Mathematics in association with the American Mathematical Society: https://www.mathgenealogy.org/id.php?id=80484 4) the official page of INRIA: https://www.inria.fr/en/remi-abgrall 5) the official page of the University of Zurich: https://www.math.uzh.ch/index.php?id=people&key1=8882

Moreover I would like to create hyperlinks to official Wikipedia pages where prof. Abgrall is already mentioned 1) Journal of Computational Physics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Computational_Physics 2) International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Journal_for_Numerical_Methods_in_Fluids 3) List of International Congresses of Mathematicians Plenary and Invited Speakers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_International_Congresses_of_Mathematicians_Plenary_and_Invited_Speakers 4) Rémi Abgrall's Wikipedia page in Portuguese:https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9mi_Abgrall

This is my first time so I'm sure I'm committing mistakes, could you please help me?

Lmical (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've approved the article.  It needs some work but notability is met and void of promotional or defamatory material.  From a resources perspective, better to let the community handle from here. pinging, since you had input. Open to other editors thoughts on my reasoning, particularly if its wrong. Slywriter (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey . Thanks for the ping. I don't accept articles like this anymore due to one of them getting WP:G11'd after I'd accepted and marked as reviewed, but I am fine with you doing so., all the sources you mention are still WP:SELFPUBLISHED, official websites have no editor and no editorial process, anyone can put up a website. These are not really ideal sources on Wikipedia. Citations to newspaper articles, books, and scholarly journals that are not written by the subject and that go into multiple paragraphs of detail about the subject would be the kind of sources that would be ideal. To make a link to another Wikipedia article (a wikilink), use the following syntax: . Or in the WP:VISUALEDITOR, highlight the text and click the link button, or highlight the text and press Control+K. Hope that helps. Happy editing. – Novem Linguae  (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

12:01:55, 18 December 2021 review of submission by Mwill66
Dear Strictly anonymous person that I cannot respond to in this mess of what looks like primitive 1972 DOS code.

Let me put it another way. Albert Einstein approaches wiki with an original webpage name THE THEORY OF GENERAL RELATIVITY. It is entirely original. You say, "No Al, we reject it until you get it onto someone else's twitter account, you can only use fifteen alphanumerics, or maybe get it on a Downtown Upwheresville URL in middle Siberia."

Please take this to a supervisor. It is not possible that wikipedia rejects original, verified by independent double blind review, content.

Go look at Hume and Hovell Expedition. You have been begging for years for "INLINE CITATIONS" on that page. I could provide all of them. Why would I bother? You do not accept "ORIGINAL" material.

There is a fundamental communication deficiency here. Go read George Orwell's 1984. I am here to write content, not to be savaged by lack of knowledge of all of these things: the Scientific Method, Chain of Evidence in Law, evidence based history.

Are you sensing a touch of a communication gap here? From the great wikipedia?

Yours in desperation,

Martin

Mwill66 (talk) 12:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * YES! if Albert Einstein approached Wikipedia with an original webpage named "THE THEORY OF GENERAL RELATIVITY" it would be outright rejected, Wikipedia ONLY accepts content supported by reliable independent sources. Theroadislong (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There are no supervisors. I have the administrator tools, but I have no higher status than any other editors. We don't accept original material, but we accept the reporting of original material. We would accept the New York Times telling that Einstein published a new theory, but not Einstein telling us about it himself. I'm sorry that you find that frustrating. We don't want it on a twitter account, we want independent, published reliable sources(please click the link to read). If you just want to tell the world about what you have found, I would suggest a peer reviewed scholarly journal, not Wikipedia unless- again- independent sources already report it. If that's too frustrating for you accept, I regret that very much, but that is what we are. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You should consider switching to the WP:VISUALEDITOR. Then you won't have to work with the primitive 1972 DOS code. – Novem Linguae (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

14:27:24, 18 December 2021 review of draft by AmirahBreen
I published this draft and it was put back to draft. I have now amended it and wish do publish it again. Do I have no choice now but to go through afc? I would rather not do so as it says it can take three months or more. Can I move it to mainspace again myself?

