User talk:WikiDan61/Archive20220223

Archive created 2022.02.23

Donald Arthur Wiki Biography

Re: 18:44, 21 July 2021‎ WikiDan61 talk contribs‎ 13,003 bytes +4,060‎ Restored revision 1024488088 by WOSlinker (talk): Revert complete rewrite of contents. Please discuss before such extensive edits.

Hello, WikiDan61.

I am a retired rear admiral naval aviator who is very familiar with Vice Admiral Arthur’s career and accomplishments. I compared his Wiki biography to those of other former surgeons general of all military services and found his to be particularly lacking in detail.

Also, there are remnants from the prolific biographical edits of several years past that were defamatory and aimed at harming Arthur’s reputation. Wikimedia removed many of these edits and froze the biography several years ago to prevent further defamatory entries.

I created a biography that expanded on what was already on Arthur’s Wiki biography. And that was what I posted last week. I apologize for improperly posting it – I was (am) unfamiliar with the proper etiquette for doing so.

WHY I MADE THE CHANGES

1. Arthur’s current Wiki biography is skeletal and lacks much of the detail that other similar biographies contain about career events and milestones.

2. At least one statement is untrue: that “Arthur was also an advocate for gay service members in the military.” While Arthur actually agreed that gay service members should be allowed to serve, he did not “advocate for gay service members” while he was in the Navy. The reference for the statement (now a dead link) does not mention or refer to Admiral Arthur in any way.

3. The statement that “[t]he legitimacy of these two degrees was later called into question” is provocative but fails to clarify that Arthur was cleared of the accusation by the Navy Inspector General. It is, therefore, defamatory by failing to indicate that the allegation was untrue.

4. The Wiki biography states that “Arthur joined the TriWest Health care Alliances Executive Advisory Board in 2008.” In my opinion, while benign, this does not belong on a biography centered around a military career. The biography does not offer any other of Arthur’s post-retirement career moves. You can view his post-Navy career accomplishments at www.linkedin.com/in/donarthur-mdjd.

5. The Credentials Investigation section is irrelevant and defamatory because the investigation determined that Arthur had earned all of the qualifications and ribbons he claimed. His participation in distance learning is negatively characterized despite a finding that Arthur’s record – including the distance learning – was verified by the Navy Inspector General.

6. The claimed statement by Arthur that “I could say I was naive, but I was 40 years old. And I didn't understand completely what was going on” is untrue and not supported by the reference.

7. In the Awards and Decorations section, Arthur’s Navy Flight Surgeon insignia and Submarine Medical insignia are referred to as “badges.” This is an Army term not used in the Navy. “Insignia” is the proper Navy term.

8. Also in the Awards and Decorations section, Arthur’s Navy Flight Surgeon insignia and Submarine Medical insignia are the only warfare insignia listed. Arthur also earned the Surface Warfare Medical Department Officer insignia, the Navy and Marine Corps Parachutist insignia, and the Deep Sea Diving Medical Officer insignia.

9. In the References section,

    •	Reference #1 is a dead link.

    •	Reference #3 contains unsupported allegations that were—at the time—known to be false or distortions of the truth.

    •	Reference #7 is a dead link. Even when it was live, it did not mention Arthur in any way.

    •	Reference #8 is a dead link.

    •	References #9 and 10 are the same. They refer to an article written with the help of Arthur’s adversaries and uses inuendo and conjecture to try to harm Arthur’s reputation.

10. Arthur has brought legal action against several of those who published, or caused to be published, false and defamatory information on Arthur’s Wiki page. As you can see from the history of his biography – especially in 2010 through 2014 – Arthur’s Wiki biography was more of an attack page than a true biography. Arthur won monetary and other settlements against several of the authors of false and misleading information previously published on his Wiki page.

11. The current page is a relic of the prior sparse and slanted biography.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

1. I constructed a more thorough biographical sketch and ensured each claim was properly supported by a reference. The new biography is a factual timeline devoid of subjective comments or qualifiers.

2. The references contain permanent links to documents stored at Archive.org.

3. The new Qualifications and Awards section contains a more accurate list of items that should reside in this section.

4. The image of Arthur’s ribbons is a better graphic that shows how the Navy displays ribbons (without spaces between the ribbons).

5. The image of Arthur’s insignia contains all insignia he earned.

I hope you will find these reasons sufficient to change Arthur’s biography and that the changes are appropriate.

Please let me know the proper way to post the updated biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NavAir1957 (talk • contribs)

@NavAir1957: I'm concerned about several points that you've raised.

