User talk:Dsgarnett

February 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm MrOllie. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 11:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Timothy Ely, you may be blocked from editing. Plus WP:COI LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 14:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To Mr. Ollie: I have attempted to engage discussion in order to resolve our different viewpoint about what is “less than neutral”. However, you have refused to engage discussion. I will be reporting your disruptive behavior to Wikipedia.

This is not COI editing based on this being a BLP and my editing on behalf of the subject of the BLP. I have taken the appropriate care asked by Wikipedia in their directions for BLP.

Wikipedia thrives when viewpoints are balanced — not dictated by a busybody “the only answer is ‘no” editor. The factual truth in this material, you should note, is not merely from the subject but is backed up by published books (e.g. Johanna Drucker’s excellent “The Century of Artists Books” or the recent book from the Getty Museum on a wide range of book artists).

Do NOT move on attempting to ban — because I will respond in equal vehemence. I have edited pages carefully on Wikipedia for over a decade and taken great care in that work.

I would be pleased to engage in discussion. However, you appear to be unclear as to what constitutes opinion when those words come straight from the biographical subject.

What the page IS missing is any “critique” from an independent source commenting on this artist’s work. That would be a welcome addition and, as long as it is respectfully done, adds to the value of the encyclopedia.

For reference, BTW, you should look at the Artist Book page. It is a horrific, opinionated page filled with a single viewpoint about artist books. You have meddled there as well, though. So it appears that you may be attempting to drive YOUR opinion into this page.

Regards.Dsgarnett (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)dsgarnett[reply]

WP:NPOV is not an optional policy, even if you are being 'directed by the subject of the biography'. The place to report me would be at WP:ANI. I would recommend you have a read of WP:BOOMERANG first, though. - MrOllie (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to WP:BOOMERANG and WP:NPOV, I would also suggest that you familiarize yourself with WP:THREAT, WP:DISCLOSE, and if you are being compensated, or expect to be compensated for your edits to Wikipedia, WP:PAID. You may note that the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use prohibit paid contributions without disclosure. Compensation does not need to be monetary for WP:PAID to take effect. Quid pro quo also applies to this policy. Phuzion (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Timothy Ely. Any further WP:NPOV or WP:COI edits you make will very likely end in you getting blocked. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ollie — I have read the first part of the NPOV policies. Clearly this is one of hundreds of thousands on Wikipedia which is not as well sourced as it should be. I will work on improving that so that opinions, which are allowed, are in quotes (not Wikipedia voice) and sourced with references.

That will take some time. But I’d hope that rather than immediately rejecting any improvements to the page, we can engage on this to make it a far more useful part of Wikipedia than it has been (which is a pathetically poor page). Perhaps, too, we can discuss improvements to the Artists Book page — which is horrifically opinionated while appearing to claim neutrality. (Months ago you removes limited improvements because it was your POV that they violated policy.)

Dsgarnett (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Dsgarnett[reply]

If you can write about Artist's books neutrally and in general, I look forward to it. I'm sure you agree, heaping praise on any one artist in particular would not be appropriate per WP:NPOV, which you are now familiar with. Please read the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide as well and follow the suggestions about proposing edits to the biography on the talk page. We might be able to use some stuff in quotations, but that can't be used as an excuse to slant the whole article again. - MrOllie (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I had thought that was what I had done — merely add a few lines appropriate for his status in the market to a very long page. Given the policies I"m reading in depth, I will make another attempt with appropriate caution. I'm also preparing to add a small amount to the Wikipage for Timothy Ely himself — attempting to add small amounts to fit editorial policies. Look forward to your comments if those are inappropriate. The first addition will be in quotes and source from Yale Historian Johanna Drucker's book about Artist's Books.

For clarity, these are not paid additions. My work with my good friend Timothy Ely is simply to support him — as I have a skill set of use to him. This is work on his behalf and I am in daily contact with both Tim and his wife.

Cheers...

Dsgarnett (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)dsgarnett[reply]

Again, given the COI here, you should not edit anything about Ely directly. Use the talk pages and the {{requestedit}} procedure. - MrOllie (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I read the BLP guidelines, as long as I am up front (which I am) about doing this on behalf of the subject, it looks like I can do that carefully. My experience with these lesser read pages, too, is that the talk area is essentially unused. Right now, you and I are both active so it will be better. But, in general, things posted to the talk page lie unanswered for years for a page like this one.

All that to say: Just trying to help make this a far better Wikipedia article. Completely within the guidelines is my goal — using quoted opinions per the NPOV guidelines, etc.

I just posted a few changes with references to the books where the words are found. Let me know your thoughts. All that said, I will make clear my connection with Timothy Ely on the talk page so there's no question.

Dsgarnett (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)dsgarnett[reply]

Dude, just. just wait. whoever sees thsi help me tag, please read above and help this guy out. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 00:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think your reading of the guidelines is incorrect and if you keep on editing that article as you have been some passing administrator will eventually block you. The request edit template puts the page in a category that will draw neutral editors in to review the request, that's why the guidelines suggest you use it. I'll also note that at this point you are in violation of WP:3RR. - MrOllie (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you — THAT makes sense. Appreciate the clarification. This intricate web of Wikipedia stuff is quite difficult to transit when one isn't a full time Wiki person.

Dsgarnett (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)dsgarnett[reply]

BTW... I reverted a series because when I attempted to contact you in the past there was no reply — as I was attempted to sort out these same issues. Without those replies, when any step I took was reverted, I undid too many of the undid's you did (or something like that)... But the intent was that I need to find out — so that this page about a living artist can be improved and done so within Wikipedia guidelines.

Dsgarnett (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)dsgarnett[reply]

Hello Dsgarnett. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Talk:Timothy Ely, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Dsgarnett. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Dsgarnett|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. As per your comment here: My work is on behalf of the Timothy Ely — the subject of this BLP. Praxidicae (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being paid either directly or indirectly for assisting him with his Wikipedia page. When I say "on behalf of" there are things (in my semi-retired state) which I help him with because I'm good at it and Timothy C. Ely is a long time friend of my wife (another artist) and myself.

I am slightly befuddled, given this, by the comment regarding my dsgarnett page. It appears to indicate I don't need to post anything on my dsgarnett page. That said, I'm happy to do whatever is necessary for full disclosure. I am also quite cautious about what should be added and have spent time in my prior life helping pages reflect reality without being taken over by "for profit" additions.

Thank you for the clarification. I look forward to learning a bit more about my dsgarnett page.

Dsgarnett (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)dsgarnett[reply]

Dsgarnett Re-read it. Multiple times if necessary. You're still required to disclose your conflict of interest and you absolutely may not edit the article directly. Praxidicae (talk)

Just to be clear then, I should post recommended changes to the "Talk" page. From what MrOllie observed above, it sounds like he has added alerts on that page which means Wikipedia (somehow) will notice my recommended changes and process them relatively quickly. (My concern was that my experience with talk pages has been that they are where good ideas go to die. However, those pages were not positioned with the alerts.) Is this a correct understanding?

some advise[edit]

I suggest you follow the advice of Praxidicae and make the appropriate declaration. MrOllie's advise is also sound. Then put forward the case for amendments on the talk page of the article concerned for review by editors without a COI. If you want to see an example look at my page and read the referenced material at COI -----Snowded ^TALK 08:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]