|Welcome to my talk page.
C.Fred The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
|The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar|
|message is basic..great job in wikipedia.....timeline of salem....|
List of Trump administration dismissals and resignations: Scott Pruitt
Hi C.Fred how come you changed my edit? Scott Pruitt is leaveing Monday the 9th. and plus I called epa. and asked him. And plus he is still on epa's website https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/current-epa-leadership Thanks:188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've already addressed your failure to cite a published source at your talk page. Please keep the thread there. —C.Fred (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Dear C. Fred:
You mentioned that my edit addition to the biography of Louis Faurer represented a "conflict of interest." All I did was to mention the name of the artist's son, Louis Faurer's son Mark, as a supporter of the Bresson Foundation exhibit, along with mention of Louis Faurer's Estate, which also supported the exhibit. None of this benefits me in any way, nor does it benefit Mark Faurer. It is merely clarifying facts that were mentioned in the book published in connection with the exhibit.
In excising these additions, you have also removed ANY mention of the Greenberg Gallery and the artist's son, which were in the original Wikipedia entry. Those items have been part of the bio for almost a year.
David Gedalecia Fisher Professor of History College of Wooster Wooster, Ohio
P.S. I contributed information for the entry in Wikipedia on the Chinese philosopher Wu Cheng. In it, I made reference to several studies I wrote on him which frame the information provided in the entry. Does it represent a "conflict of interest" that I provided material with which I have a scholarly relationship? I think that Wikipedia needs to "fine tune" the definitions on "conflict of interest," lest it deprive its readers of useful, and sometimes vital, information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- As I noted, the conflict of interest is based on your edit summary, where you said "The additions were made according to the suggestions of Louis Faurer's son, Mark." Any editor who is editing at the direction of a subject, or relative of a subject, has a conflict of interest.
- As for Wu Cheng, it is probably not a conflict of interest, but citing your own work can get you near the slippery slope of original research. —C.Fred (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Original research: there are published books listed, and the essay was the product of a 450-page doctoral thesis submitted to Harvard University, as well as being based on those books. I'm not clear on why that entry would be on a "slippery slope." That thesis is also the only study of this individual in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
The Faurer bio: Mark Faurer did not "direct" me to do anything. I asked for "suggestions," and he provided them. These can be footnoted to the exhibit volume if this would clear things up. Please inform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- The fact that you solicited suggestions still means you were editing with input from him. Please review WP:Secondary sources for more guidance on what is acceptable for independent sourcing. —C.Fred (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Tricky issue: the guideline says that original research should be based on published sources, so are published books I wrote excluded? Furthermore, the thesis was published by the University of Michigan. Are you saying that if I contribute material to an entry that is from my own published research, as in a book, it violates Wikipedia guidelines?
Faurer bio: Okay, I asked for suggestions. What I gleaned is corroborated in the published exhibit volume. Can what I gleaned from the volume be included? It's published material.
Scholarship: There are countless instances of the author of a book referring to his earlier works on the subject. Encyclopedia Britannica has many examples where the author of an entry refers to his own works on the subject. Furthermore, my mentor in graduate school, Francis Cleaves, the premier Mongolist in the U.S., not only referred to prior works he had done in his articles; he also cited oral communications with his colleagues in the field for points of interpretation and factual verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I am one of Chinese Wikipedia administrators. About Tsai Ing-wen, you may feel weird for edit of IP 126.96.36.199. He is User:Zhenggnehz‘s puppetries and his vandalism in Chinese Wikipedia has been reported by China Media.——Outlookxp (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi C.Fred - I appreciate you keeping Wikipedia honest, but I have a few questions about your edits on the Noonlight page. I didn't realize the information was considered "spam" or "promotional", so if you wouldn't mind informing me on how to update my page's information without doing so I would greatly appreciate it. I'm not sure if it's the certain words I used or the articles I attached, so please let me know the reasoning so I can update it correctly. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenbhambri (talk • contribs) 20:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Laurenbhambri: The issue was with the tone of the text: it felt like it came from a brochure for the app, not a neutral encyclopedia article. Consider this text: "If you think there's danger or are feeling unsafe, you can press the button". First, we shouldn't use first- or second-person in articles; they should generally be written in third person. Better encyclopedic prose for this example would be "The app provides a button that the user can press if they feel unsafe." For an even more blatant example of promotional tone, there's "Noonlight illuminates insights and rich data from your connected apps and devices during an emergency, helping first responders get to you faster and more prepared than ever before." Better text would be "Noonlight provides added information to first responders from the app and connected devices."
- With that removal, I highlighted a further concern. It doesn't look from a Google search that the text was copied from Noonlight's website, but if it had been, we could not use it on Wikipedia. Editors may not violate the copyrights of other websites; we cannot use text copied wholesale from another website.
- One other note: you referred to the article as "my page". Editors do not own articles; articles are a collaborate effort with multiple editors contributing. The guiding force in page content is Wikipedia's set of guidelines and policies, not the preferences of the editor who creates the article (or worse, an editor with a relationship to the subject). —C.Fred (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- @C.Fred: Thank you, very helpful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurenbhambri (talk • contribs) 21:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Richard Ong's page edits
Hi C.Fred, I'm confused on why you would delete two whole paragraphs from Richard Ong 's page under the 'Goldman Sachs' sub-header when there were citations linked in the page itself. It seems pretty crucial to the page, and I'm puzzled on why that would disappear. Additionally, do you know why those linked articles have been removed? I don't know why. Oh, and no need to TalkBack- I'll jusst check this page instead. ThePuggernaut (talk) 03:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean with deleting paragraphs: I restored material, particularly references, to the page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Conrad Borg Manche
Hi - I have created the stub article as I need to link the photo received to an article. Will be uploading a proper article next weekend. Please remove the delete tag for now and give me some time thanks.Maltalinks (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Maltalinks: You have a week. If you can't come up with a single source about Manche within a week, then he needs neither an article nor a picture of him on Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2018 (UTC)