User talk:Prue
Hi
Thanks for submitting the sources to the new article on the lGBT movement. Here is a template for citations:
<ref>[https://example.com/example Citation or rough name]</ref>
For no Link:
<ref>Citation</ref>
--JohnHolt (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I have created two articles
With topical information you submitted to Censorship:
In time, these will be developed, but this might be a good point to look at the foundational basis of a working article. We templated one a while back:
copy the wikitext and paste into the articles, then knock out the categories and sections you don't need and work the content. --JohnHolt (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank You
Hi there. As you can see I'm still slowly slowly learning by doing, making contributions here and there to try and get a handle on how editing and creating pages works. Apologies for my sloppiness... And thank you for making separate pages for Borneman and Sonenschein; I put way too much info but I'm not too sure on how to create a page as opposed to just editing an already made one. I'll practice making a page in the near future, as I'm thinking of creating a page "bias in research" where I'll summarize the few explicit analysis of research bias by Bruce Rind and Alayne Yates, respectively. And prob discuss Paul Okami and Joel Best's discussions of victimological [non-scientific] terminology being used in research. Also, if you've not seen these pages yet I wonder if they'd be good to archive https://famouspedophiles.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/notables-figures-living-or-dead-who-evinced-an-attraction-to-people-under-16-with-a-focus-on-under-13/ and https://famouspedophiles.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/famous-pedophiles/
- Hey, yes, Famous Peds is a project that falls under our mirror project (i.e. it contains plenty of material we can duplicate if it is carefully vetted and integrated into our article/category structure). I'd like to end up with plenty of medium-size, easy to mainatin historical articles based on that site. BoyWiki also has some similar information, but they also have a lot of texts and deep archives - the kind of thing we read and summarize when relevant, but don't engage in ourselves unless we have exclusive access to a text, and that is rare.
- I have just created an article on Tromovitch to show you how a basic stub article works, although you are welcome to include more information about your subjects if it is less well circulated elsewhere. So if we have an article on a popular current/evolving subject, we tend to just keep a stub that links out, so it doesn't need updating. We link out to resources that are updated - i.e. Wikipedia. If it's a common but relevant topic like Michael Jackson for example, we would carry information that is less widely circulated, and link out for everything else.
- When you create an article, to begin with, you should just be more inclusive. I'll then come in and delete excessive categories etc, or suggest alternative locations for other information.
- What you propose sounds like a research review list for "problems in research". This was suggested by Jillium (?), so feel free to copy the format and start building it (first of all, without linking it to the research project). We are working on the summarization of Janssen - a similar kind of thing, but more long term in its scope. --JohnHolt (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Bias in research
I saw this request and modified an existing article to accommodate any excerpts you might have on these topics:
Research: Methodological flaws and syndrome construction --The Admins (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)