|This 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.|
Hi Gabriel, I was just wondering what about the changes you made to the added information on the Vonnegut ebook. Is it the content itself or the form which strikes you and was the reason for deleting ? I thought it would be interesting to mention that there is a new book out there and that it includes some new technology. Please let me know what you think as I just started of and would like to know what to be aware of next time.
Hello GabrielF, thank you for your welcome the other day. I am interested in editing Wikipidia articles---at this point primarily for accuracy and valid citations. The other day, I randomly generated Mario Cantone. Since it indicated that it needed "additional citations for verification" (and it looked like a good case for a newbie), I reworked it. As it stands now, Mario Cantone has no uncited references, in my ignorant opinion.
If there are other articles on well-known people (no matter what their field), that need work, I can help. This is such a huge community that there may be a page that has such a listing. Randomly generating articles turns up some topics that are too obscure to comprehend. Gonne Yeats (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I edited an article that included me. It seems that Wiki feels that it is a conflict of interest. How about I give you all the info, you can look for yourself, judge its accuracy and include what you feel is valid and pertinent. I know at least some of it must be pertinent. Any of it will be appreciated. The edit concerns the Bronx High School of Science page. I graduated Bronx Science and have made contributions at least as important as a great number of those already included on the page. I graduated in 'Science' 1976. I have been a number of movies - here is a link to my IMDb page: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4582170/ ; I have authored 2 books - here is the link to my Author's page on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Bam-CaimanHunter-Rubenstein/e/B00EKHX0I8 ; I was a firefighter in the Air Force, a disabled veteran having been injured while serving; made it to Fire Chief for a private fire company in Texas; taught fire sciences as an instructor for the TEEX Fire School out of Texas A&M University - and their records should have confirmation of that. The USAF should have confirmation of my service. I was called an "Expert in the Field" for my work with Spectacled Caiman and have been featured in 'Reptiles' magazine; and there are numerous links to me and things that I have accomplished on the web.
Thank you, Lee Bam "CaimanHunter" Rubenstein twitter.com/@CaimanHunter
Even though I created articles that bring value you have decided to continue deleting every contribution I make. If you like we can talk about exactly what changes you want.
Otherwise I can get in touch with one of the admins to see what they can do about it. Thanks for your time and I hope we can resolve this.
Proposed wording change to MOS:IDENTITY
GabrielF, the MOS talk page is currently locked to non-logged in users, but I have been participating a lot there before that happened (all the "99.192." IP addresses on the page are me), so I would appreciate it if you would copy the comment below to the discussion there. Thanks.
- Mild Support My reading of those sentences is that they are designed to be informative, not instructional, so while I do think they have informative value if they are being read as (or could reasonably be read as) being instructional they can be removed without loss. To explain my reading, the second sentence ("When there is no dispute....") is merely pointing out that, as is often the case, a person's name is not in dispute and in those cases it is simply true that the person's common name is the name they use for themselves. The next sentence ("Wikipedia should use them too.") is just reaffirming the position that the policies listed in the first sentence take. The final parenthetical sentence is explicitly indicated to be an example, and is not a controversial one, so I take it to be informative as well. So while I see nothing problematic about any of these sentences and I do think they could be helpful as explanations, I see no real change in the policy by removing them and so have no real objection to that.
- It might be worthwhile for people to check the history of how those sentences came to be a part of MOS:IDENTITY in the first place. Five years ago, in April 2008, there was a discussion on this talk page that resulted in a significant wording change. Part of that change was to add the references to other policies in the first sentence, as it looked at the time that MOS:IDENTITY was in conflict with them. So this text:
- "Use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification) whenever this is possible. Use terms that a person uses for himself or herself, or terms that a group most commonly uses for itself."
- was replaced by this text:
- "Disputes over the proper name of a person or group are addressed by policies such as Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and Naming conventions where the name appears in an article name. When there is no dispute, use terms that a person uses for himself or herself, or terms that a group most commonly uses for itself."
- A month later, in May 2008, an editor made a further revision that seems to have not been discussed or disputed resulting in this text:
- "When there is no dispute, the name most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself, and the most common terms for a group will be those that the group most commonly uses for itself; Wikipedia should use them too."
- If you want to check out these bits of editing history for yourself, here are some links (I hope) will take you the the pertinent pages: The April 2008 edits, the April 2008 talk page discussion, and the May 2008 edits. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC) (=99.192....)