User talk:Tn-morgen

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Tn-morgen! Thank you for your contributions. I am Mdann52 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Mdann52 (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help me![edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... Is there a template to create a BLP?

I've been charged with posting a BLP on Wikipedia for a medical professional entering the political arena. He has multiple patents and publications. However, this is the first "official" biography to be written.

Tn-morgen (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia! The best way to create a new article is through our article wizard, which guides you through the steps needed to create the article. Our "your first article" page is probably also worth a read. The template above also contains some useful guidance.

If you need anything else, please start your message with {{ping|mdann52}}, and that will alert me to your message. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tn-morgen, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Tn-morgen! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding references can be easy[edit]

Hello! Here's how to add references from reliable sources for the content you add to Wikipedia. This helps maintain the Wikipedia policy of verifiability.

Adding well formatted references is actually quite easy:

While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "Cite". Click on it.
Then click on "Templates".
Choose the most appropriate template and fill in as many details as you can. This will add a well formatted reference that is helpful in case the web URL (or "website link") becomes inactive in the future.
Click on Preview when you're done filling out the 'Cite (web/news/book/journal)' to make sure that the reference is correct.
Click on Insert to insert the reference into your editing window content.
Click on Show preview to Preview all your editing changes.

Before clicking on Save page, check that a References header ==References== is near the end of the article.
And check that {{Reflist}} is directly underneath that header.

7. Click on Save page. ...and you've just added a complete reference to a Wikipedia article.

You can read more about this on Help:Edit toolbar or see this video File:RefTools.ogv.
Hope this helps, --John from Idegon (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To use this message, place {{subst:User:Shearonink/ref}} on User:talk pages when needed.

Question re: BLP[edit]

@Mdann52: The doctor I'm trying to add has presented at over 20 conferences, written over 20 textbooks, holds 3 patents on medical education devices, and has been added to several who's who books. His comprehensive bio has never been published, and that's what I'm trying to get out there prior to a newspaper interview. He wants the newspaper to be able to get particulars from Wikipedia.

I am not being paid (at this time) for putting this up. The next step (after Wikipedia) for me is to register a domain and build a website for him. He is running for Congress in 2018, and I'm doing the electronic media for him.

Maybe I should ask someone else to put up the article? I have a very long CV and a written "bio" from him. I've spent 2 days on this. I'm a published author in my own right, and used to doing researched writing, but I don't think I have exactly what you (Wikipedia) need for this article.

Where do I go to ask someone to write the entry for me? And what does it cost?

Tn-morgen (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Tn-morgen. 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 COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must 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 WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. This isn't LinkedIn or Facebook. No one is entitled to an article here, and your stated purpose above ("ahead of a newspaper interview") is to publicize the good doctor. That is NOT what Wikipedia is. Paying someone (else) is not a good idea, as at least some of the vendors out there that offer that service are total rip-offs, and the ones that will actually attempt to give you what you pay for are generally quite inept. This isn't a starting point for publicity. An encyclopedia doesn't write about a given subject, per se. Instead, we write about what is written about a given subject, and the requirements for having an article revolve around how much is written about the subject. You've been told this before. Everyone here is a volunteer, and the majority of us do not like having our time wasted by publicity seekers. Again, THAT IS NOT WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS. John from Idegon (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managing COI[edit]

@John from Idegon:

I know I have to disclose my relationship with the subject of the article. That wasn't the issue. I'm certainly not anywhere complete with this entry. First, I need to get the entry in a format and form that is acceptable to Wikipedia. That is the first thing.

I'm not trying to break the rules - I'm learning. Please accept that I'm frustrated and trying to make a good entry about a good doctor. I'm not sure how to cite the articles and other items he has written. I'm not sure how to discuss the patented device he invented. I don't know what I'm doing and I'm trying to learn.

I feel (on my end) that I'm under a time-crunch because he wants to do an interview with the local paper and wants this up first. That frustrates me. I don't do so well under pressure like this anymore.

If a paid contributor is not trustworthy, I understand. That CAN open up a lot of strange relationships and open Wikipedia up to less-than-stellar persons. I am not currently paid. I'm doing this as part of a "job" I was charged to complete, but there is no payment.

As for conflict of interest, I understand the limitation. Before I would actually post the article, I would disclose any relationship with the good doctor. I was asked to do this. That's about it.

I'm asking for help to format and create an article worthy of inclusion. The actual CV of the subject is 40 pages long. I'm trying to cut it already. Maybe I shouldn't.

That's why I asked for help. That's why I thought maybe I should ask someone to write the piece for me.

Look, I'm sorry if I am coming off as a jerk. You seem very well-intentioned, but unfortunately, you are getting painted by a brush that is getting worn out by dealing with the explosion in COI editing around here over the past couple years. I am going to try to help you. Please understand that by nature I am very direct...please don't take offense at that. First, please remember to sign your postings by typing four tildes at the end. Second, let me try to clarify WP:PAID. If you are being paid to write this article, which you are denying, you are a paid editor. If you were assigned to do this article in the course of a job you are paid to do, even tho you have other duties and you are not being paid a direct compensation for this article, you are still a paid editor. I don't know about you, but in my life, I do not refer to the things I volunteer to do as a job and I do not allow my leisure activities to place deadline related stress in my life. So sorry if I sound dubious. COI needs to be disclosed even regarding work in draft space; the stricter requirements of WP:PAID need to be followed, even in draft space.

