This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

2023; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2022; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2021; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2020; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2019; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2013:Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Hello, Marchjuly,

Thank you for your information and suggestions. I don't have aspirations to be a regular editor of *any* article, I only jumped in--- and yes, I don't think I stated it, but I am RW Jencks' daughter -- because I saw that someone wrote that he had achieved a job title that he never did (and the ref. cited, The Marin Independent Journal, did *not* get it wrong in their article, it was whomever entered it into Wikip. that didn't read the news-obit carefully enough). I think he would be horrified if someone thought he was exaggerating his accomplishments, and for me, as a fan of Wikipedia, I'd like to avoid contributing fodder to Wikip.'s critics by stating an untruth. I was able to change that without any problems occurring, so I then added more detailed information since there is more room here than in a news-obit, and I still didn't get any error msgs. My aim then was to change some of the language to the words he actually wrote in a self-bio he did a draft of in 2007. I probably should have known that he might not be remembering details from his life 40 years ago *quite* precisely. "..he was appointed Distinguished Visiting Professor of Communications at San Diego State University" is exactly what he wrote. I have no problem with the Wikip. editors not approving that change -- However, no one has a copy of the draft of his own obituary other than a few of us close family members, so I don't see why edits by family personnel should always be considered objectionable "conflicts of interest". If I sent his draft -- with his name and email address at the top since he wrote it to himself, along with hand-written edits -- to someone else who's not a family member and they entered information to the article from it, would that be allowed?.. It's difficult to see the difference? I'm not making subjective pronouncements, and I can see why that would have no place in an article about him.

Ndla ( talk) 18:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@ Ndla: Thank you for the message. Please understand that I am not trying to accuse you of doing anything wrong. There are cases where editors who have a conflict of interest with a certain article can make edits to said article as explained in " Advice for editors who may have a conflict of interest", but these tend to be minor things such as spelling mistakes, formatting errors, vandalism, etc.: edits which any experienced editor would see and recognize pretty much at first glance as being beyond question. However, things get a little more complicated when a COI editor starts adding or removing content from such articles, especially articles regarding actual people, regardless of whether the change is positive or negative. Since Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone may edit, the only real oversight provided regarding the quality of these edits is by other editors who hopefully act in good faith based upon existing Wikipedia policy and guidelines. When you stated in one of your edit summaries that you were Jencks' daughter (please don't take this as a sign of disrespect; Last names are often used to discuss people written about on Wikipedia just for brevity per WP:LASTNAME.), you were telling other Wikipedia editors that you have a close personal connection to the topic, i.e., a conflict of interest. This does not mean you are a bad editor in a way at all; It may, however, make other editors a little more concerned about edits you make to your such articles. One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is " Nuetrality" which is stated as follows:

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view: We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong.

When a COI editor makes content edits to an article, they may be, unintentionally and unconsciously, moving the article in a certain direction; They may assume because of their close relationship with the particular subject matter that they "know more" or "know better" (See WP:EXPERT for something similar) than other editors, and, therefore, their edits should hold more weight. This is why conflict of interest editing is highly discouraged on Wikipedia, and why COI editors are encouraged to post suggestions, etc. on article talk pages and leave the editing to others. If you have the time, please read " Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide because it pretty much summarize the things I have stated above and makes them much easier to understand.

Regarding your specific edits, the problem was not that you corrected a factual error. I think that most editors would consider that to be acceptable; Of course, it would have been better if you had explained why the change was needed and how the Marin Independent Journal was being incorrectly cited on the article's talk page first. The problem was when you decided to add more detailed information since there is more room here than in a news-obit. The extra information you added seemed to be primarily based upon your personal recollections of your father or private things he may have written. It may all be true, but it was also unsourced, and thus would be considered by many to be something called " original research". Even though you did add <ref name=ndla> and <ref name="ndla" /> tags (most likely trying to follow what what was done in the article) to indicate you were using yourself as a source, you didn't add a source. (See " Inline citation" and " Citing sources" for more details.) Since there was only a tag and no actual source, a bot came by an added that error notification to your talk page. It might be possible to use your father's draft as a source, but a thing such as that is called a primary source and the rules regarding primary sources can be a little tricky. Using primary sources is sometimes discouraged, not because they have no value, but because their neutrality or accuracy may be questioned by other editors. If your father's draft had actually been published somewhere, even self-published, then it could possibly be used to cite factual information such as dates, places, titles, work history, etc. However, since there was no source given, there was no possible way for anyone to verify whether the content you added was true, other than by simply taking your word. On Wikipedia, unpublished materials are not considered to be reliable sources.

