Hello there Kj cheetham,

I've posted enquiring about this more generally on the Talk for Quentin Skinner's entry. But I noted your complaint (in your January 8th edit) about the 'indiscriminate, excessive, or irrelevant examples' in his list of principal publications. I'm new to Wikipedia editing, but I am a PhD student with a background in intellectual history and am thus--I hope--well placed to fix the problem. I noted that Wikipedia's manual of style states that 'Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet. If the list has a separate article, a simplified version should also be provided in the main article.' The list as it stands is not exhaustive but is certainly very detailed. Do you think that Skinner's entry would merit an abbreviated list of publications in the article proper and then a separate entry for a list of works (as, I notice, the intellectual historian J. G. A. Pocock has: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_by_J._G._A._Pocock )? I'm very keen to do this properly, and so I'd appreciate any and all advice you have.

Gulielmus Rosseus (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gulielmus Rosseus, thanks for your message. From MOS:LISTSOFWORKS your quote is from the clause for "authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists", and I'd interpretted Quentin Skinner (perhaps wrongly) to be more of an academic than an author. For academics such lists within the main biographical article are typically limited to under 10, as such lists are more easily found elsewhere online. However looking again, given it's listing books rather than just journal articles, it probably does warrant being a full list. Personally I'd be inclined to say WP:SPLIT it into a separate list as per Works by J. G. A. Pocock, though I don't know whether "Works by X" or "X biliography" is better. I hope that helps! -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kj Cheetham! I noticed your recommendations on Pradeep Adatrow's page and added some external links as requested. Thank you for your feedback on this. Puppylove64 (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It might be best if you can incorporate them into the article itself somehow, rather than just as external links at the end. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for moving Lowerkoti to Lower Koti, I sincerely appreciate it! I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia, and Lower Koti originally popped up when I was doing basic copy maintenance, and it's become somewhat of a pet project. So, thank you for the move! I hope to expand this article when I can find any reliable sources for it. Thank you for correcting the page! --NotThisEvening (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NotThisEvening, glad I could help! That article definitely does seem some sources. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kj cheetham! You might be able to help with this. Thanks in advance. --Frans Fowler (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll take a look. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this article should no longer have an orphan tag, please check. Thx, --BlackPantherDesert (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BlackPantherDesert. I'll remove the tag, thanks for letting me know. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kj cheetham. I fear I am personally being blackmailed and harassed by an editor (Dmries) with a personal conflict of interest against either me or Hannawa (?) in this article. Could you please help me keep this article professional in accordance with the true Wikipedia standards, and not this person's overly picky sourcing-deletions. Dmries has now almost deleted half the article with sourcing-arguments that are neither justified properly nor comprehensible. I would appreciate your help, since you were one of the first to contribute to this article in a professional manner along with myself and many others. Not sure where this sudden aggression comes from today, this doesn't feel right, there's evidently some personal attack going on here. Thanks! --BlackPantherDesert (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BlackPantherDesert, sorry to hear you've been having problems! I've not reviewed all that's been said about it, but your discussing it on the Talk pages was the right course of action. Dmries is an experienced admin, but I also see you've spoken to Johnuniq, who is also an experienced admin - so I'll leave it to Johnuniq to handle. It is possible to escalate it, but I don't think that's needed in this case. I hope you manage to resolve things! -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps You "decided" the article to be "class=C ", but without refering criteria and giving an information about the board that decided. It seems to be so officially like decided by a university, by a government agency or even by a government itself. Please can You amend Your "talk" from January,24th 2021. Thank You. --Klaaschwotzer (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Klaaschwotzer, the talk page already referenced the criteria in the form of the quality scale. There is no "board" involved. I also make use of the ORES tool as part of my assessment, and my past experience of having looked at several 1000 other article classifications. Of course I do sometimes make mistakes. Looking at that article again I've now bumped it up to a "B" for the Biography project, which ORES agrees with with 42.7% confidence, and included it within another project. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you've been reviewing a lot of the new biographical pages I've created, thanks for taking the time to do so! Darfst (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help Darfst! I tend to keep an eye on the new women scientist articles primarily, but often end up reviewing other bios too by following various links. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful if you would explain your reasons for adding "needs additional citations for verification" to this article. It seems to me to be very much in line with other articles on academics in my field. RoachPeter (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RoachPeter. The entire "Education" and "Career" sections of the Jane Setter article contain no references. If there are other biographical articles in your field you'd like me to glance at I'd be happy to. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. Could you clarify, please? Do you mean that information about education and career in an article on a living academic needs to be supported by citations of published evidence? RoachPeter (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally for every biographical fact for a living person (WP:BLP), not just academics, an editor should be able to easily WP:VERIFY it. A reference for every sentance is usually overkill, but I'd generally expect to see at least one reference per section, which covers most of the facts in that section. They might already be covered in another existing reference, in which case the source should be referenced again.

Potentially even things like year of birth can be contentious in some cases.

As not dealing with establishing notability, it's fine to use primary sources (e.g. subject's own academic profile).-Kj cheetham (talk) 09:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, got that. RoachPeter (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your help as I trying to get information into Wikipedia. There is so much behind the scenes that I never knew happened. Cheers. DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]