User talk:CSGinger14

February 2018

Hello, I'm Pablomartinez. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit — because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. PabloMartinez (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Pope Francis

Hi, you re-added an opinion piece as a source in this article. I've removed it again because opinion pieces should not be cited as a source except to verify that particular's writer's opinion, see WP:NEWSOPED. To source views on Francis's stance towards the traditional mass, we'd need a non-opinion source, such as a reputable obituary. Sandstein 06:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, CSGinger14, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• How to avoid a conflict of interest

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

I know you've been here awhile but you never were properly welcomed, so here! Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers. GoldRomean (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Shortened Footnote Referencing Assistance.

Hi all. If anyone could assist me in creating shortened footnote references for these two citations in source editor, it would be greatly appreciated. Pages and works other than this need to be cited, but if an example for these two types of source could be provided (Journals–in which a source would appear as a specific part of a broadly based work, and thus need to be noted as appearing at that point in the text as well as laying out pertinent information in multiple sections of the text; and Books located in a database, which similarly require additional referencing (ISBN/Dating/etc.)) for "References" it would be quite helpful. An example of how to add in the fact that you got it from a PDF (or how to add that PDF if it doesn't break copyright law) would be helpful as well.

Refs:

CSGinger14 (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi CSGinger14. I've added the {{talkref}} tag below to place your two references into a typical reference box, corresponding to the conventional references section of an article. I see that your has both the full number of pages in the book (i.e. 230) and the page number you are actually citing (i.e. 52–53). Normally, I would only put the full reference into the text where first used, which will place it in the references section and use the {{rp}} template, so the reference in the text would be, with possibly another reference later using different page numbers cited as, say. Doing the same thing as shortened footnotes is a bit of a pain and if you are drafting a new article then, frankly, I wouldn't bother! I'll need to start a new section to demonstrate how the same referencing using sfn works, which I'll do in a few minutes. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Same thing with sfn

Here is the first fact cited to de Luna. Now there is a fact cited to the journal. Now another from the book on a different page. and one from the journal again.

References

Sources

• de Luna, Kathryn (2017). Collecting Food, Cultivating People: Subsistence and Society in Central Africa. United States: Yale University Press. pp. 1–230. ISBN 978-0-300-22516-7.
• Grollemund, Rebecca; Schoenbrun, David; Vansina, Jan (2023) [2022-12-07]. "Moving Histories: Bantu Language Expansions, Eclectic Economies, and Mobilities". The Journal of African History. 64 (1): 13–37. doi:10.1017/S0021853722000780. ISSN 0021-8537.

Note that I've used {{talkref}} above, not {{reflist}} as would be in a standard article, since this is a talk page and we need multiple reference sections to be separated, which wouldn't be the case with genuine articles. Look at the source code and the relevant template pages to see how it is all done. Post any more questions here if you need to (I'll comment about .pdf in a while). Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I've had to make this section use a fictional 2017 book reference to get this to work, sorry! That's a "feature" of trying to do this on a talk page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Using .pdf as sources

The software knows when a source is linked to a .pdf and will show a relevant icon in that case. I'll use an example from my old place of work, which also illustrates how to reference a .pdf that's now available at the Internet Archive, so we can be sure that it is OK to link it as there is no copyright issue (usually!). I'll just put the reference straight in the text. In real article it would normally be between <ref> </ref> tags.

• "Syngenta: Celebrating 75 years of scientific excellence at Jealott's Hill International Research Centre" (PDF). Syngenta. 2003. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 11, 2007. Retrieved 2025-05-05.

Again, you could use the {{rp}} template to specify a page range within the .pdf if needed. There is even a trick to get the .pdf to open at a specific page number by using #pagenumber at the end of the URL. So compare the above link (to the archived version) with this version:

• "Syngenta: Celebrating 75 years of scientific excellence at Jealott's Hill International Research Centre" (PDF). Syngenta. 2003. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 11, 2007. Retrieved 2025-05-05.