As a fellow USN Admiral (thank you for your service, by the way!) you may be less than 100% neutral in writing about VADM Arthur.
You dismiss the issue of Arthur's credentials, claiming that Arthur was cleared of the accusation by the Navy Inspector General. In fact, according to the sources, Arthur was cleared of wrongdoing (i.e. he did not intentionally inflate his resume), but the fact remains that "the legitimacy of these two degrees was later called into question" is a true statement, and the legitimacy of the degrees was never resolved. (The institutions were not properly accredited.)
You claim that Arthur's statement "I could say I was naive, but I was 40 years old. And I didn't understand completely what was going on." is untrue and not supported by the sources. But it is supported by the Chicago Tribune article.
The confusion of "badges" vs "insignia" is legitimate; we can agree to update to use "insignia". However, it is a uniform practice at Wikipedia to list military officers' awards, honors, badges and insignia in a tabular format using existing SVG files rather than using a single .JPG to represent all of the awards. (This is mostly for Wikimedia formatting concerns and image rendering efficiency.)
The extra insignia that you included are not shown in the official portrait of Arthur that is included in the article. Citations will be needed to verify these, but again, they should be added in a tabular format. The tabular format should echo the order in which Arthur actually wears the insignia on his uniform. (How does one don so many insignia? Do they start going on the right side of the uniform?)
Regarding the references:
- Reference 1 is found at the Internet Archive. Although the original page may no longer be available, the archived page is available and has been linked in the citation.
- Reference 3 contains facts: Arthur's degrees came from questionable institutions. The fact that he was unaware of the dubious nature of the institutions, and that the Navy chose to allow this explanation, is included in the article, but it does not diminish the existence of the questions.
- Reference 7 is a book (Unfriendly Fire: How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America). Whether a particular page is available on a Google preview does not render this a "dead link"; it just requires that a person go find the actual book to verify the information. I have not been able to do so; the preview I am able to see starts at p. 247 of the book (whereas Arthur's name appears at the end of p. 246), but the context does not lead me to believe that the statement in the article is unsupported by the source.
- Reference 8 is indeed a permanently dead link, nor can I find any other source to support a statement that Arthur joined the Executive Advisory Board of TriWest Healthcare Alliance, so this statement should be removed.
- Yes, references 9 and 10 are just links to different echoes of the same story; they can be consolidated into a single citation. Your claim that they were written by "Arthur's adversaries" seems unlikely: what did he do in his career to gain adversaries? Just because the news about him is negative, that doesn't mean that the people who wrote it have a personal vendetta against him.
Your claim about prior legal action requires me to point out Wikipedia's policy against legal threats.

I don't object to your expansion of the information about Arthur's career and his service as the USN Surgeon General, and as I personally cannot verify the information about his advocating for the retention of gay sailors I would not object to that being removed, but I would recommend against removing the information about the questions of his qualifications, as that section appears to have the most independent sources of anything written in the article.

-- WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDan61,

I understand and agree with your comment about my objectivity. That is why all of my statements about Arthur’s career are objective and supported by references that clearly document the facts.

I understand your point that the investigation happened and accept that it will remain included in Arthur’s Wiki page. I would like, if possible, to put both references to that investigation in the section named “Credentials Investigation.” The reference that I believe should be included in the Credentials Investigation is currently located in “Early Life and Education”: “In June 1992, Arthur received a Ph.D. in healthcare management from Century University in New Mexico. In August 1993, he received a J.D. from LaSalle University in Louisiana. The legitimacy of these two degrees was later called into question.”

Likewise, I understand that this statement should be retained for the reasons you state.

I understand and will try to put the insignia in the proper format.

Citations for all of the insignia are contained in the body of the proposed biography. “How does one don so many insignia?” Unlike the Army, the Navy restricts insignia wear to two. The flight surgeon and submarine medical officer insignia as shown in his photo are the two that Arthur routinely wore toward the end of his career.

One error I didn't mention in my prior communication is found in the "Early life and education" section where the author states, "but never served under combat conditions." A newspaper article was cited as the source. However Arthur's fitness report (https://archive.org/details/arthur-2d-med-bn-combat-fitness-report) for the time spend in Southwest Asia in 1990 and 1991 states "This is a combat fitness report" (under "COMMENTS" on page two of the linked document) and that Arthur served 44 "Days of Combat" (Item 22 on page one of the linked document).

References:

Re: Reference #1, I still get a dead link when clicking of the “original” link. The “Archived copy” link is live but takes the reader to a general site for flight surgeon training and does not mention Arthur. The link I provided verifies Arthur’s qualification as a flight surgeon (and is likely the source the prior author wanted to cite).

I understand your comments about Reference #3. Thank you.

I will try to obtain a copy of Reference #7. I cannot find any reference to Arthur advocating for gays in the military while he was on active duty. He did so advocate after leaving active duty. It would have been inappropriate for a serving officer to have made such public comments.

Reference #8: Although Arthur did join the TriWest Executive Advisory Board, its appearance in his biography stands alone. If his post-retirement career is to be presented on this page, it should contain a lot more information.

References 9 and 10: I understand your comments. Thank you.

Re: “Your claim about prior legal action requires me to point out Wikipedia's policy against legal threats.” Oh my! I didn’t write that to imply any kind of threat. My apologies.

I accept that you recommend against removing the information about the questions of his qualifications for the reasons you state. Thank you.

How may I submit my the edits that expand his biography while keeping the investigation information? How may I submit to you a draft without publishing it to the Wiki site? Or should I publish it and let you review it for accuracy and objectivity?

I am grateful for your very quick and thorough review!

@NavAir1957: I'm glad you understand my reasoning. I also did not look too closely at the archived citation (Ref #1) to note that it is a generic job description for "Flight Surgeon" rather than any evidence that VADM Arthur held that role. I would support any better citation you can add. In general, it sounds like we're on the same page about how the page should be developed, and I welcome your inputs on the page. I'm glad we had this chance to discuss the changes. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDan61,

Thanks you for your kind comments. Indeed, my intent was to give VADM Arthur a better biography, not to change content that should be left alone.

I will make changes directly to the existing Wiki page tonight and await your review.

Thank you in advance. NavAir1957 (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NavAir1957: In this edit you wrote in the edit summary: Corrected my name and fixed a capitalization error in first paragraph. Are you VADM Arthur? That puts this entire conversation in an entirely different light! You are strongly discouraged from editing your own biography at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 02:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDan61,

No, I am not Don Arthur. I spoke with him after making the edits last night and he suggested the edit to the photo caption. I used his words that I was typing while speaking with him. My scrivener's error.

I thought I did a good job of objectively presenting his career with proper references. I also consolidated the credentials investigation information into a single section. I don't recall the prior version mentioning his Masters degree work - is that new?

The current biography is so scant as to gloss over his career and mention only minimal activities.