Amirah  talk  14:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are not experienced in creating articles, I would strongly advise you to allow the AFC process to play out, as it's better to find any issues now. However, if you are 95-100% confident that your draft would survive an Articles for Deletion discussion, you can move it into the encyclopedia if you wish. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have created over 25 articles on Wikipedia over the last 7 years. Amirah   talk  14:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Then I would say it's up to you(again, if you think it would survive an AFD). 331dot (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has no deadlines, so are you under a particular time constraint that requires a speedy review? 331dot (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * the article has been reviewed now thank you. Amirah   talk  14:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

15:09:44, 18 December 2021 review of draft by SeldonTheGreatMasterOfHumanity
{{SAFESUBST:Void|

how do I edit this draft?

SeldonTheGreatMasterOfHumanity (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * {{reply| SeldonTheGreatMasterOfHumanity}} Given that the draft has no references to reliable sources, you would need to find them and include them. I couldn’t find anything to indicate that the subject isn’t a complete hoax, I’d recommend not editing the draft at all unless those sources are found.  Wikipedia is not for things you and your friends made up one day. --Finngall talk  15:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also asked and answered at Teahouse. Draft has been tagged for Speedy deletion. David notMD (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

17:45:22, 18 December 2021 review of submission by JaredMars
I made some changes JaredMars (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

21:37:59, 18 December 2021 review of submission by Mwill66
Another uncontactable person has entered the conversation. I greatly appreciate them taking the time to do it. Please tell me how to respond to a commentator so that I do not have to go back to this method.

It is now clear now that none of the commentators, especially the first one, has either read the article, or comprehended its content.

The most recent person wrote this: "If you just want to tell the world about what you have found, I would suggest a peer reviewed scholarly journal".

That is highly insulting and demonstrates that the person who wrote it has not read the article and does not understand the meaning of the citations in the article.

The central source of information for the article is this: Williams, Martin. Hamilton Hume Sketch Maps: Origins and Modern Treatment, Victorian Historical Journal, Vol. 92, No. 1, June 2021, p. 21.

All the others are confirmed historical facts.

It is an article that has been double-blind peer reviewed (aka refereed) by two professorial level historians unknown to me, in the most important historical journal in Australia. Prior to getting to them it had to be reviewed by two other professorial level historian editors for overt value and credibility. That makes four professorial level historians. You know that wikipedia is desperate for that gold-plated level of verification. You ask for it all the time. Please read Hume and Hovell Expedition.

That means that it is not brand new unsupported opinion from one individual, it is the quoting of peer reviewed scholarly material so that it can be taken to a wider audience. This is a good thing for wikipedia.

What I am seeing is that the original wikipedia reviewer had no comprehension of what they were reading, and once that person had rejected it, everyone else has piled on to back up the original reviewer. Result? You do not have to examine that just maybe there was an error.

This is compounded by it being impossible to communicate with one decision maker. The first reviewer is wrong on your very own rules. This latest commentator is wrong on the rules that they have just told me to follow. The in-between one did not read it.

Wikipedia must be able to do better than this.

I now assume that nobody has bothered to look at Sugarloaf Creek, Victoria, Australia. I wrote it in 2019 and it was accepted by wikipedia based on my quoting of a "peer reviewed scholarly journal", just as you now recommend.

What are you going to do? Review Sugarloaf Creek, Victoria, Australia and take it out because of what reason? Something to do with quoting a "peer reviewed scholarly journal"?

There is a great big error in here and it is not my error.

Do you have one person, a decision-maker, who is prepared to actually read and understand the article and the quality of its citations, and who is capable of acknowledging the possibility that a wikipedia reviewer might have made an error?