For what it is worth, I really tried to keep as much of what you added by verifying it with the Marin Independent Journal article, but there were limits to what I felt I could do. Moreover, simply removing the faulty reference tags you added while leaving everything else would have been even worse and something I believe that would have been contrary to Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia relies heavily on verifying information by examining previous published materials considered to be reliable, so it is extremely hard to verify things when no such published material exists. I've probably only confused you more by being so wordy, and I am only a single editor. If you would like more specific formal advice from other editors with more experience, then please feel free to ask at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. You can also contact Wikipedia directly at " Contact us" if you're looking for a more "official" answer. Furthermore, if you just want another editor's take on this for further clarification or because you feel mine to be incorrect, you can add a Template:Help me or Template:Admin help to your talk page, post on the article's talk page, post another question at the Teahouse or at the Help Desk to get assistance from perhaps a different and possibly more experienced editor who may be able to explain things better or advise you differently. - Marchjuly ( talk) 22:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

hello! I appreciate your input very much-- was unaware that it is frowned upon to cite to something I myself have written-- thought it was okay as I cited to reliable sources. One reason I have taken-on the project of writing this article is that I am "the expert". It is very.. VERY difficult for me not to include all the "stuff I know" because it is yet unpublished. I included articles I have written in a RELIABLE PROFESSIONAL JOURNAL. I really am NOT AT ALL interested in "self promotion" and if I were not a lady of nearly 70 years would use some profanity here to emphasize how deeply offended I am at the thought that I would "promote myself". For the love of God, I wrote articles for zero money in the publication of a not-for-profit organization. I am writing a book that will be out next year, where ANY PROCEEDS would go to the not-for-profit organization. I simply wanted "everyone" to get the correct information. Is Wikipedia interested in correct information or in the useless speculation of 30 years ago? There is a lot of bogus stuff written about this company--- things based on speculation rather than research. I have done the hard work, and some of it has been published. If I knew anyone else who had the time or inclination to write a Wikipedia article, I could send it to someone else. Anyway, thanks, and I will try to sit on my hands and not write anything else. For what it is worth, I am an old woman whose entire income stems from Social Security. I don't give a rat's ass about money or self-aggrandizement, but I do like to share the things I am passionate about and I believe I can write well. Kathrynklos ( talk) 23:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kathrynklos, I've added my reply to your post here to the one you made on your talk page, just to keep the discussion going in one place. Please respond there. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 01:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that when I made the block, no. While I might have blocked for longer had I known, it does not seem to be common practice to extend blocks after they're imposed for conduct that predates the block unless it's something like sockpuppetry that would call for an indef block. However, we should keep it in mind if he continues to misbehave. If he goes back to the same behavior right after this one expires, honestly, he's looking at an indef block (as in, indef until we think you're ready for unblock if you want it, as opposed to indef that's a ban in all but name). Daniel Case ( talk) 08:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Not particularly looking to punish anyone so hopefully it was just a one time expression of frustration that will not be repeated. - Marchjuly ( talk) 08:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

No, don't worry about that—better to vent slightly than to act rashly later. Daniel Case ( talk) 19:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand all the nuances of Wikipedia. Can you please help me - I created an article "Havidan Rodriguez". I typed the "R" in Rodriguez in lower case by mistake. Can you please change it to Upper case or let me know how to do it myself. I can't seem to figure it out. Thank you. TrueBRONC TrueBRONC ( talk) 17:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi TrueBRONC. Changing the name of a Wikipedia page can by done by what is known as " moving" the page. This can be done by pretty move any editor whose account is " autoconfirmed". As you can probably imagine, however, changing even a single letter in the title of an article can sometimes have an unforeseen effect. It's fairly easy to move a page, but cleaning up all the links going in and out of the page afterwards can be a little tricky sometimes. Therefore, whenever you not sure, it's best to let an more experienced editor take care of it. Please read " WP:MOVE" for more details.

Regarding Havidan Rodriguez, if you look at the " page history" of the article, you'll see that an editor named "Sphilbrick" moved the page for you with this edit . If you want to know "exactly" how they did it, then just leave a message on their talk page and I'm sure they will fill in the details. I hope that helps. If you have anymore questions please feel free to ask. I still new to Wikipedia myself, but I'll answer what I can. - Marchjuly ( talk) 21:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, I'm new to talk and talkback and your page seems very user friendly. I am working on the following page. /info/en/?search=Talk:Havidan_Rodriguez You helped me with this before. Several tags regarding cleanup have been placed on this page. I have added 2 independent external sources and changed the Research Interests section into Prose as suggested in the cleanup language. Am I now allowed to remove the cleanup tags or does someone at Wiki's end have to do it? If you can, please help remove those tags. Thank you. TrueBRONC ( talk) 16:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)TrueBRONC TrueBRONC ( talk) 16:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@ TrueBRONC:: Hi again. In general, if you feel that you have resolved the issue in question, then I believe you can remove the " Article message box" yourself, unless it says explicitly not to do so. Similarly, if you feel that an article is lacking in certain areas, then you can add the appropriate article message box to that article. These messages are not really intended to shame or embarrass other editors. They are just meant as way of letting other editors know that a particular article might be in a little trouble and need help. If you want more specific information about a particular message, then try checking here WP:TM.