Would you consider restoring the version I published last night - with any revisions you feel are appropriate. I trust you are a neutral arbiter who is interested in objectivity and completeness of this type of biography.

NavAir1957 (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NavAir1957: Either you are Donald Arthur or you are a close friend of his, as evidenced by access to non-public artifacts such as his diplomas and Combat Fitness Reports that are used as citations. (These are not reliable sources in any case, and will not be retained in any future versions of the article). In either case, your conflict of interest regarding this article is clear, and I will recommend that you do not further edit the article at all. Instead, I recommend that you make any edit requests at the article's talk page. When I have time, I will evaluate the version as you lasted edited and, keeping your conflict of interest in mind, I will consider retaining some of the updates you made. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That's fair. I am a close friend of his, but 16 or so years his senior. The 1957 refers to my year of graduation from the Naval Academy.

I will post using Talk and you can evaluate for inclusion. I anticipate you will be fair and your decision will be the final word.

Thank you for your help. NavAir1957 (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charlayne Woodard Wiki Edits

Hello Dan,

My name is Devin and you recently took down my edits to Charlayne Woodard's wiki page for copyrights.

I'm not sure what was flagged but this is authentic content.

Her current page does not reflect the impact she had on stage or as a playwright.

Please reconsider my edits to Ms. Woodard's page.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

-Devin

@Devinxdavid: Your version of the page is a verbatim copy of the biography posted on Ms Woodard's website. That is a copyright violation and cannot be allowed to remain. Wikipedia is published under a license that allows readers to copy our text for any use whatsoever, as long as they provide attribution to Wikipedia when they use the text. Ms Woodard's website is published without any explicit release of copyrights, so copyright is implied. In short, we may not copy text verbatim from other websites for use in Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've received permission from Ms.Woodards Lawyer to use the content from the website. What do I need to do to show this?

@Devinxdavid: You'd need to follow the directions at WP:Donating copyrighted material, but in this case I really wouldn't bother. Beside copyright violations, the contents of Ms Woodard's personal website are entirely too promotional for use at Wikipedia. This is to be expected: she created a website in order to promote her career, as is appropriate. But this is not appropriate content for Wikipedia, which strives to maintain a neutral point of view. Also, we tend to discount what subjects say about themselves, relying instead on what reliable sources have said about them. I suggest that you find some reliable sources from which to expand Ms Woodard's biography. Also, since you appear to "have permission from her lawyer", it would seem that you are working on Ms Woodard's behalf, which constitutes a conflict of interest. Please read that Wikipedia guideline before proceeding. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, My name is Alan Harris. I’m an IP attorney with over 30 years of experience with copyright & trademarks. I represent Charlayne Woodard. I’ve reviewed your correspondence with Devin and pretty much understand the issues. If I understand you correctly, we (Charlayne & I) are not allowed to make any changes to her Wikipedia. Only an unrelated 3rd party can do that. In other words, the methodology is that some random person who has no relationship with Charlayne must visit the site and make changes? So Charlayne is not allowed to make any changes to her own site at all. Am I correct about this? By the way, her Biography is just that. It simply lists her accomplishments with no embellishments. They are simply facts and each & every one can be substantiated by newspaper & magazine articles which would be cited & linked. Further, Charlayne’s bio is no different from your curriculum vitae. Do you consider that an advertisement for you? I understand Wiki’s concerns but not being able to make substantiated changes to your own site (which was apparently put up by an unknown 3rd party) makes absolutely no sense to me. Do we have any recourse? Is there an appeals process? Check out another prominent actor’s site such as Alfre Woodard who has pages describing her accomplishments. Why is that not an advertisement and Charlayne’s is? I look forward to your response. Alan 196shaker (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@196shaker: Your first mistake is in thinking that the Wikipedia article about Charlayne Woodard is "her site". Ms Woodard has her own website and is free to write there about herself whatever she pleases. The Wikipedia article is not her site; it is the result of many different volunteer editors at Wikipedia who attempt to write a neutral biography of her based on information available from reliable sources. You and your client are free to request changes to her Wikipedia biography by making edit requests at the articles talk page. Or, you are free to follow the process I suggested for donating copyrighted material. I suggested that this might not be the best option, since her own personal website is her vehicle for promoting herself. (And yes, even a simple CV can be promotional as it likely highlights the high points of one's career while avoiding the low points.) But this was just my suggestion. You are free to ignore it and follow the procedure I've linked to.

Idolatory in Sikhism

I have noticed that my edits have been deleted. You mentioned that I've quoted extensively from one source. But that is only in the main section 'View of idolatry in Sikhism'. I will provide other sources for them.

But why have the edits in other sections ('Sikh texts' and 'Historical references to idolatry') been deleted? They are from different sources.

About my sources being disputed, it is actually the main article whose sources are very selective and disputed. It seems like the original history is deliberately being hidden or whitewashed. The article wants the readers to believe that idolatry is looked upon as futile, whereas 'Guru Granth Sahib' is a book and is still worshiped in every Gurdwara. So how is a book made of paper different from any other object?

And how come, no sikh ever questioned this for over 500 yrs before the Tat Khalsa removed the idols in 1905?

I hope history will be allowed to be presented in a fair manner and will not be subjected to political agendas.

Regards Xndraz (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)XndrazXndraz (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xndraz: The content has been disputed by at least one other user. I am no expert on Sikhism, which is why I have asked for expert attention on the article. Until that attention can be provided, disputed material should be left out. You are free to make your arguments at Talk:Idolatry in Sikhism. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drake in California article

Hello. We've both recently edited the talk page of Drake in California HERE, one you initiated about problematic GF edits regarding Drake in Oregon. Please know that since the conversation has somewhat stalled, I moved material to the Fringe theories on the location of New Albion article. I returned the article to the 4 June version. I also removed the tag you added to Drake in California.

