User talk:VoiceMatters

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for your contributions. Please do remember to add edit summaries so that other editors can understand the reasons for your changes. Thanks. BEst wishes Span (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Span. Will do. VoiceMatters (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more things to bear in mind: you can make many changes in one go (noting them in the the edit summary), you don't have to make one change per edit. Also, WP:BLP - the policy governing biographies of living people - is very careful about the privacy of an article's subject. The guideline stays:

Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

WP favours secondary sources over primary sources - that is journal or newspaper reports of events, biographies, text books and the like that offer a synthesised view. Using primary sources like birth records or trial transcripts can represent an invasion of privacy or original research. You may wish to take a neb at WP:OR. I hope this makes sense and that you will appreciate that WP doesn't want to get into any legal hot water. Let me know if you have any questions or need any help. Best wishes and happy editing. Span (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for the advice. Question on providing court records... would it be acceptable to provide a court docket reference without a live link?VoiceMatters (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that personal records should not be given as sources, linked or not. The idea with sources is that they are verifiable, ie readers can go off and check their veracity. If editors are putting together primary sources to make an argument, this may count as original research. WP:BLPPRIMARY is very specific about trial records. This is especially sensitive because it is the article of a living person. You'd need to find a secondary report of the trials. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is the place to get detailed answers about WP:BLP, though not all editors may agree with the responses. WP editors aim to keep a neutral point of view much as you might find in Britannica articles. Sentences such as "In the United States, he became instant fodder for talk shows" are editorialised. 'Fodder' is a pretty loaded word.

By the way, shows, magazines, books, albums and the like are given italics; eg Oprah Winfrey Show, The Great Gatsby, Phantom of the Opera. Short poems, articles, essays, songs, short stories etc are given quotations marks; eg "Walk This Way", "I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud", "The Aleph (short story)". Also, punctuation always comes before a reference, not after. I hope that helps. It's a lot to take on board. Span (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry... I was editing a section and might have overwritten what you were doing by accident. I am working on trying to tidy up and make the changes you mentioned above. I will also research secondary sources to replace the court records. VoiceMatters (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My fault. I should have let you get on with it instead of fiddling about. I'm off to bed. Thanks for all your work on the article. Have some pie to help your editing along. Best wishes Span (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be four or five personal records that would need to be removed or replaced. It seem that you have already found some replacements. Span (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am working on trying to find non-court docket records to support the facts. I'm glad you pointed out that even court records are public, that they should be avoided on Wikipedia. VoiceMatters (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Are you interested in working the article up to good article status? I'm not recommending it; just wondering. Span (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds really good. I think this article will qualify. I'll try to get replacement links for the remainder of the court record refs by the end of day. Thanks for all of your assistance and pointers! VoiceMatters (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have access to great resources, interest and patience. If you are willing to put in the time, GA can be very satisfying (if sometimes a frustrating process). I must flag up that conflict of interest editing is strongly discouraged by WP. That is - editing by the subject of an article, someone close to them or professionally involved. I'm not suggesting that this is you, just putting it out there. You seem to be editing in a very neutral way. More thoughts - at the moment there is a strong leaning towards viewing Beattie's story through the lens of the media. Usually the personal narrative is told straight, like you might expect in Britannica, and media appearances feature separately. It's not 'wrong' as is, but the article as is seems to be a lending great weight to media perception or gives the impression that he pitches himself as a celebrity. It's an interesting, serious and important biog, so I guess I'd prefer to put Beattie, rather the media take, front and centre. It's a small point. It's probably best to transfer article discussions to the article talk page from here on out, so all editors can participate in decisions. It's looks like becoming a strong article. Cheers Span (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a plethora of info out there and it's hard to sift through, but google is very informative. I purely have an interest in expanding the Beatie article on WP since it seemed to be lacking info. It seems that most all of the Beatie coverage is through the lens of the media. How do you suggest he be put front and center without involving the obvious sources of information found in his media appearances and discussions of him? Thx VoiceMatters (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the publicity aspect deserves a focus as it's been such a big part of his story. I'll give it some thought. Span (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refs easier said than done, but I believe I have addressed the outstanding issues. VoiceMatters (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks Span (talk) 11:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Thomas Beatie may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It has now been addressed. VoiceMatters (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

This was a message automatically posted by a bot (robot) :0) Span (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, VoiceMatters. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]