Wikipedia articles are not meant to be perfect right from the start, and it's very rarely that one is. Rather, they are intended to be collaborative efforts with many eyes looking at them from many different angels that get better in stages; In other words, they are constantly evolving. No particular editor or group of editors own an article; It's there for everyone to edit, so we are all in a sense on "Wiki's end". So it's OK to be bold and just go ahead and edit. If you make an error but your intentions were good, don't worry about it. Somebody will come along and fix it eventually and nobody will be worse for wear.

Although there is a general MOS which covers all articles, specific topics are often covered in a certain way. Since "Havidan Rodriguez" is about an academic, I think a good place to go for specific help regarding the article would be WP:ACAD. Just post on their talk page and ask for assistance. Please try and remember though that Wikipedians are volunteers so the real world sometimes gets in the way. Formal article reviews sometimes take a little time because there are so many requests. In a sense all articles are constantly "under review", so unless there is really something seriously wrong, there's no need to really worry if it's taking time. Articles are, typically, only deleted when there is a very good reason to do so, and in many cases there is a formal deletion review process involved. - Marchjuly ( talk) 21:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I think that the Big Brother section is far too long and suffers from WP:UNDUE and/or WP:WEIGHT, as well as WP:RECENT. All the HoH stuff, in my opinion, should go in the Big Brother 16-related articles rather than in Grande's article. However, my experience with this sort of thing is that, until the show is over, news about Grande's activities on the show will continue to be added to his article, and then, once the show is over, or once Grande leaves the show, we will be able to edit it down to the essential facts related to Grande and his career. I suspect that it will end up looking something like this: "In mid-2014, Grande appeared on the reality television series Big Brother 16, surviving the competition until week xx." [If he wins or places 2nd, we would add: "He won a total of $____ on the show and has announced that he will contribute his winnings to buildOn, a charity that he works with."] So, I would not worry if things get added about news on the show -- we can edit them down after Grande's time on the show is over, when the Big Brother fans lose interest in Grande's article. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ssilvers. Thanks for the message. I'm slowly but surely learning a little more about Wikipedia each and everyday. I've been trying to watch how different things on different articles are handled as a way of studying. The truth is that I've never seen any episodes of Big Brother or have any idea as to whom Grande is outside of what is written in the article. I'm not a fan of his, but at the same time I'm not not a fan of his. It just seems silly to me that an article such as this needs to be protected and monitored so vigorously. I guess that's just the nature of the beast: Hot topics are going to attract "interesting" people who do "interesting" editing. Regardless, I know that things will eventually work their way out for the best of the article. I just find watching the process in action to be fascinating. I'm not losing any sleep over what's going on. After all, whatever will be, will be. - Marchjuly ( talk) 21:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Haha! A good attitude. All the best. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello Marchjuly and Ssilvers. I wanted to let you know that I took FG's page off my watchlist. When insults start happening I find it is better for my peace of mind to simply disengage from the situation. I know that you both have that article and WikiP's best interests at heart and whatever you can work out with the others will be fine. Cheers to you both and have a great week on WikiP and even more so off. MarnetteD| Talk 00:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the message MarnetteD. Sorry to hear that. Sometimes things can get a little crazy when discussions get a little heated, but your input to Frankie Grande is just as valued as any other editor's input. Anyway, I do understand the desire to avoid drama. I feel the same way myself sometimes. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun after all. Best of luck. - Marchjuly ( talk) 01:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone ever sent you a Welcome message, so here is a belated one! Most people like to keep it up as an editing checklist.

Hello, Marchjuly/Archives/2014/August, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like it here! Here are a few important links for newcomers:

Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:CITE, WP:V and WP:N
How to edit a page; How to develop articles; Editing tutorial
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Manual of Style; Writing better articles

If you ever have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. It is a good idea to read the most recent entries at the bottom of the Talk page of an existing article before making major changes to it, to see if your proposed change has been discussed before. Before I make a major change to an article, I often make a proposal on the Talk page to see if anyone minds.