I did not attempt fixing other problems that existed prior to the Drake in Oregon edits were added. I do think Drake in California needs some serious work and continuing of the discussion as other matters about the article came up on the talk page.

I've never really done any such editing before--removing another's edits, tags, and such, and do truly hope I properly done so. If not, please let me know, and please accept my apologies. I'll do what I can to fix things. Most kind regards Hu Nhu (talk) 02:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Wayne (Biologist)

Dear WikiDan61, I am going to ask you to consider reverting the edits made by you, Sassafrass Root and Roxy the Dog.

No. I believe that your biography is presently in good shape in terms of fairly and neutrally presenting your achievements and your ideas. If you disagree, I recommend you begin a discussion on Talk:Randy Wayne (biologist) to solicit comments from other editors.

Although it is possible to see my edits as a COI (I have never done anything anonymously in my life and as a professor, I do profess my beliefs, and stand behind my observations, experimental results, analysis, and theories),

It is impossible to see your edits as anything other than COI, given that you created your autobiography anonymously almost two years before you identified yourself on your user page as Randy Wayne.

the edits performed by Sassafrass Root anonymously may be considered to be a competing conflict of interest. Indeed the only page Sassafrass Root has edited is Randy Wayne (Biologist) and given the anonymity, the edits may be a result of a conflict of interest. We do not know.

If you have reason to suspect Sassafrass Root of a conflict of interest or of bearing you ill will personally, you may raise that issue with the administrators. (I would recommend WP:ANI as the appropriate venue, but I don't believe you have sufficient evidence to make a convincing case.)

Also the edits made by Roxy the Dog were somewhat uncivil: "Forgot to say who taught him to wipe his A**e".

Roxy the dog did, indeed, use some salty language in their edit summary, but the point was fair. You had listed practically every professor you ever studied under, whether or not they were relevant to your current work. The list was pointless.

Also, you made an edit regarding the "discredited alternative theory of" but I am unaware of any data that discredit my theories. If you have factual observational or experimental evidence that discredits my theories, I would appreciate you sharing it, because I am not interested at all in working on something that does not square with reality. While I believe that my theories have not be scientifically discredited, I realize that I do however offer experimental data, observations, and theories that are not popular or accepted by the consensus--and ripe for attack.

I'll admit that the word "discredited" may be a far stretch. Clearly, given the difficulty you've had finding a publisher for your work, the work is, at the very least, outside of the mainstream of physics, and is not likely to be taken seriously. Until your work has been evaluated by other serious physicists (which goes beyond just convincing one somewhat obscure journal to publish it), it has to be considered a fringe theory and not given undue weight.

Lastly, the sentence: "They researched how plant cells sense gravity through pressure" is incorrect. The "They" should be changed to "Wayne."

You did not publish this research as a sole author. Other authors were listed on your paper, and the New York Times "Science Watch" article discusses the work of a team of researchers.

Thanks, BinaryPhoton (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)BinaryPhoton[reply]

@BinaryPhoton: I have replied to your individual requests above. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

Hello WikiDan61,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

clarification on my last edit

Hello,

Looking for clarification on the last edit I made. Trying to figure out why the update gets rejected? where am I going wrong on the edit. Any help would greatly be appreciated.Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkwebhistory (talk • contribs)

@Darkwebhistory: Your edit summary read "Removed the Deepdotweb links as they host a fbi seizure page. Adding updated information, Added updated Url for cyber security researchers", but what your edit actually did was change a few characters: "—" to "\u2014"; "♪" to "\u266a"; "—" to "\u2013". (See diff) Not only were the edits unrelated to your edit summary, they also introduced formatting errors that rendered the text incorrectly. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Professor D'Aveni

Hello,

I work for the Tuck School of Business who owns the Photo. This photo is free to use on Wikipedia per the direction of the school who own the photo. I am happy to provide any proof of this you need. Thank you! 15:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tammyethorson34: Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

editing

I gave reliable sources. Why did you revert it though? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unrememberedperson (talk • contribs)

@Unrememberedperson: Several reasons:

Your edits are controversial and have already been reverted. You must discuss them before restoring them. (See WP:BRD.) Failure to do so is considered edit warring and will get you blocked.
You have drawn conclusions not based on the sources:
- ...Aisha was betrothed to Muhammad at the age of sixteen or seventeen due to her ability of being able to narrate 2,010 hadiths The cited source does verify that she narrated that many hadiths, but it does not verify that this is an argument for her marrying at 19 rather than 9. (This argument makes no sense anyway; if Aisha married Muhammad at 9, she could well have matured to the age of 19 (or 40) prior to narrating the hadiths.)
You have used sources that cannot be verified as reliable:
- The citation of "the majority of traditional sources..." is originally attributed to a scholarly publication by Denise Spellberg, whereas your citation is to a lecture (of unknown context) by Omar Suleiman. Either source may be valid; we won't know until we've had a discussion on the talk page.