The first link opens at page 5, for reasons I don't understand, but we can force it to open at page 2 using the # trick (compare source code). Again, if you have questions about .pdf, just add them to this thread. I hope this helps! Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:OWNership of articles

The section on your talk page titled Contributions (Please notify me before removing major edits) appears to be asserting ownership of those articles. That's not ok and you should probably change it. Nobody needs to consult you for any edits to any pages. Toddst1 (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Toddst1 Apologies man, I’m not attempting to assert ownership over anything. I’m attempting to ensure that relevant information isn’t randomly deleted from pages for an editors personal idea of notability or importance. No one has to notify, I’m just asking that they do, which isn’t a violation of site policy. Unless it’s irrelevant to the topic entirely, it’s worth maintaining. If you read the whole sub-header info at the top, it clearly says that it’s based on the number of characters added to the page. If you had taken the time to read what’s written next to the articles, it explains what I wrote, where I wrote it, and what assistance/input I’ve thus far surmised my contributions or the page need from other editors. I might ask that you be slightly less critical until you’ve taken the time to know and understand what you’re criticizing. All the best - CSGinger14 (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Toddst1 To add on to this, I totally get the nature of this being a collaborative space that anyone can freely edit. I’m not attempting to preach my contributions as gospel, but I’m also attempting to get the people who are active on this site and who take the time and effort to make edits regularly / check user pages / engage in talk board discussions to actually communicate with people who are also interested and involved in the topic. Wikipedia is supposed to get bigger over time, that can’t happen if we’re constantly cutting properly referenced and relevant material because someone feels it’s not perfectly situated in their particular view of the topic at hand. A story, I feel, needs to be told from many different perspectives, and I think that far too often people hide behind applications of site policy that don’t always necessarily apply to prevent that from happening, though not always for political/socially biased reasons, and though I’m not accusing you of doing this. I’m confident you posted this in good faith, and I can see that you’ve been on this site through many of its evolutions. I don’t want to discount that, but I would hope that you might note/consider this point in discussion with other admin. I’ve changed the sub-heading for clarity, hope that helps.

Best CSGinger14 (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

While I appreciate your thoughtful reply, I think it's worth sharing the three relevant points I made on Talk:September 11 here as I expect them to be relevant to future discussions here:

1. Your answers [1] and above not only strengthen my observation of WP:OWN, but they smack of WP:ADVOCACY and raise concerns regarding WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
2. Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources, since Wikipedia is a user-generated source. See WP:CIRCULAR.
3. The general rule for the WP:DOY project is unless the event itself - in this case, the arrival of the caravan, merits an article on to itself, then the event doesn't meet the threshold for inclusion. See WP:DOYSTYLE.

Toddst1 (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Toddst1. Everything I've posted on this website, with the exception of a rather lengthy and poetic end to the legacy section of Pope Francis' wikipedia page, has been cited to a professional source, or, if not, corrected quickly thereafter. Once again, you haven't established anything that actually points to my argument violating WP:OWN guidelines. In regards to WP: ADVOCACY, I would like you to point to any specific interest group, with the exception of the specific human interests (and essay written on profit in academics, which is fully my right under WP: USERPAGE policy), that my article contributions seem to be pointing towards. No information I've posted wasn't thoroughly cited by a professional source, with the exception of a couple of grammatical edits that you reasonably don't hold anyone else to.

Regarding WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, I will cede to you that I have high hopes for my work on this project, I'm not soulless. I would like to ensure that people's voices are included in the conversation. It's not based off conjecture. In regards to the September 11 talk page, I'm not adding anything that I don't think is relevant based on the breadth of reporting which exists. I found at least 8 articles on the arrival of the caravan, 3 of which I cited in that talk page. That, I think, given that wikipedia policy requires 2-3 professionally cited sources to create a profile on an individual, is enough to consider it worthy of its own topic.

