Hseong2, you are invited to the Co-op![edit]

Hi there! Hseong2, you are invited to The Co-op, a gathering place for editors where you can find mentors to help you build and improve Wikipedia. If you're looking for an editor who can help you out, please join us! I JethroBT (I'm a Co-op mentor)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

Thank you Kpark252 (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! Hseong2 (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Hseong2, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please complete the student training, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Materials
Subject-specific handouts available on wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your question at the Teahouse about Credible Sources / Bibliography[edit]

Hello, Hseong2, and thank you for visiting the Teahouse. As requested I am responding here rather than there.

The first source should be just fine, as it was published in a scientific journal. The other two do not appear to have been published formally (though one states it was presented at a seminar) and are thus not ideal sources for a Wikipedia article. Neither of those two sources could establish notability for whatever topic you want to write an article about. Provided the facts in question were uncontroversial, however, I am of the opinion that the two sources not formally published would still be acceptable to cite in support of statements of fact. Note that other editors might disagree, and if that were to happen, consensus would have to be developed through discussion in order to decide whether the questionable sources should be kept or not. I hope this has been clear. Feel free to ask further questions either here or at the Teahouse; if you respond here, please copy and paste [[User:GrammarFascist|GrammarFascist]] somewhere in your reply, so that Wikipedia will notify me of your response. —GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 13:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hseong2. I'm afraid I have to somewhat disagree with the advice given by GrammarFascist above. Wikipedia does not require "formal" publication, nor publication in a peer-reviewed journal, although this is generally particularly desirable. We do require publication. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources defines "published" as "made available to the public in some form" with a note that "This includes material such as documents in publicly accessible archives, inscriptions on monuments, gravestones, etc., that are available for anyone to see". However Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Overview says: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." This means that the editorial reputation of the publication matters. A paper published in a conference or seminar Proceedings volume could well be a reliable source, depending on the level of editorial oversight that the publisher uses and its reputation. But "pre-prints" and papers presented at a seminar or conference that does not exercise any oversight would have to be treated as self-published sources. These are acceptable only if the author is considered a "recognized expert" in the field. So your second and third sources might or might not be acceptable, depending on just where they were published and the circumstances. As to whether any of these would help with notability, it depends on what topic's notability is involved. Publications must be independent of the topic to establish notability (as well as being reliable), so any topic closely associated with the authors or publishers of any source will not be helped by that source. Also, there must be significant, in-depth discussion of a topic in a given source for that source to help establish the notability of that topic. A mere passing mention will not do. I hope this is at least somewhat helpful. Feel free to ping me with {{U|DESiegel}} or post to User talk:DESiegel if you want to ask me additional questions. DES ^(talk) 17:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC) @GrammarFascist: DES ^(talk) 17:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel: Hi. Thank you for the answer to the previous question (I would like to thank GrammarFascist also). I have another question to ask. I looked at some articles on wikipedia and there were some articles that had presentations as references. If the presentation is made by government officials or credible institutions, can it be counted as a credible source (can it be used as a peer reviewed article)? Here is the presentation: Threat & Error Management (TEM) SafeSkies Presentation. Hseong2 (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember, there are many things done on many Wikipedia articles which are sub-standard practice, and should not be imitated. This is related to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and tht soemthing is done on another article is not a persuasive argument, unless it is done on most articles of a given type, or perhaps on a Good Article or a Featured article.

That said, in this case the presentation seems to have been published on a government web site, and it looks like a fairly reliable source, depending what content you intend to support with it. DES ^(talk) 00:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Threat and error management has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Threat and error management. Thanks! Fiddle Faddle 11:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Threat and error management has been accepted[edit]

Threat and error management, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post 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.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 08:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Hello, Hseong2. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Threat and error management, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stress. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final Article[edit]

Hi, Dr. Kearns. Here is my final article: Threat and error management Hseong2 (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have incorporated all the experts' advice (including yours). I would like to thank everyone who gave me constructive feedback on my article. I will always keep in mind that everybody reads and edits my article. I hope my work is a helpful guide to someone who wants to learn about aviation industry. Hseong2 (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite[edit]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest[edit]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!