You have already reached the limits of the three-revert rule. If you revert to your preferred page version again, the issue will be raised to the administrators. I urge you to discuss the matter at the talk page. I will warn that other users have already tried to raise this issue at the talk page, without a great deal of success. Since Aisha has her own biography article at Wikipedia, perhaps the place for the discussion is at Talk:Aisha instead. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already mentioned at the talk page that she married 19 not 9. By the way the first comment that comes is also a person that gives proof that Aisha married 19 not 9... Why aren't the changes applying on the wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unrememberedperson (talk • contribs)

@Unrememberedperson: At the time of your edits to Muhammad's wives, you had made no talk page comments. As of this moment, you have made only one talk space contribution, at Talk:Aisha. There, you have again relied on the video lecture by Omar Suleiman. Since this is a lecture given in an unknown context, rather than a scholarly publication, it carries less weight as a reliable sources than the sources that you are trying to supplant. While it is quite clear that Aisha's age at the time of her marriage to Muhammad and the subsequent consummation of that marriage are controversial issues, we must rely on what most scholars have agreed on, not what one scholar of your choosing has said. Further, I don't know what you mean by "the first comment that comes..." -- what first comment that comes where? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean there are some people that have already discussed this matter that she married 19 not 9 As well as zakir naik has discussed the same matter in his debates — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unrememberedperson (talk • contribs)

@Unrememberedperson: Sorry, when you said "I already mentioned"... I assumed that you meant you had mentioned, not that others had mentioned. You'll have to provide links for Zakir Naik's debates: if these are scholarly articles published in peer-reviewed journals, then we can consider them as reliable sources, but if they are just remarks he made while debating another person, then they do not carry the same weight. Also, picking and choosing a few scholars who disagree with Aisha's timeline is not sufficient; you'll have to prove that the statement as made (the majority of sources agree that Aisha was betrothed at the age of 6 and married at the age of 9 is incorrect, i.e. that the majority of sources do not agree on that timeline. So far you've provided individual cases of people who disagree with the timeline, not proof that the majority of sources disagree with the timeline. Finally, please sign your talk page posts (either by typing ~~~~ at the end of your post, or by clicking on the "signature and timestamp" button at the top of the edit box.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine then here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avrog9uG5Z4 As well as another scholar talks about this his name is Yasir Qadhi and here is his video talking about why Aisha may have married at 9 however as a long time ago, it was common to get married early as women used to mature faster especially in the deserts and it was not abnormal to get married early as Aisha was already betrothed Jubayr ibn Mut'im for it was very normal if she even did get married at 9. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GMwR1gmZ6M You could probably let that information on what these scholars said to be added in the wiki page please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unrememberedperson (talk • contribs)

@Unrememberedperson: Again, you are missing the point. Any one scholar discussing their own views on Aisha's timeline is irrelevant; the article is discussing the predominant view among many scholars. Clearly some scholars disagree, but we are trying to present the information of what most scholars agree to. The fact that there is disagreement among scholars is already presented on the page, but we should lead with the dominant view and then follow with the less dominant view. Unless you can prove that the marriage at 19 is a more dominant view than the marriage at 9, the article should not be changed. Further, there is nothing in the article that casts any aspersions on Aisha or Muhammad based on her age at the time of betrothal. Early betrothal and marriage was common in many parts of the world throughout history, including among European royal families. These are merely facts. (Yes, I understand that they are facts that are used among Islamophobes to cast aspersions on Islam, but those aspersions are not present in the article and neutrality demands that we present the facts as they are, not as we would wish them to be.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021 Guild of Copy Editors newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors September 2021 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the September GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2021.

Current and upcoming events

September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today!

Drive and Blitz reports

June Blitz: From 20 to 26 June, 6 participating editors claimed 16 copy edits, focusing on requests and articles tagged in March and April. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

July Drive: Almost 575,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 24 people who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here.

August Blitz: From 15 to 21 August, we copy edited articles tagged in April and May 2021 and requests. 9 participating editors completed 17 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Other news

June election: Jonesey95 was chosen to continue as lead coordinator, assisted by Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis.

New maintenance template added to our project scope: After a short discussion in June, we added {{cleanup tense}} to the list of maintenance templates that adds articles to the Guild's copy editing backlog categories. This change added 198 articles, spread over 97 months of backlog, to our queue. We processed all of those articles except for those from the three or four most recent months during the July backlog elimination drive (Here's a link to a "tense" discussion during the drive).

Progress report: As of 18:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 468 requests since 1 January and there were 60 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 433 (see monthly progress graph above).

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

WikiDan61 thanks for your help. Effectivenow (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2000s films by year.

I came up with the idea to make it organized.RayDrum (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RayDrum: That's the kind of idea that should be discussed before implementing. Try bringing up the topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RayDrum: I've started the discussion. You are free to join in. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited CJ Follini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 1997 Academy Awards.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got any notification?

Hi @WikiDan61:

   I am just curious to know whether you have got any notification about my detailed reply to your message which said that you have started a discussion. Please let me know.

Regards Arsenal03031986 (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Arsenal03031986: Yes. I replied on Talk:Buddhism and science. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miodrag B. Protić

Hello!

I am, as you can see, new to the world of editing.

I would like to do extensive editing of an article on serbian artist M.B. Protic, who happens to be my grandfather. I absolutely have no conflict of interest, any finantial interest on the matter, or represent any kind of family company.

I would like to be able to be given space to enter relevant data on the artist, and all using writen and publish sources on english, plus introduce some photos of his work, also respectful to the autorship of photos and works here published.

If you advise me to change my username, I will.

My plan was to continue editing that particular page as an hommage to my grandfather and also as a contribution to improving the identity of serbian culture via Wikipedia.

I would be grateful if granted this opportunitz. Please advise me further and save the edit that I have last made, and publish it if possible!

Thank You in advance,

(Ivana Protic (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@Ivana Protic: A conflict of interest does not just involve financial interests. As MB Protić's granddaughter, your familial relationship itself constitutes the conflict. Because of your affection for your grandfather, you are less likely to write about him in the neutral terms required by Wikipedia. Also, you appear to be relying on your personal knowledge of him to fill in biographical details, but Wikipedia requires that such details be verifiable based on citations to reliable sources. Since you have already admitted your familial relationship, changing your username will not change the situation. Instead, I recommend that, rather than edit the article directly, you make edit requests at the article's talk page, detailing the changes you would like to see, why you think the change would improve the article, and one or more reliable sources that can be used to verify the changes you want to have made. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M B Protic

Well, I would in no case agree that I would be subjectif in writing about the topic.

