User talk:Gabriellemcnell

May 2024[edit]

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Robert (doll). An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LuckyLouie, thank you for reviewing the Robert (doll) page and notifying me of your concerns with my latest edit. All information within the update I attempted to publish is backed by credible and independent sources. The WP:FRIND sources you listed as Panicd.com, phantom press, youtube, robertthedoll.org, are all in place alongside other legitimate, independent sources to further cite the information as culturally relevant. My edit to Robert's page is solely to update and inform the cultural relevance and historical significance of such a doll. Gabriellemcnell (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All information within the update I attempted to publish is backed by credible and independent sources. The WP:FRIND sources you listed... No, the sources I listed were not WP:FRIND. They were examples of what are not credible or independent sources, and your edits intentionally or unintentionally were lending credibility to supernatural claims. This tells me you may have a problem with English comprehension or some other issue. Editing WP:FRINGE topics such as supposedly haunted dolls can be a steep learning curve (see WP:NOTNEUTRAL). I suggest you start editing articles about some noncontroversial topic to familiarize yourself with the encyclopedia's polices before you attempt to improve WP:FRINGE articles. Thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The not credible sources you listed are irrelevant as there are credible sources listed to support the information. The supernatural claims within the article are clearly first hand accounts that are outlined as alleged, reputed, and purported, information and further backed by credible sources supporting the facts intertwined in the claims. I suggest you update your knowledge on the supernatural, and Robert specifically, before applying inaccurate changes to his history. Gabriellemcnell (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I suggest that you acquaint yourself with the content guideline at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and the policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability before you run afoul of the policy at Wikipedia:Edit warring. Donald Albury 17:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out specifically the sources used that are not Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Many of the facts listed are supported by one or more sources, all of which are reliable. I have not engaged in Wikipedia:Edit warring as I am set out to correct and update the information available about Robert (doll). I appreciate the input from other editors as suggestions for improving the page and increasing chances to expand our knowledge, when it is relevant and useful. Gabriellemcnell (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've given examples of the problematic sources in my initial edit summary and you have also mentioned them in your comments above. I'm sorry if you disagree, but again I suggest you may be unfamiliar with the nuances of the encyclopedia's editorial policies regarding WP:SENSATIONAL coverage of fringe topics. Another policy you may not understand is WP:SOCKing, since both Gabriellemcnell and Dolltender accounts have been attempting to insert identical text into the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I mentioned in my comment above can easily be removed without altering the text they support as I've included other sources alongside them that are Wikipedia:Reliable sources, such as local news outlets, the New York Post, Variety, Contemporary Books, and more. I do understand the WP:SOCKing policy and can assure you I am a completely separate editor than @Dolltender. I attempted to remove the sources that you listed as inadequate but you were quick to revert any changes I could make. I'm struggling to understand your unyielding stance on keeping Robert's page incomplete. The information I attempted to update is quite similar to that of @Dolltender's edit because the information has not changed as it is historically accurate. Please let me know exactly what information within the article is leading you to view it as sensational. Gabriellemcnell (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you've offered take WP:EXTRAORDINARY supernatural claims at face value. The fact that no relevant experts have bothered to produce analysis and criticism of these claims indicates the claims themselves are WP:UNDUE and not notable enough for encyclopedic treatment. Wikipedia articles aren't meant to consist entirely of credulous anecdotes, "allegedly"'s, and "so and so claims this" and "so and so claims that" sentences. If there is no non-credulous commentary about the topic there is little to base an article on except claims. If the topic is culturally significant it should be easy to find some serious journalism or academic opinion that says so. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Donald Albury. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Robert (doll) have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Donald Albury 17:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Donald Albury, thank you for your continued efforts in making Wikipedia an informational source. I can assure you the information I attempted to include in my most recent edit to Robert (doll) is factual and supported. I am working with the Key West Art and Historical Society who are the foremost experts, and rights holders, on Robert. Please let me know what specifically is alerting you regarding the sources and information I've attempted to update. I've been working to update Robert's page to include the most accurate and up to date information available, with much pushback. Gabriellemcnell (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, as the Key West Art and Historical Society has a financial interest in Robert, nothing that they publish about the doll is an independent, reliable source in the meaning defined at Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Questionable and self-published sources, and thus cannot be used as a source for the article. Second, as you state that you have been working with the society, you may have a conflict of interest with the society and the topic of this article. If you have a relationship to the society as defined at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#What is conflict of interest?, you must declare the conflict of interest, and are strongly discouraged from editing this article. Please state here the nature of your relationship to the Key West Art and Historical Society. Donald Albury 19:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand me here. The KWAHS interest in Robert is solely for preservation and accessibility purposes. There is no financial motive for them regarding Robert. The instances where they are cited to support factual information is further supported by other independent sources such as The New York Post, Variety, Ancestry, etc. I am an independent editor, the scope of my work with the KWAHS is solely for access to their primary source documentation behind Robert and permissions for sharing information on Robert that was previously confidential. Beyond that, I have no affiliation with them and am free to edit this article with the sole intention of correcting his cultural significance and historical background. As the KWAHS owns the rights to Roberts historical origins, I had to go through them for the correct information to be accessible to the public. There are many legends and misinformation circling Robert the Doll, the KWAHS is simply a primary source for the real, and documented, origins behind Robert. Gabriellemcnell (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Robert (doll). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Donald Albury 01:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]