Martin

Mwill66 (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You have cited your own work, "Williams, Martin. Hamilton Hume Sketch Maps: Origins and Modern Treatment, Victorian Historical Journal", please could you add the publisher details too. I'm not sure why you consider users to be "uncontactable"  all users have talk pages, you can simply click their talk page link and leave them a message. The draft was declined because it reads more like an essay, so it is the tone that needs improving to make it read more like an encyclopedia article.. Theroadislong (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am still here, you don't need to talk about me like I am not. I did read it, and stand by what I've said. I've suggested that you review other similar articles to get a sense of how articles about geographic features should be written, as style was one of the issues raised.
 * Citing your own work is a major conflict of interest and a primary source.
 * There is not a single decision maker on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a community project where decisions are made through consensus and collaboration. I'm not sure how my comment gave you offense, but I apologize.
 * Again, please edit this existing section for further comment, instead of creating new sections every time. There should be an "edit" link in the section header. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Dear Theroadislong and 331dot I am now consciously responding in this fashion for self-protection. Also the “talk” hot links connect me to masses of DOS in which I cannot find the conversation. The publisher of Williams, Martin. Hamilton Hume Sketch Maps: Origins and Modern Treatment, Victorian Historical Journal, is the Victorian Historical Journal. https://www.historyvictoria.org.au/publications/victorian-historical-journal/ That is standard and compulsory historical journal citation. I do thank you for your question. The article has nothing to do with observations about a standard geographical feature, much as I do appreciate the suggestion to look at them. That means that its writer does not understand the nature of the article. Please see it from this following expression of its reality. It is a work of history. It is a reflection of a major discovery in the history of Australia and of Victoria, vetted and accepted as factual after 197 years, good enough to survive analysis by a total of four eminent professors of colonial history in Australia. It is that important. So far it is not good enough for Wikipedia. To give you the brief facts. Hamilton Hume and Captain William Hilton Hovell made the first journey of discovery into Victoria in 1824. On the 13th December, 1824 they were in desperate circumstances with injuries and shortage of food and made one final attempt to break through the mountainous forest that they had been stuck in for a week. Hume on horseback in front of his colleagues found a pass through the mountains at his very last attempt. The rest of the party were straggling behind, threatening mutiny. When he found the pass the party was overjoyed because the journey had been converted from abject failure into a triumph. The location of that pass, that Hume and Hovell named “Hume’s Pass” on that day, was lost for 197 years. It has now been re-found. The identification of that location is critical to Australian history. It happens that a certain author went through the original journals and the map of that very day, re-analyzed them, presented a scholarly paper to the most important historical journal in Australia, and had it published. I put to you that is of Australian importance for it to be more widely known and readily accessible on Wikipedia. I already have the highest accolades from Australian historians. I do not need this grief. I am not trying to hoodwink Wikipedia. I am sure that this is unintentional but from this end of the keyboard it is now tantamount to bullying to escalate into further Wikipedia bureaucratic jargon by writing that “Citing your own work is a major conflict of interest and a primary source” in this particular case. I request that you comprehend the nature of the article for what it is. It is the first ever accurate expression of the actual handwritten materials of Hamilton Hume and William Hovell of the 13th December, 1824. Their handwriting, not mine. None of it is my opinion, and it has been assessed as an entirely accurate rendition by four professors of colonial history That makes it the work of seven people, starting from 1824. I repeat that this is identical in origin to the Wikipedia article that I wrote, Sugarloaf Creek, Victoria, Australia. It was the first pastoral station ever built in Victorian history by the first European who ever walked on that soil. That reality was proven and also was published as factual history by the Victorian Historical Journal. Will Wikipedia now descend into outright thuggery and remove that article in order to protect an error of 2021? I would like to see evidence of your consensus approach. There is only the smallest glimpse of it so far. Martin

Mwill66 (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your attitude and lengthy posts that are almost too long to read are both becoming tiresome so I am going to withdraw from this conversation, wish you the best, and hope that maybe someone else will get through to you since I have apparently failed to do so and offended you in the process. And you are still creating new sections with every post instead of editing this existing section directly. If you edit this existing section, simply scroll to the bottom of the edit window and post under the existing text. 331dot (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Your aggressive tone is not welcome here, your plea to "comprehend the nature of the article for what it is" has been responded to, your wall of text confirms that the original reviewer was correct in their assessment that the draft reads like an essay. There is absolutely no DOS involved anywhere on talk pages. For instance my talk page has a clear link at the top stating "Welcome to my talk page. Click here to leave me a message" See WP:CIR Theroadislong (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)