User talk:Henrybardklein: Difference between revisions

Hello, Henrybardklein. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page National Commission on Resources for Youth, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Wracking ^💬 21:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this guidance. The organization has ended. I havent had any connection in more than 30 years. 2600:4040:984A:E500:457D:2C55:518A:1E8 (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no relationship with the National Commission on Resources for Youth (NCRY) and have not had one for more than 30 years. I am currently retired and have no sources of income from employment. Someone is removing my corrections from the article on NCRY, replacing them with inaccurate information about its funding and activities. This keeps happening. Many people have noted it. NCRY was an important organization which pioneered work for American youth- thus it is most unfortunate to have an inaccurate article. Henrybardklein (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by CNMall41 were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:National Commission on Resources for Youth and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CNMall41 (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Henrybardklein! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CNMall41 (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Greenman were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mary Conway Kohler and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Greenman (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Greenman:

Thank you for reviewing my article about Judge Mary Conway Kohler. I am writing to get clarification regarding your concerns. My sources for the article included two NYT articles, one of which was an obituary, citing Kohler's important lifetime accomplishments; the other, an article about her election to the NYC Board of Education, citing her national importance as a leading advocate for youth; and three books, one of which she herself was the author of; the other two by publishers: Harper and Row and Citation Press. Each of these sources is available for your examination; each reached national audiences; two are in the leading newspaper of the US. I am not sure what additional information you require. Henrybardklein (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You appear not to have read Help:Referencing for beginners, which is a link which was provided to you in the feedback on each of your drafts. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References MUST be in proper ref format and incorporated into the body of the text, following the content being verified. The software then insterts a superscripted number that the site of the ref and creates number refs uner References. The quality of your refs is not being denied, only the formatting. David notMD (talk) 08:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article on the National Commission on Resources for Youth (NCRY)[edit source]

I have been correcting the existing Wikipedia article, but the corrections have been reverted several times. I am sure this is due to my ineptitude. I have no skills with technology, and only regret that I am doing this and not someone who is able. Nonetheless, NCRY was an important organization and in light of its influence on the development of national youth development practice, should be preserved accurately for the benefit of research and history. The current article is incomplete and has several inaccuracies. For example, several the references are not good - when you link to several, not all, they lead to unrelated material - Tom Osbourne Federal Youth Coordination Act, Rep Tom Osbourne's Press Release. The information about funding sources is partially inaccurate - the major funder of NCRY's work was the US Department of Labor. Most important, the current article does not describe accurately the range of NCRY's activities, especially the ones that have had longer term influence. NCRY 's work was supported by a very significant Board of Directors. This is important because their involvement demonstrates that NCRY's work was influenced by and important to leading educators, business people and scientists of its time.This includes Ralph W. Tyler who was a leader in the development of educational theory and evaluation in the US; Charles DeCarlo, who led the team that created the first computer at IBM; Rene Dubos, a leading scientist and environmentalist; George Gallup; John Gardner who headed the US Department of Health, Education and Welfare and is considered one of the key architects of the Great Socie3ty programs of Lyndon Johnson; Peter G. Peterson who served as US Secretary of Commerce - and more. It was led by Mary Conway Kohler, a former judge and leader in youth advocacy https://www.nytimes.com/1986/05/06/obituaries/judge-mary-kohler-dies-at-82.html. Is there a way I can get support from someone at Wikimedia to complete this article? Henrybardklein (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply][reply]

Stop working on Draft:National Commission on Resources for Youth, at it duplicates in part an existing article. Instead, work on improving the existing article. Given that editors have been reverting your changes there, create a discussion on the Talk page of the article and invite the other editors via making an entry of their Talk pages. David notMD (talk) 08:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Henrybardklein. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:National Commission on Resources for Youth, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:National Commission on Resources for Youth and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Mary Conway Kohler. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Henrybardklein. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mary Conway Kohler, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Henrybardklein. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "National Commission on Resources for Youth".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Henrybardklein. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Mary Conway Kohler".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Mary Conway Kohler. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Mary Conway Kohler. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Mary Conway Kohler (American judge). This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Bobby Cohn (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've created the duplicate draft above. It is best to not recreate the draft from scratch, instead improve on it using the feedback from reviewers. The draft on your user page was inappropriately located. Consider either your sandbox or the draft namespace. If you have any questions, you can ask here on on my talk page. Bobby Cohn (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do i locate the draft namesake? Henrybardklein (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bobby Cohn were:

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 submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mary Conway Kohler (American judge) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bobby Cohn (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Bobby Cohn (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand: I am not disputing anything. I intend to address your concerns about my piece on Ms Kohler 71.247.207.16 (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Henrybardklein! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Mary Conway Kohler that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 12:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention to this. I hope I am within the definition of Minor. I corrected several citations that had been pointed out were missing or incorrect; and a several textual errors. Henrybardklein (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Draft:Henrybardklein requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Duplicates Draft:Mary Conway Kohler (American judge)

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Bobby Cohn (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Henrybardklein. You have new messages at Bobby Cohn's talk page.
Message added by Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Mary Conway Kohler, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Henrybardklein, as you can see, the article has been published. I corrected some of your citation styles to conform to our citation style 1 using templates as well as conducted some copy editing so the article conforms to our WP:Manual of Style. There are some outstanding {{citation needed}} maintenance tags that should be addressed, but overall good job on the article.

If you are able to fully address the citation needed tags, I would recommend submitting the article for a WP:Did you know hook, and it will appear on the Main page. This has a time limit of one week, so if you get that done, let me know and I can help you with the next steps. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for reviewing and getting back to me. As you can probably guess, it has been a difficult process for me. So I am grateful for your support. Henrybardklein (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Henrybardklein, just letting you know that I've started a discussion about the use of "Judge" as a title throughout the article. Instead of starting a edit war, this would be better discussed on the talk page in accordance with policy. Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me. She was a Judge as far as I know and that title is used in many of the documents about her.I am working on a deadline now for something, but I will try as soon as I can to clean up the problems with the references. Henrybardklein (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the reference to her obituary: "Judge" is used throughout. The New York Times, May 6, 1986, Section B, Page 8. New York City. New York Times article search.

And that's just one example. Henrybardklein (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is doubting that she was a judge but per MOS:HONORIFIC it is not required. Theroadislong (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry. It is certainly not my intention to start an "edit war." Again, I have to apologize for my difficulties with the rules on Wiki, just not a realm I have much familiarity with. I was just correcting something. Henrybardklein (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at how other judges are presented in Wiki - and you are right. Their titles are not included throughout the articles. I will correct that as soon as I can get back to the Kohler page. Henrybardklein (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Henrybardklein, I've come to your talk page to let you know that I've reverted all the changes you made recently to the article Mary Conway Kohler to an older version in the article's page history. I did this because you made changes to references that broke some of the templates that make references useable on Wikipedia, or they don't conform to our policies on citations.

Consider the guidance on WP:IBID: specifically, citation styles that follow Latin like Ibid, loc. cit., and Idem are not well suited for an online encyclopedia as content is not static and things may change, making it harder to verify things in the future, especially in regards to offline citations. Instead, items need to be listed in full each time, with all their details. This is okay, and the Wikipedia citation style allows for this in multiple ways: the first, there is no need to be concerned about the length of the citation in text, everything is contained in the small superscript number. The second is that numbered references can be re-used. There is a detailed guidance about this and how it is easily contained in the <ref> tags at User:GorillaWarfare/Namedrefs, allowing you to easily repeat references without having to type everything out on the back end, and allowing the reader to understand that the information is contained from the same source.

You can see in in the version of the article that I restored that reference 3 is actually used 4 times, and clicking the a, b, c, or d in the reference section will take you to the location it was used in each of those instances. Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second thing that I needed to point out in regard to the reversion that I made, is that you broke the templates that existed in the references as they existed. The template is the same thing that formed the infobox that you referenced on my talk page and they are special code on the backend of Wikipedia syntax that will format the reference once the page is rendered for our reader.

Templates, both for citations and otherwise, are contained between {{ and }} tags, and the first thing before the leading pipe (|) is determines the template. So, if between <ref> tags you see {{cite news|...}}, that is linking to the {{cite news}} template. We have {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite book}} amoung many others as well.

If you did want more information about references, please see Help:Referencing for beginners and the § RefToolbar section for quick ways to access these templates with a visual pop-up box.

These templates are not mandatory by any means, but you did break some citations that I had added when I did some writing of my own, so I restored to a functional version of the page. It is acceptable to continue to add plaintext between <ref> tags as you have. But if you do, please consider the advice about offline references and include as much information as possible. We need more information than Ibid, as that is likely to break.

I'm sorry if it feels like I'm throwing a lot of information at you, I don't mean to overwhelm you or make you feel like your contributions aren't welcome by reverting you, that's why I came to your talkpage to explain myself. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. I've watchlisted your talk page in case you have any questions, I'll keep an eye out here. I'm bringing this up because Wikipedia appreciates your contributions and I'm trying to ensure the content you add is up to acceptable standards.

Kindly, Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]