Again, welcome! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome message Ssilvers. I actually did receive one when I first joined Wikipedia, but it has been archived already. Being welcomed, however, never gets tiring. Just curious as to why you added this to the top of my talk page though. Was that by design or was that something the system automatically did because it was a welcome message? I was under the impression per both WP:BOTTOMPOST and WP:TALKNEW, that new topics were to be added to the bottom of a talk page. I missed this one the first time around because the notification link I clicked on took me straight to your other post instead. Marchjuly ( talk) 21:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I saw that you edited someone else's post on a talk page. Just a friendly word of advice, because many people are very sensitive about this: Per WP:TALK#Editing comments: "...you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." -- Ssilvers ( talk) 14:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the message Ssilvers. I have edited some posts of others on talk pages in the past but only to correct formatting or layout errors per WP:TPO to make whatever was posted easier to follow which seems to be permitted even without being explicitly granted permission to do so. Moreover, I am pretty sure I've always cited "WP:TPO" whenever I have done so. This has only been when I have been fairly certain that the other editor was quite new to Wikipedia and unfamiliar with making posts to a talk page. I don't believe I have ever edited somebody's post content wise, even just to correct a spelling error. If you can tell me the specific example your referring to, I might be able to explain the reason why it made the edit. Thanks. - Marchjuly ( talk) 21:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Here you go: [1].  :-) -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@ Ssilvers: Thanks for the link. This seems to be some kind of misunderstanding. The talk page post you've linked to is one of mine; I added it with this edit . I signed the post and the second sentence reads Although I do agree with "Ssilvers" and "Cassianto" regarding the infobox, I am interested in hearing some specifics as to why you feel that removing it would be a step in the wrong direction. I thought it was clear that the "I" in that sentence was me. Now, I am not sure why the system lumped it together with Cassianto's post. I think it was because Cassianto changed the location of my reply to Jjj1238 with this edit so that it now followed their reply to Jjj1238. I assumed that Callianto was just fixing a layout error so it didn't seem worth bringing up. Am I no longer allowed to edit my own talk page posts when something like this is done? - Marchjuly ( talk) 00:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You are correct -- I totally misread the post and thought that you were editing Jjj's message. I was confused by the ping message in the beginning. I was entirely wrong, so please disregard, and I beg your pardon! You certainly may edit your own posts, except where someone has already replied to them, and even then you can do so for clarity. Many apologies, -- Ssilvers ( talk) 00:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No harm no foul. Actually, thanks for watching out to ensure that stuff isn't being incorrectly done. It's better to be safe, than sorry. - Marchjuly ( talk) 01:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You're very gracious. Thank you! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 12:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

As you probably noticed I'm not too happy with the Romero article, but there is nothing that can't be put right now it's in main namespace. It looks to me to be a standard WP:BOMBARD plea for notability by a borderline artiste who has written his own autobiography. Well, he is either notable or not, and all will come right in the end. If it is not right it is not yet the end. Fiddle Faddle 09:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@ Timtrent: Some may say "quick", but I prefer to say "helpful". I first saw the Teahouse post, then I saw the draft. It looked like there were quite a few problems with it, but since it was still under review at the time, I wasn't sure if it was OK to post on the talk page yet. So, I was going to post suggestions on the article's creator's talk page, but before I could do that the article was accepted into main space. I was sort of surprised it was approved, but then again Wikipedia is not perfect. At least now that it is an article, experienced editors such as yourself can help try and make it better. Whether Romero is notable enough for Wikipedia will, as you say, be eventually worked out one way or the other. I only hope the creator takes it all in stride. I'm sometimes not sure if people, even those deserving of an article, who decide to create articles about themselves fully understand what they are getting themselves into. Some COI editors don't seem to respond too well when everybody and their grandmother seems to appear out of thin air and starts making changes. They expect to be able to exert some control over the article, but quickly find out that is not the case. I hope Romero realizes that people are trying to help out. - Marchjuly ( talk) 11:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I know precisely what you mean. At present I can't spot the bloke's notability, but we can let t ride for a few days, unless you want to take it to AfD, of course. I did warn him at the Teahouse! He seems a decent jobbing performance poet, but how many of them are genuinely notable?

By the way, count yourself as experienced! Fiddle Faddle 11:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I have taken two articles to AfD before. One was deleted and one was saved. Still feel kind of bad about the first one that got deleted even though it, in all honesty, deserved such a fate. The second time (the one that was saved), I was probably a little too eager to go for the delete. It worked out for the best though, the article was saved and actually improved. Plus, I learned stuff during that AfD I wasn't aware of before. Anyway, after that I decided I'd rather try and fix than delete whenever possible. I realize that deletion is sometimes necessary, but I'll leave that up to the really experienced editors. - Marchjuly ( talk) 12:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion is necessary to keep us from descending towards idiocracy. If you prefer being helpful in a creative manner WP:AFC is the inverse of WP:AFD and always needs folk to review even a couple of drafts per day. I think you have sufficient edits to join in. Start with the obvious acceptances (few) or rejections (many) and work up! Fiddle Faddle 12:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

AFC is pretty simple. If you would AfD it, PROD it, or CSD it, it is declined. Otherwise it goes forward. I use this crib sheet, too: User:Timtrent/Reviewing‎, though I suggest you build your own as you gain experience. Each para is a decline reason, and I bolt several together if I need them. Fiddle Faddle 12:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey thanks for all that info. It gives me something new to check out. - Marchjuly ( talk) 21:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)