User talk:Norris Weals
RE: mentorship - Chris Dobson
[edit]Dear Norris Weals, thanks for adding that section on Chris Dobson's page. I think it is a very nice addition! Indeed, Chris Dobson mentored an entire generation of notable scientists! I renamed it because I was slightly concerned that the word 'legacy' was too biased and feared that the entire section would get deleted by another editor. To ensure that does not happen, it would be very helpful to add some references regarding Dobson's mentorship activities. By any chance, do you have any that state he was their mentor? If so, I would be happy to add them. Thank again for your contribution! Gthh (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Gthh
RE: RE: mentorship - Chris Dobson
[edit]Dear Norris Weals, regarding the h-index threshold, I think it is better to adhere to Wikipedia's criteria for notability. For example, Cait MacPhee, is indeed notable. She has a CBE and has won several awards. Gthh (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Gthh
OK. I did not know there are Wikipedia's criteria for notability. --Norris Weals (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Norris Weals, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Norris Weals! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC) |
September 2019
[edit]I have again reverted your edit on Chris Dobson because you do not seem to have understood the objection I was making. It is not just about asserting notability, but about demonstrating or verifying that notability. Please read the General Notes at WP:NACADEMIC, in particular the first dot point. I have also suggested in my edit summary that you read this article as it is much better to fully demonstrate and verify notability by creating a good article about someone, before adding them to a list like this. I see you are a fairly new editor at wikipedia, so welcome and good on you for contributing, but please take the time to understand what other editors are saying before simply reverting. Given that all your edits so far have been to the one article, I'd also ask whether you have a connection with that person and if so, please read wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and make sure you follow them. If not, can I suggest the best way to get started as an editor here is to read some of the key principles and guidelines, and start by making small, uncontroversial edits across a broad rage of topics that you are interested in, but not directly connected to, in order to get the hang of how things work here. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Dear Melcous, OK. Understood. I will collect all the evidence for the notability of these people. It will take time. I read the General Notes at WP:NACADEMIC, first dot point, as you recommended. In that note one reads “claims of impact must be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, or library holdings, and so on.”. The recommended citation metrics for wikipedia, I gather, are Scopus and Web of knowledge. I am wondering how I should refer to the “citation metrics”, such as "Scopus" and "Web of Knowledge". Should I add a generic URL to Scopus? A specific URL to an author citations within Scopus? Many of the people that you have removed form the section "Mentorship" in Chris Dobson, have more citations and are more notable in the field than those that you left. And the number of citations is an objective metric because it provides the impact of an Academic in science. I hope you understand that a problem exists here. I have no conflict of interest, but I will take your advice to read the key principles and start by making small changes that are not discussed so vigorously before going back to this Article.--Norris Weals (talk) 12:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Replied on my talk page, thanks. Melcous (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)