User talk:NewAuth

Welcome![edit]

Hello, NewAuth, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Melcous (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Wendy Mayer, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: Thank you. However you seem to have overlooked that all sources cited were from official websites of accredited universities, academic organisations, journals etc. Please resist inferring such sites are not credible.

Conflict of interest guidelines for your reference[edit]

Hello, NewAuth. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Wendy Mayer, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Hello Melcous.

Please indicate where any information I have provided is inaccurate.
Instead of marking citation needed, you have instead assumed certain things about me, my motivation and about the subject. In my view, that is not editing, that is thought policing. May I please ask you to stop such unfounded accusations?
You state that third party academic or publisher sites about the subject are "too close" without explanation. In what way are they too close? Academic work is peer reviewed so you would expect acknowledgements and assessments of a scholar's work to come from other scholars or academic institutions.
By the same token, appointments are announced on relevant institutions' websites or their news organs. All organisations do that. The local charity in Portland doesn't announce appointments to a university in Paris, the university in Paris does.
I also looked at other bios of living scholars and I have used the same sorts of sources.
As far as I am concerned, if one outlines a person's academic career, you put in all relevant data not leave gaps because those gaps are in themselves misleading. I have provided third party evidence of the person's career to support what is on their online CV. In any case I also hold that a person's publicly available CV is an appropriate (and sufficient) source for outlining their career. If you think it isn't then you (and all wiki editors who hold the same view) are effectively calling that person and the thousands of other academics who have a publicly posted CV unreliable and/or a liar and that is HIGHLY libelous in my view and I for one do not intend to make such offensive assumptions or unfounded accusations.
Ditto if you think that academic institutions publish untruths on their websites when they announce appointments etc.
So again, on what basis do you make such evaluations and accusations? I see nothing in the wiki guidelines that prevents me from citing these sources
Even when I provide sources you remove them. For example, I noted that this scholar is frequently acknowledged by new and emerging scholars and linked to two third-party examples of such acknowledgements (I can link many more) but you removed them!

So in summary:

---the article that was on wikipedia before I rewrote it was blatantly wrong and entirely unsupported and yet those errors and omissions were never flagged by wikipedia editors; ---when I attempted to update and correct the entry, you removed information instead of flagging citation needed; removed information with supporting evidence from third parties; selectively edited this person's career path; failed to adequately explain your actions or provide proper examples of what is acceptable and/or why sources did not meet wiki guidelines; accused me, and indirectly the subject, all academics and academic institutions, of nefarious motivations. I do not know who you are or what your status is but since you are unable to properly explain to me what the problem is with my updates and sources, could you please pass this on to someone who can? Thank you.

Don't forget to strike the tilde key four times at the end of your messages, just after your final word. That will insert your screen name and the date into the message. If you don't do this, other editors will become annoyed and fitful. Thanks. I'm sure you will learn Wikipedia's ways with time. Best wishes, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]