All I am doing is just entering text from published sources, which I have quoted "M.B.Protic" JErko Denegri, Radmila Matić-Panić, publisher Clio, 2002., Beograd I have therefore not added a single word on the artist that had not be documented in the book (that particular stated).

I would like to continue editing the page. I am just doing secreterian work, retyping and selecting published texts on artist.

Would you be so kind to send me my edit back, and reconsidering allowing me to continue my mission? Since I do feel it is a personal legacy to do so, but only in the objectiv manner and strictly by taking the text from published sources.

BAsicly, I am using the same primary source as the first editor/creator of the page, just widening the text due to my extensive knolege I have on the subject (be it that I am also an artist, architect and art historian conaisseur).

Best regards, (Ivana Protic (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC))[reply]

"a professor's CV is not considered a reliable source"

Re this edit summary, you are totally incorrect. WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB explicitly allow sources written by the subject of an article to be used in that article, for factual rather than opinion-based claims about the subject, as long as "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". Please stop making such bad edits based on bad understanding of policy. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who Killed the Lyon Sisters documentary add edit

Hi WikiDan61

I can see the rationale of your edits on the 2020 documentary Who Killed the Lyon Sisters? edit recently added to the Murders of Katherine and Sheila Lyon Article. Would you be willing to explain to me the removal of info like: the video available of the actual police interrogation videos/interviews with players discussed in body of the page? Would knowing about the availability of such video/interviews in direct relation to the wiki topic be more or less relevant/valuable to the Wiki page? Or is the argument that it would be more relevant on a wiki srticle ABOUT the documentary?

I see that you are a very experienced wiki editor and I am not. If I were to provide citations for the existence of the interviews and interrogation video, for example, would that be corrective? Or still irrelevant?

I appreciate the lesson on converting links to citations and I am in the process of going through the Wikipedia tutorials... I enjoy the learning but my time in relation to material is puny. Any direct flags you can point to in my first effort will be appreciated.

Thank you.

Lasttimeilooked (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How did you get to this so quickly? Are there flags that push new users to the top?

I owe you cups of coffee.

@Lasttimeilooked: This article should not serve as an advertisement for the documentary. Discussions of its content, unless the content was relevant to the solving of the crime, are not relevant to the article about the crime. If the documentary is a notable film, an article can be written about it and describe its content. As it stands, it suffices to say that the murders were the topic of a documentary, with citations to that documentary. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol \| November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats

I'm sure you mean well, but I'm sure if you thought thought about it for a second, if it wasn't permissible to report Wikipedia editors to WMF Legal for potential violations of the BLP policy (a policy with legal implications), then Wikipedia couldn't function. This means of reporting is a key part of why Wikipedia has Section 230 immunity. It is the means by which editors like myself can activate the Foundation's responsibility to ensure their web content is legal. While it may be expected, it is by no means required to first consult Wikipedia Administrators for a volunteer led solution. And given this is a situation where Wikipedia Administrators and indeed all editors either don't seem to know or care that the biography in question had a BLP issue in the very first line, even after it had been the subject of a legal case, Signpost story, Diff blog, and media coverage, well, you'll excuse me for using my discretion. It is allowed. I am not responsible for others seeing legal threats where there are none. What did you imagine the message could be read as? That the WMF might sue any editor that I reported? It's a stretch. Mackabrillion (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Undid Revision

Hello, Please note I undid your revision because the Jasper's Riddle article incorrectly contains information unrelated to the subject. You wrote the article is about a person who performs as Jaspser's Riddle but does other things, however as the article is not in the subjects name and refers only to Jasper's Riddle which online sources refer to as an 'Acoustic storybook' which would count as a project or band, not a valid alternative name for the person. Therefore information unrelated to the subject of Jasper's Riddle is not acceptable for the article. Factsaboutnigeria (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Factsaboutnigeria: The article is, in its substance, about a person who, according to at least one source performs under the name "Jasper's Riddle". Since the article is currently undergoing a deletion discussion, it would be inappropriate to move it now. If it survives and does not get deleted, we can move it to the proper location at the artist's proper name. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Carter Edits

Hi WikiDan61,

I'd like to discuss my edit to the page of Nick Carter (Musician) which you reversed. The sentence I removed was "In 2003 or 2004, Carter got his first DUI after refusing to comply with the police." Your reasoning for reversing my edit was "Carter's autobiography speaks of a "first" DUI. The Today.com article speaks about a DUI charge, but does not specify it as the first, so removing Carter's own autobiographical information is not correct"

I'll go more in depth as to my reasoning, which I included in another edit that was also reversed:

1) Both dates in the sentence are incorrect according to the provided source, Nick Carter's own autobiography, which specifically states that the arrest happened in 2005.

2) It does not state anywhere in the book that it was his "first" DUI, so that information is also technically incorrect according to the source. I don't believe it is necessary to include that anyway because it was his only DUI therefore it is already implied that it was his first.

3) He did not refuse to comply with police. His autobiography states that he was given a field sobriety test by the police and he failed the test. That means he complied with the officers and it doesn't state anywhere in the book that there was a conflict with the police or a refusal to follow their orders.

