User talk:HopsonRoad

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8 /Archive 9 /Archive 10

Edit request

Greetings! You may recall our collaboration on Cross-country skiing. Well, here I am cap in hand asking you for a favour. The page Audiokinetic needs a minor edit. The snag is, I work there! I wonder if you'd be so kind as to update the location of the head office to Montreal. It's incorrectly written as Quebec City in the lead and in the infobox. You may reference the info with this 3rd party link. I believe this is the correct process with regards to COI, and I've added a note to the talk page. PS: I see we have some common interests, on a personal note, I've been away from WP lately as I've busy in the St. Lawrence River with my new Westwind 24. Cornellier (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that I could just directly ask people who have edited the article in question. You sprang to mind because you're a good active editor and I believe you are in the same geo as the article. Cornellier (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back. On third thought, I've gone ahead and done it myself with COI declarations in the talk page and the edit summary. Sorry for the noise! --Cornellier (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear from you, Cornellier! Not noise, just a vote of confidence. I'm always glad to help. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clipper

The article states that clippers were already being constructed in 1795, though they are not a 19th-century invention. Also ships are subcategorized as vehicles. See Category:Watercraft Dimadick (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Washington summit

Hi HopsonRoad, I have a question about the route of the Appalachian Trail over Mount Washington. My understanding was that a few decades ago the trail was rerouted to go over the summit via the Trinity Heights Connector. My edition of the AMC White Mountain Guide from 2012 mentions that very briefly in its description of the connector. I didn't reword your edit, because I don't have more recent trail info. Do you know what the most recent White Mountain Guide says about the route of the AT? Thanks, Ken Gallager (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for writing about this, Ken. I stand corrected, my 10th Edition of the Appalachian Trail Guide to New Hampshire-Vermont (P. 51) says that the trail goes over the summit. I'll make the correction. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you very much! Ken Gallager (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Kingman Brewster Jr.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kingman Brewster Jr.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit flag

Hi HopsonRoad! I noticed that you are marking many edits as minor that don't seem like minor edits. Minor edit has a very 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. That also includes adding references and changing tags. Thank you. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing citation tags