With regards to WP: CIRCULAR I haven't used Wikipedia as a source for any page other than talk discussions where a wikipedia page would be pertinent, except for a reference to the Sunrise Earth article which was quickly corrected by another user. I'm also particularly frustrated at you pointing to that example given that it was in regards to whether or not the Resolution Copper mine could be used as a DOY project article, which you nonetheless answered thereafter. I'm not certain there's any other way to cite it, and I've seen other users link to other pages in talk, it isn't anything new.

With all respect, I did not feel particularly respected by your response. You are thus far the only user or administrator that has brought this to my attention, and I'm not certain what it is you'd like me to do in order to fix it. My user page, under content policy, can express any personal views I please so long as they are not baseless, defamatory, offensive, subject to the policies we've discussed above, or revealing of personal information. I invite you to find relevant examples of my presenting a biased view of an issue if that bias cannot just as easily be attributed to the general sway of the journalistic / academic reporting on the material, which is exactly what we are supposed to do under WP: ORIGINALRESEARCH policy to avoid conjecture. Even in the Resolution mine article, I offered a reflection of both sides needs and interests. My point is that we need to be paying attention to all of those interests, and it is this exact kind of overwhelming, often briefly considered technical review (that I've experienced on a number of occasions, so in no way do I attribute this to you alone) that I'm attempting to reason with you against. I look forward to a response, but I'd also ask that you take care to look around my profile a bit, or at the very least review/consider further the claims you're making. I wish you all the best regardless - CSGinger14 (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Toddst1. To begin, if this is a point you feel should be made on the talk pages for the articles as opposed to here, please let me know. Otherwise, I saw your edits on the Rio Tinto (corporation) and Resolution Copper. I appreciate your help in citing some main issues with the articles, though I think that you and @Dormskirk could have gone about trimming with slightly more review, as several pieces were verified through citations in other areas of the article, and could have been used to support the pieces that you cut, which were nonetheless removed with large sections of the text. I will note that large sections of the latter article are inaccurate or misleading and large parts of the former are skewed towards one side. Nonetheless, fair portions of it were properly cited by wikipedia standards, but did not meet a particular standard of relevancy. This was justified in the case of much of the Rio Tinto cuts (though not all, in my opinion), but not in the case of the majority of edits made on Resolution copper. It's far easier to remove text than it is to write it. I understand your interest in protecting the credibility of the site, and I understand that you're supported in your thinking by official site guidelines. But I'd like to remind you that site guidelines were not always the way they were now. Beyond that, it takes people time to make these additions. They might not deserve credit for it under the grand scheme the site's mission, but I don't think you're treating their contributions with nearly the respect they deserve. Removal edits can be rife with as much bias as contribution edits can be, and I'd hope that you watch your own actions as closely as you do others. The morality of reputable/justifiable editing isn't a one way street. If it were, Wikipedia would not have almost 7,000,000 articles.

WP: SOAPBOX isn't meant to prevent bias from just one side. From some of your comments I can presume you read my above comment, or at the very least hope you made the time to do so in the interest of WP:GOOD FAITH. Regardless, I'd hope that you didn't choose to selectively edit the articles I've contributed to (which, I'll note, the majority of sections you removed (some of which had commentary that mirrored our conversation) were not actually edits I had made, most of them in fact you chose to keep as reputable). I will assume you didn't in the interest of good faith, but I think at the very least several of the points I made above have been well proven :). I think that speaks equally well to the point you made several days ago about the intention behind the edits you choose to make.

You'll see several updates on your changes, likely tomorrow, when I have a chance. I'll add some additional commentary to address your concerns if I have the opportunity, keeping in mind that it takes a slightly longer venture to find the scholarship.

Regards, CSGinger14 (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello CSGinger14! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Partner feature for Wikipedia, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . (Since edited*)

Your thread has been archived

Hello CSGinger14! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Where to go to request article assessment, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .

A fox for you!

Looks like a very good start at touch-starvation.

★Trekker (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

A tip: next time, might be easier to ask the technical move requests board at WP:RMT. Your method is totally fine (using {{db-move}}); I just wanted to let you know about alternate methods. Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hello CSGinger14! The thread you created at the Teahouse, New article help, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)