FozzieHey

Harry Clarke/David Clarke

Hi, What sort of citation do we need to put David Clarke back in? Source of information - Harry Clarke is my grandfather, David Clarke is my father, a respected Irish artist. (Margaret Clarke, not a Belvederian but a well known portrait artist, was my grandmother). I am an Old Belvederian myself. Cheers...Rory Clarke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.251.9.203 (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Rory, any source that meets WP:RS would be fine. You can see how to cite souces at WP:CITE. Just an extra note, you linked to a disambiguation page which links to other articles for people with either the same or a similar name. If there is an article for David, you should link to that specifically. Otherwise, you don't necessarially need to link to an article at all, but you should avoid linking to disambiguation pages. If you need any more help, be sure to let me know. Thanks FozzieHey (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

A goat for you!

thank you for cleaning up the Colyton Grammar School page from vandalism

PJF1215 (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"Earthquake-resistant structures"

I'm a highschool physics teacher working on an earthquake based research/building project with my students. I am currently also trying to show examples of why Wikipedia is not recognized as a valid source for information when conducting research for school projects. Would it be possible to leave the edit I created (Mr. Lee) up for a day or two before taking it down? ... Or is there a way to create a version of the page I can access to show my students that won't keep the false information online for other users?

Any help would be appreciated,

Thank you, Mr. Lee 2600:1010:B17D:A3D6:ED62:A33B:2F25:7B0D (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reaching out. The edit can't be left up (for I hope obvious reasons), but you can still view the revision of it. I think many Wikipedians (myself included) will agree with you about not trusting Wikipedia as a source and instead using the sources cited in the article, so perhaps you could focus your lesson on teaching your students to look for references in the article instead? Although I hope this revert highlights how quickly disruptive editing is handled on Wikipedia. Thanks FozzieHey (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the ideas and I definitely was surprised how quick you got to it!

Thank 2600:1010:B17D:A3D6:ED62:A33B:2F25:7B0D (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Oxley College (Burradoo)

Hi, I saw that you removed the primary sources tag from Oxley College (Burradoo), and I don't quite understand your explanation. All the sources currently in the article look primary to me. There are five references to the school's website, one to a directory of private schools in which the entry appears to have been written by the school ("our students"), and one to an organisation the school belongs to, where again the text appears to have been written by the school ("The IDEALS in our school"). So not only primary but SPS too. I agree with your comment that "Naturally a lot of primary sources will be used for the infobox", and I'm not suggesting we remove these. But, if this is a notable school, I'd expect to see some secondary coverage, which is why I tagged the article. Tacyarg (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Tacyarg:, thanks for reaching out. I removed it based on my interpretation of the documentation in the template: "Use this template to tag information or analysis that you believe is improperly or unnecessarily supported by a primary source, so that other editors can see whether this use is appropriate or replace it with a citation to a secondary source.". I should've made it more clear in my edit summary, so apologies as the summary was quite short. Most of the primary references are for the infobox, which I think is appropriate, as most secondary sources won't provide the kind of information in use there. For the article body, I was under the impression that the Private Schools Directory was a secondary source, but reading it more closely you may be correct that it's actually a primary source. It'd be good to get more information on that. If it is indeed a primary source, I think you're right that the template is appropriate, otherwise I think it's more borderline based on the interpretation of the template's documentation. In any event, if you want to add the template back, I won't oppose it as you've provided a reasonable interpretation here. Thanks FozzieHey (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I can see there is now one secondary source in the article, so won't re-tag. Tacyarg (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)