That being said, let me share with you some wisdom that I was given shortly after I started here. When you go to create an encyclopedia article, take what you know and use it to guide your research. Find reliable sources, totally independent of the subject you are writing about, that discuss the subject in detail. I'm old school so I still actually use libraries for that primarily, but if you are using the great Googley woogily, I'd suggest ignoring the general results and concentrating on results from Google News, Google Books and Google Scholar. Those searches are more likely to give you reliable sources. Here is the key point: Once you've completed your research (and you haven't completed your research until you have several sources which discuss the subject of the article in detail), forget everything you knew previously and write from only what the sources say. You can discuss his patents. However, the fact that he has patents does nothing to show that he is notable (keep in mind that when a Wikipedian says notable, he is only referring to the Wikipedia concept of WP:N, which is our qualification to have an article). The thing that gets the doc an article is NOT the fact that he has written a lot of books or that he has patents. What will get him an article is someone writing about him, and what they write about can be that he has written a lot of books and has patents. That is a fine distinction that many new editors miss. That is why most hosts at Teahouse will discourage you from writing an article as your first foray into the world of Wikipedia. Instead, we suggest copyediting, or anti-vandalism patrol so you can learn the ropes before writing an article. Obviously, that isn't going to work for you. I hope you've realized by now that the words in blue are links and you should read them. Sources that show notability are required to get an article into the encyclopedia, however, you can still use independent sources (such as his patents) to add material to the article. The concepts of verifiability, reliability, and notability are interrelated. All material needs to be verifiable; all sources need to be reliable. However, a source can verify material and be completely reliable, but still do noting to show notability (again, like the patents). His patents can be used to verify content about the patented device, but they contain nothing whatsoever about him; so they cannot be used to show notability. Nothing in an encyclopedia is new; every bit of it needs to come from already published sources. So, given what I told you above about writing only from sources, if all you've got is his patents, how are you going to be able to write a bio on him? Where are you going to get information on his early life, his education, his career? You cannot use information that comes from him for anything (with a few exceptions. We actually insist on self identification for religion and sexual orientation).

All that being said, if you need to get something up fast, you are not going to be able to. So let the pressure off yourself. COI drafts need to go thru AfC review, and there is generally a backlog of at least a week, more often two. So I'd suggest you regroup, breathe deep, and more or less start over. Read WP:NPROF closely. Ask questions about it at the Teahouse. I'm betting that is the route of least resistance to get to notability for the doc. As I told you before, I am not real conversant with the requirements there, especially the being cited one. More help may be available from WP:ACAD, the task force of the wikiproject on biographies that concentrates on science and academia. Use the instructions I left you above on doing citations. Most importantly, breathe! Wikipedia has no deadline. If someone is putting a deadline on you, their expectations are unrealistic. You gotta have a mindset that what you do while editing Wikipedia is to improve Wikipedia, not to aid someone or thing in the real world. Adding a bio of this doctor may very well improve Wikipedia, but if you divorce yourself from the doctor's need for it and concentrate on Wikipedia's need for it, you'll find that what you need to do will become much clearer. Again, I wish you luck, but urge you to bring your (and the people that are pressuring you) expectations into line with the reality of the situation. Sorry if I was a jerk earlier. To be totally honest, I think the Wikimedia Foundation should lose the stupid slogan "The encyclopedia anyone can edit". It should be abundantly clear to you by now that is an unrealistic expectation. It may be the encyclopedia that anyone may edit, but for most, actually doing it is a total other thing. Encyclopedia writing is totally different than any other form. It isn't journalism, but it has some elements of that; it isn't extemporaneous, but it has some elements of that; it has no relationship to creative writing at all and isn't even exactly technical writing. Try to focus on your research, try to refine the areas you are having problems in and ask narrow questions to help you understand the practical issues. Hopefully, my explanation above will help you with the conceptual issues. If not, again, refine your confusion and try to focus on asking narrow questions. You cannot go out and build a house in one day, but you can learn to square corners in one day. You can learn to plumb tomorrow. John from Idegon (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some research links:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

John from Idegon (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: Thanks for communicating with me. I have removed my "time crunch" by doing something else.

To make it clear, I am NOT being paid. It's a volunteer thing. I don't "know" the good doctor, but I've met him. He asked me to do this. After your missive, I told him it won't work and to go at things a different way. Others in his team heard me and convinced him to do that.

That being said, I can see some of the "in line references" I can use to make his "bio" and yes, there has to be another way to look at this. I haven't found the viewpoint quite yet, but I'll keep looking.

I've also decided to stop trying to create something new and see what I can add to Wikipedia. I happen to be college educated, a published author in my own right, and pretty intelligent. I can edit and teach grammar. So, I think I'll stick to editing for a little while and get comfortable.

I can see the point of wanting to keep Wikipedia's integrity intact and not allow just anyone to walk on the scene and add whatever they feel like to it. I agree with that mission.

And yes, you were a jerk. The way you came at me really shook my confidence in my abilities, which can be easy to do right now. I've had some health problems and don't feel well most of the time. When a person is unwell, it's easier for them to question one's own abilities and intelligence - so I almost decided to quit - everything. However, I'm still here.

Please remember that not everyone is working at 110% all the time. Your words can hurt.

Let me finish my current tasks and I'll be back - correcting grammar and spelling. Tn-morgen (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Martin E Olsen, M.D. concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Martin E Olsen, M.D., 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) 01:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Martin E Olsen, M.D.[edit]

Hello, Tn-morgen. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Martin E Olsen".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia 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 edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} 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. HasteurBot (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]