HopsonRoad, could you please explain why you have removed citation tags in Jeffrey Jones a second time when it still has significant citation issues? The TV Guide page that you've referenced doesn't include any dates, character names, episode counts, episode names, etc. Other pages at TV Guide may contain that information, but they need to be used in references. And it would be best for each entry in the filmography to be referenced as you can see in articles with solid sourcing like Dabney Coleman and Suzanne Somers. To be clear, I'm not recommending a dozen or more TV Guide references for any article because there are generally better sources out there, but it's fine if the page includes the required information. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Quinlan, I left a reply at Talk:Jeffrey Jones#Unreferenced sections? proposing to use TV Guide as a source, a week ago, but absent word from you, decided to be WP:BOLD. TV Guide just uses an image to indicate what shows an actor was in without using words. To answer whether the actor was in a given show, I don't see the need to expand further.
I appreciate that other articles may be better sourced and I would in the article, if you could point me to such a source. I don't see the need for references in an article, when the blue link to the movie/show in question shows him in the cast. I forgot that I had removed the second section tag before I realized that I wasn't able to supply references, lower down.
Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you said on the talk page seemed fine. Based on WP:RSP it seems like TV Guide is best for television shows rather than movies, but I wouldn't object to using it for movies if it supported what is being said in the article. What concerned me is how you used TV Guide. Also, an image can be fine. I've certainly cited movie posters via newspaper.com clippings, but references need to verify more than just the name of the work when the article is saying more than the name of the work. Especially in the past, a lot of people have copied incorrect information from IMDB and other user-maintained sites and they're full of errors and not reliable (example: Talk:Dabney Coleman § Rotten Tomatoes and other unreliable sources).
To respond to I don't see the need for references in an article, when the blue link to the movie/show in question shows him in the cast., Wikipedia is not a reliable source and a lot of television show and movie articles have mistakes or fail to provide reliable sources for this sort of information.
In general, I've had the best luck with newspaper articles contemporary to the work as well as interviews with the performer. Newspapers.com is great for digging those up and it's free via WP:TWL. For example, I used this clipping for Dabney Coleman's credit for Exiled: A Law & Order Movie and that's also how the aforementioned Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB mistake. I hope this helps explain better. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your reply, Daniel Quinlan. I didn't think of the blue links to movies or TV programs in terms of their being a source, so much as leading to the front-line place where the issue of accurate enumeration of actors should occur, complete with reliable sources. Once that is done in the source article, it seems to me unnecessary to repeat the process elsewhere because the information no longer is "material challenged or likely to be challenged" per Wikipedia:Verifiability and thereby no longer needing a citation. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That phrasing in the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy doesn't imply that other information should go completely unsourced. And especially not large sections of text like the filmography in this article.
  • As WP:WHEN states: In practice, this means that most material is backed by an inline citation. In case of multiple possible references for a statement, the best reliable sources should be used.
  • As WP:BLPSTYLE states: Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves.
I would also look at what the {{More citations needed}} template says: This template should be used only for articles where there are some, but insufficient, inline citations to support the material currently in the article. There isn't an exemption that says citations are optional if they're probably located in another article elsewhere on Wikipedia. I'll also mention again that there's virtually no chance this article would pass muster on WP:ITN/C and it would almost certainly never be graded as a good article. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, Wikipedia:Likely to be challenged says "If, based on your experience, a given statement has a less than 50% chance of being challenged, then inline citations are not required for that material." That said, I'm not so committed to this article that I'll be the one to bring it to WP:GOOD ARTICLE status. Thank you for the informative discussion, nonetheless. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jeffrey Gale (October 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Unbroken Chain was:
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.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Close but not enough 3rd party coverage IMO to pass the GNG
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.
Unbroken Chain (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, HopsonRoad! 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! Unbroken Chain (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Unbroken Chain

Hello, HopsonRoad. You have new messages at Unbroken Chain's talk page.
Message added 12:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Unbroken Chain (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Unbroken Chain

Hello, HopsonRoad. You have new messages at Unbroken Chain's talk page.
Message added 13:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Unbroken Chain (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For joining and sticking through discussions. I think you will do just fine here and hope you stay. Unbroken Chain (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of women

Thank you, HopsonRoad, for creating several well developed biographies of women. If you intend to continue along these lines, you might like to join WikiProject Women in Red where we are trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women. You can sign up under "New registrations" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/New members. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for signing up and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to see you intend to write more biographies of women from Vermont and New Hampshire. Although you are obviously a seasoned editor, you might find it interesting to look through our Primer. I've taken the liberty of adding the WiR user box to your user page where others will be able to see your interest in the project. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red October 2024

Women in Red | October 2024, Volume 10, Issue 10, Numbers 293, 294, 318, 319, 320


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Unsure how to expand a stub article? Take a look at this guidance

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Ipigott (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Women in Red November 2024

Women in Red | November 2024, Vol 10, Issue 11, Nos 293, 294, 321, 322, 323


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red December 2024

Women in Red | December 2024, Vol 10, Issue 12, Nos 293, 294, 324, 325


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Think of rewarding contributors, especially newcomers, with a barnstar.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 18:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

<3

a really kind and welcoming individual i've noticed.

thank you for being here, your presence makes everything better. VortexiusV (talk) 09:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but...

Thanks HopsonRoad, but Wikipedia is a nasty place, and I don't care a fig about it. I DO care that the 1904 Pop.Mech. article got moved by Archive.Org, and wish they would behave a bit more responsibly. 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:44 (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red January 2025

Women in Red | January 2025, Vol 11, Issue 1, Nos 324, 326, 327, 328, 329


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Celebrate WiR's 20% achievement by adding {{User:ForsythiaJo/20%Userbox}} to your user page.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 17:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]