For those reasons the sentence is 100% false according to its own source. Every single part is contradicted by Nick's own words in his autobiography so I believe there is no valid reason to keep it in the article. If you'd like, I'd be happy to quote the entire passage in his book where he talks about the DUI as further proof of why my edit was justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theamandalorian (talk • contribs) 20:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Bobby Dunn Controversy Section

This section has repeatedly been added despite the BPL policy and fact that it is targeted attack on the person. This section relies entirely on self-published sources. This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material must be removed immediately. Please make sure it is not allowed on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henchren (talk • contribs) 22:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Henchren: The material is sourced to statements made by the artist's labels regarding their decision to cut ties with the artist. I'd say that those statements can be taken as reliable: labels cut ties with the artist over statements or actions that came to their attention. I don't think you have sufficient grounds to delete this material. Given that the vast majority of your contributions to Wikipedia have been about Dunn and his music, I might think you have a conflict of interest in this topic, and should address your concerns at the article's talk page rather than continuing the edit war. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021 GOCE Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2021 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the December GOCE newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since September 2021.

Current and upcoming events

Election time: Our end-of-year election of coordinators opened for nominations on 1 December and will close on 15 December at 23:59 (UTC). Voting opens at 00:01 the following day and will continue until 31 December at 23:59, just before "Auld Lang Syne". Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here.

December Blitz: We have scheduled a week-long copy-editing blitz for 12 to 18 December. Sign up now!

Drive and Blitz reports

September Drive: Almost 400,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 27 people who signed up, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here.

October Blitz: From 17 to 23 October, we copy edited articles tagged in May and June 2021 and requests. 8 participating editors completed 26 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

November Drive: Over 350,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event. Of the 21 people who signed up, 14 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed here.

Other news

It is with great sadness that we report the death on 19 November of Twofingered Typist, who was active with the Guild almost daily for the past several years. His contributions long exceeded the thresholds for the Guild's highest awards, and he had a hand in innumerable good and featured article promotions as a willing collaborator. Twofingered Typist also served as a Guild coordinator from July 2019 to June 2021. He is sorely missed by the Wikipedia community.

Progress report: As of 30 November, GOCE copyeditors have completed 619 requests in 2021 and there were 51 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog stood at 946 articles tagged for copy-editing (see monthly progress graph above).

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Dhtwiki, Tenryuu, and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dollar

You might want to explain why this version:

In the 16th century, Count Hieronymus Schlick of Bohemia began minting coins known as joachimstalers, named for Joachimstal, the valley in which the silver was mined. In turn, the valley's name is titled after Saint Joachim, whereby thal or tal, a cognate of the English word dale, is German for 'valley.'^[1] The joachimstaler was later shortened to the German taler, a word that eventually found its way into many languages.

is better than this version:

The term "dollar" ultimately derives from Jáchymov, a village in Bohemia, in the present-day Czech Republic, close to the border with Saxony. Bohemia was a bilingual Czech/German region until 1945, when the German Bohemians (from 1918 on also called the "Sudeten Germans") were expelled to Austria and Germany (see expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia). Jáchymov lay in the German-speaking part of Bohemia known as the Sudetenland, and was named Sankt Joachimsthal or St. Joachimsthal in German (English: "Saint/St. Joachim's Valley"). It was renamed to the Czech Jáchymov after 1918. Both in Czech and German, the village is named after Saint Joachim (Czech: Svatý Jáchym; German: Heiliger Joachim, in place names: Sankt or St. Joachim). Someone or something from Joachimsthal is called Joachimsthaler (both singular and plural) in German.

In the 16th century, when Joachimsthal was part of the Austrian Empire, Count Hieronymus Schlick began minting coins there known as "die Joachimsthaler" (plural; singular: "der Joachimsthaler"). Thal (modern German orthography: Tal) is a cognate of the English word dale, and means "valley".^[1] Joachimsthaler was later shortened to just Thaler (English: "thaler(s)"; modern German spelling: Taler (English: "taler(s)")). The word eventually found its way into many languages.

It's the direct opposite: this is the first time the term is properly explained. Please also explain why it is "confusing", as it is actually written very clearly. I do not see an improvement of the article, but suppression of knowledge regarding your edit. Sondur (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The newer version places too much emphasis on the fact that the town is now part of the Czech Republic, rather than on the fact that the town was German-speaking at the time the Joachimstaler coin was minted. It appears to be trying to claim the heritage of the term dollar for the Czechs as a point of national pride, which is something Wikipedia tries to discourage, per WP:NPOV. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b "Ask US." National Geographic. June 2002. p. 1.

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Весела Коледа!

Hello, WikiDan61! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Happy New Year!

WikiDan61,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Egyptian Australians edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: It's not an edit war if its reverting vandalism. EgyptianAustralian15-20m+Reality is removing content without a valid reason. ("I'm an Egyptian Australian and I've never heard of such a thing" is not a valid excuse to delete validly sourced content.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies but it didn't seem fair to put the edit war notice on their talk page and not post one here as well. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've invited the other party to discuss the matter, but I'm disinclined to believe they will do so in any meaningful manner. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find page 88 of this PDF interesting, specifically the first paragraph in the second column. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: Thank you for that. It echoes what is in the archived source that EA claims is a broken link (apparently they don't know how to click on the "archived here" link). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of Woodley

Thank you for the information. I am new to editing on Wiki! I have just researched with local U3A members, edited and published a book The History of Woodley. It is self-published because it is hard to find a publisher to take on a book with a local and limited market and small print run. The only copies you will find are in libraries, museums and archives in Woodley, Reading and Wokingham and the 5 copyright deposit libraries. We researched the book because no-one has written a history of Woodley since the 1970s and 80s, and I notice neither of those titles is credited in the Wiki article. Would it be better to leave any future editing of the Woodley page on Wiki until the book has some reviews and more of a presence on the web? Ann Smith88.111.141.162 (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ann Smith: I'm not sure what "U3A" is, but your description of the book makes me think that it is the work of a group of amateur historians. No offense to your diligence and interest in the subject, but Wikipedia generally prefers to rely on more solidly academic publications. If reviews of your book show it to be a more solidly academic work, that will help. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Gerson wiki page

