User talk:BullMooseRevival
September 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but it appears you have written or added to an article about yourself, at Michael Taillard. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- If you are not Taillard (or a family member), then please explain both your username and how you came to have rights to an image of Taillard that you claim to have taken. —C.Fred (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for listening. We are colleagues and friends of Michael. He had a promising career and was seen as a visionary. Simply contact his publishers and ask them, yourself, and they will tell you the same. We made the username specifically to create this page to honor his contributions to the field, and the image was taken from a wedding - it is a picture taken by his wife.
- And how do we know that his wife released it under a free license? —C.Fred (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Technically, how do we know that his wife gave you the rights to the image, since you're claiming to have the rights? —C.Fred (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I see. Is there some way you can delay or put this matter on hold until the end of the week when we get a chance to contact her and get her to indicate that she gives open access to the image?
- Because the image is on Taillard's Goodreads page, it's presumed to be owned by him. So it's tagged as a copyvio. —C.Fred (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- I've tried to downgrade it to discussion and explained the situation. Not to say a Commons admin won't say it's a copyright violation and go ahead with the deletion, though. —C.Fred (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The way you have been talking about Mtaillard, did he pass away? —usernamekiran(talk) 11:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
No. He was involved in an accident that resulted in severe acid burns on roughly 12% of his body. Medical complications from the ensuing infections caused a seizure and damaged major parts of his neurological system, so that he is only capable of basic functioning.
Update: We will be able to get confirmation on the matter of image ownership this Thursday. In the meantime, a few items have been deleted or altered by several other users (I'm not sure who), and I have included a couple more external links to news sources confirming that Michael was, indeed, sought-after by private companies and universities. Is there anything more that needs to be done to remove the "notability" warning, or is it good now?
Even though people close to Michael contributed to the article, it seems the concerns is maintaining a "neutral point of view". As you read the article, do you see anything specific which does not appear neutral? If so, please let me know so that it can be altered. If not, please remove the warning.
@C.Fred: You recommended that any additional items I find should be added by a Wiki editor. I did find this old petition written by Dr. Laurence Kotlikoff called the INFORM Act, which Taillard was asked to sign as a professor at Bellevue University. https://www.theinformact.org/petition-list Although it doesn't say it on there, but Kotlikoff later hired Taillard to go to Washington DC and talk to Congress regarding the act. He can be seen here before the start of a press conference in DC, wearing the white suit. http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5503/10593559523_c112c5a51d.jpg Mtaillard (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- A photo that he was at a press conference is pretty weak to state he was hired to go there and speak. —C.Fred (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- @C.Fred: Yes, I know, that is why I am not claiming it should be included in the article. Knowing what I know now, I would not ask that the picture be included in the article, anyway, since I have no idea who owns the rights to that picture. At any rate, thank you for narrowing-down the issue of neutrality. Would you give me permission to delete a couple items which may be contributing to the violation of neutrality? Mtaillard (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Mtaillard, you are invited to the Teahouse!
|
Hi Mtaillard! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC) |
September 2017
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Michael Taillard, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. It is not appropriate for you to remove a COI tag that refers to you. Meters (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Meters: That's totally fair. I do understand why that is policy. Sure, since I know the person, there is potential for conflict of interest. I've asked numerous editors to review the article to see if there is anything that needs "cleaning" or that violates "neutrality", as it says in the COI flag, but no one responds. There have been many edits made both by editors and some other people, and the page is significantly different than its original incarnation. That's great. Simply because I contributed to the article does not necessarily mean that the article contains anything that poses a violation of neutrality though. Would you, please, pretty please, review the article to ensure it does not contain anything with violates neutrality? If there is content in there that is not neutral, then please go ahead and alter the content so that it is neutral. Mtaillard (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- I've restored the notability tag also, pending discussion. I'm not fully convinced this passes WP:NACADEMIC, and it's not appropriate for the COI creator of the article to be making that decision. You should no tbe making any edits to the article. Please propose any changes on the article's talk page where other editors can discuss the edits and decide if they should be made. Meters (talk) 07:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Meters: Again, that's totally fair. The person who flagged the article for notability agreed that the person is notable based on his own search via Worldcat but the article needed a few more external links. I provided several more external links, and it seemed like he was going to remove the flag but then just stopped responding to me. You can see the conversation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Reddogsix#Michael_Taillard_page_edits All I am is asking is that someone follow-up on this and remove a flag that seemed like it was going to be removed anyway. Mtaillard (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)