Hello, I received your email reply and am baffled already. Why was all of the content I submitted to update this page rejected? As I said in my note I am updating a page that was created many years ago by someone at the Rhodes Trust. The content was minimal so I updated it with more and recent information. Should I create a new wikipedia page altogether and do it that way? That didn't make sense to me for their to be two pages on Elliot Gerson, but I can if that's best. Thank you, OzaWiki (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@OzaWiki: Your edits were reverted for two reasons:

you didn't cite any sources for your material (see Wikipedia's verifiability policy and guidance on how to cite sources);
you stated in your edit summary: He wanted to finally update his Wikipedia page to more fully describe his work, education and family. which implies that you are editing on his behalf, constituting a conflict of interest. Editors with a conflict of interest should not edit the article directly, but rather should make requested edits at the article's talk page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. wizzito | say hello! 01:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_recreation_of_Lovejoy_(band)_despite_consensus wizzito | say hello! 01:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cundall

Hi,

Thanks for letting me know about the user name, I have submitted a change of name for it to be my personal account. Is this the only reason you have rejected the amends? The information is wildly out of date. I thought I cited and linked appropriately. I also want to request the page name to be changed as that is also incorrect but not sure how to do this.

Thanks Cundall Global (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cundall Global: Your edits were largely promotional rather than neutral, and relied solely on citations to Cundall's own website rather than reliable third-party sources. Also, Wikipedia's external links policy discourages the kind of embedded links you created to each of the company's different divisions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

Good afternoon, Following up from your last message. No, I'm not Cunningham or his husband. He discussed where they met in the Tretter Collection video cited earlier in the page: https://umedia.lib.umn.edu/item/p16022coll97:3. Not citing it was an oversight on my part, but the previous information was incorrect and the source did not provide information.

It was not my intention to paint him in an overly positive light. What was there before was egregiously negatively biased and obviously written by his trolls that harass him nonstop, so I tried to actually follow the format and report his work more accurately. I'm a former constituent. I never met him personally, but I closely followed his work and know how this platform can be abused to harass a black transgender public figure. I just wanted to paint a more accurate picture and got nitpicky about language. My apologies. I'll refrain from editing any other Minneapolis City Council pages.

MPLSpolitico (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)MPLSpolitico[reply]

(@WikiDan61:)

Major Coker sources

WikiDan61,

Thanks for your thoughtful feedback this afternoon and evening. You are providing a valuable public service. And I appreciate that, in the end, given the original sources I later provided, you retained most of what I contributed.

As for myself, I do not want to be quoted in the article. And at this point in the editing, nowhere is my book quoted as a source, which is fine. But I do feel that my book, like George Simpson's "Cokers of Carolina", is a substantive and helpful source of information on Major Coker's life. Not only that, but reviews have confirmed that my book helps inspire people by bringing out practical applications of Major's business and life principles, something Simpson did not do. That is why I was seeking to put my book title in the third paragraph as a pertinent reference. I grant you that perhaps there is some conflict of interest there, but we could say the same for another of his grandsons, Charles W. Coker, who is quoted in paragraph 10 of this same article, since he was once President of Sonoco and now has several relatives in the company. By the way, by making that comparison to Charles, I in no way wish to have Charles's quote called into question, and would rather not have my book title never ever mentioned than to disturb Charlie's quote, because it has great value.

I just want you to understand that, whether I am the Major's grandson or not, my book is an academic work with over 593 endnotes and a bibliography of over 150 sources, and has glowing reviews from diverse educated people. I give three examples:

“You have a well-researched and well-written work that draws an appealing portrait of the Major. I enjoyed reading it, was impressed at the breadth of resources underlying your statements about him, and learned much about him that I had not known before. In today’s world, when there are so few encouraging models for our youth to imitate, it is heartening to read this portrayal of a man whose energy and faith are transparent and whose frailties are even inspirational.”

–– Dr. Malcolm C. Doubles, Coker University Provost Emeritus, St. Andrews Visiting Professor. Author of A Century Plus: A History of Sonoco Products Company; In Quest of Excellence: A History of Coker College on Its Centennial, and The Seduction of the Church.

“Will’s success in consolidating the many threads of Major J. L. Coker’s life and legacy into this biography is a Herculean effort. He not only explains how Coker’s ability, leadership and strong faith brought success in his own time, but demonstrates how they continue to show a moral and ethical way to success for future generations.”

–– Hartsville native Edgar H. Lawton, Jr., Princeton graduate and Harvard MBA. Lawton’s career included the management and governance of ongoing Coker business enterprises and Coker College. He is Major Coker’s great-grandson, and the grandson of J. J. Lawton, who was like a son to Major Coker.

“God, Guts and Gallantry” is a very timely book that reminds us of those men who were of strong moral character during the dark period of the history of slavery in the American South. Without trepidation, Major Coker transcended the racial barriers and societal norms of the time and created gainful employment opportunities for African Americans after the Civil War. In spite of hardships along the way, he lived so the light of Christ within him shone brightly in a time when light was so desperately needed. Surely, he was an example of what is good and right in a world divided between good and evil and right and wrong, even today.”

–– Rev. Henry Caldwell, Columbia, SC native, African American Pastor of First Church of God Ministries of Raleigh, NC

The book has all five star reviews on Amazon as well: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B098JCL9X2#customerReviews.

Thanks, Will Joslin Wjoslin (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wjoslin: Good reviews (especially from sources that are not history-related publications) do not verify that your book is a good or valid history, they only verify that people enjoyed reading it. People often write extensively researched histories of their ancestors, but only choose to write about the good bits, leaving out or glossing over any of the negative things they find. This is why Wikipedia does not consider such books reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[NatGeo-1] "Ask US." National Geographic. June 2002. p. 1.

[1]