Talk:Jamie Beaton

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that New Zealand born entrepreneur Jamie Beaton applied to the world's top 25 universities and received an offer from each? Source: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/how-to-be-accepted-into-a-top-us-uni-by-somebody-who-has-done-it/news-story/982939f4fbffba6b4dafa2ca4ec65a9c#:~:text=When%20Jamie%20Beaton%20was%20finishing,secrets%20in%20a%20new%20book.
  • Reviewed:

Created by MaxnaCarta (talk). Self-nominated at 23:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC).

• Happy to review this one; I've always had an interest in this guy as a young Kiwi entrepreneur and "tall poppy", and was impressed by the article and how well-written/neutral it is. Article is new enough, long enough, well-cited and has no other eligibility problems. No issues from Earwig check. QPQ appears to not be required as your second DYK nomination (although please let me know if I've got that wrong!).

• The hook is interesting and cited. I note I don't have access to the provided source for the hook as it requires a subscription. I can approve it on an AGF basis but wondered if you could provide me with the wording of the text supporting the hook? (I just want to check that it says this definitively, rather than being simply a claim by Beaton.)

• Some minor comments:
  • Suggest just 'New Zealand' instead of 'New Zealand born'.
  • I think these sentences in the lead might fit better in the body of the article in the 'Early life' section: "The son of property managers, Beaton was born and raised in Auckland where for the first 7 years of his secondary education he attended Saint Kentigern School, then completing the final four years at King's College on an academic scholarship.[1] He was the valedictorian of King's College on graduation.[2]"
  • Per MOS:LEADREL, any significant information in the lead should usually be covered in the remainder of the article. I think details about his Harvard degree and that he completed it in only three years fits in this category.
  • I'm not sure the two images used in the article add much value or are significant enough to Beaton himself, and I would personally probably not include them, bearing in mind MOS:PERTINENCE.

• Thanks again for your great work on this article, and hope all of the above makes sense. Only the request for the text supporting the hook is really critical to me approving the nomination. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• • Comment. Both the hook and the article have neutrality issues. The source used is a book review that repeats an assertion from Beaton. The world's top 25 universities according to whom? Beaton's business is university preparation; I don't think it's appropriate to repeat this claim in Wikipedia's own voice as it virtually amounts to free advertising. A further claim in the article about Beaton's degrees is totally unsourced. The article also includes several other promotional assertions about Crimson's business. ITBF (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
    • @ITBF: Thanks for your comments! I have added a source for the further claim in the article about his degrees, and done some other tweaks based on sources. As noted, I wanted to check the source wording for the hook before approving, but given that I took a different view on the article's neutrality, I'm going to suggest that a second reviewer be required once the issues I raised have been addressed.
    • @MaxnaCarta: apologies and hope the above is still helpful. I also note that it might be worth double-checking that the degrees listed in the infobox are covered by the sources in the article. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Have found another source for the hook quote, and suggest slight rewording:

ALT0a: ... that New Zealand entrepreneur Jamie Beaton applied to 25 of the top-ranking universities in the world and received an offer from each? Source: "He had actually applied to 25 of the world's highest-ranked universities, and all had said yes." BBC News

Appreciate this doesn't resolve all your concerns, ITBF. Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Chocmilk03: thanks for the work you did! I think the hook is perfectly appropriate. It is neutral. Not neutral would be "Jamie Beaton achieved the astounding feat of applying to wonderful universities and this makes him special". That he applied to 25 of the worlds top 25 universities is a fact that has been repeated by multiple reliable sources. Now that you sourced the BBC, a perennially reliable source, the hook is appropriate. Regarding "free advertising", I disagree with that premise. Advertising means describing or drawing attention to a product in a public medium in order to promote sales. "In order" is the key word here. Beaton has primarily become notable on the back of his company. Hence, a description of his business empire and what it offers is essential in writing a complete article about him. This may well have the side effect of drawing attention to his business, but the same could be said for an article on a phone that describes its products and features. I have not given undue weight to the business, remained neutral, and also mentioned the legal issues the business has faced. On balance, I see no violation of WP:NOT. @ITBF:, does this address your concerns? If you have any concerns, please could you identify a solution that would address them? I've been on a break for a wee while so haven't got round to applying. Hopefully this is now okay to proceed. Thanks all! MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Article is ready for a second reviewer for ALT0a. My assessment as first reviewer was that the article was appropriately neutral, and I remain of this view. I've just made some other amendments to the article (hope you don't mind MaxnaCarta!) to address my concerns above about the lead and because on review there were a few other points that I felt could be stated in a more neutral way (e.g. to say "Crimson states that it does X" instead of "Crimson does X"). Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Chocmilk03: thanks! Of course I don't mind lol. I do not own the article, and if it did, you're doing my work for me . Hopefully ITBF will be the seconder if they can. I'm still gonna work through your issues mentioned regardless of the nom, eventually to get it to GA standard. It's probably a way off that though and I'm prioritising another article for GA atm. Cheers for the feedback. All to do is wait now. I hope you are safe and nowhere near Auckland...MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I think some more attribution as to whom thinks these are the top 25 would be helpful in the hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: The source itself says this. Not sure "according to the Australian" would help? Maybe we could change it to "25 of the world's top universities"? Because it is true that the top 25 varies depending on list. Thoughts? I'm open to any suggestions!. @Chocmilk03: any ideas from you? MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

...This is actually already the alternative hook already I guess.MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Any updates on this? It has been a month since the nomination's last comments. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• New reviewer still needed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I actually think it's worth writing out the last version of the hook mentioned by Maxna Carta, which to me is slightly better than ALT0a, because it's not necessarily saying it's "THE" top 25:

• ALT0b: ... that New Zealand entrepreneur Jamie Beaton applied to 25 of the world's top-ranking universities and received an offer from each?
• ALT0c: ... that New Zealand entrepreneur Jamie Beaton applied to 25 top-ranking universities and received an offer from each?

Personally I just don't think it's that interesting (!!!). If you can get into 5 top-ranking universities, it's highly likely you could get into more of them, if you're bothered to apply. In the end, you can only go to 1. Oh...unless you're Jamie, in which case maybe you do find a way to Hermione Granger your way to multiple schools. Here's my proposal for a fresh hook:

• ALT1: ... that at the age of 27, New Zealand entrepreneur Jamie Beaton had degrees from Harvard, Stanford, Oxford, and Tsinghua University, and was working on his 7th degree from Yale?

@MaxnaCarta, Chocmilk03, and Theleekycauldron: Thoughts? Cielquiparle (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: Thanks for taking a look at this one! My goal with ALT0a was to try to avoid saying they were "the top 25", so if that failed, definitely happy to revise per your ALT0b/c. But tbh I think your hook ALT1 is better anyway. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Chocmilk03: Since I wrote ALT1, could you please give it a green tick? Please do check the article to make sure the fact is fully covered in the hook...I'm pretty sure now it does...but if further edits are needed, let us know. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: I'd normally be happy to, and agree the hook meets the criteria. Part of the reason though I called for a second opinion was because of the comment by IBDF that they didn't think the article was neutral. That made me nervous! I've gone and had another look and I still stand by my previous opinion, but wondered if you would be willing to weigh in on that aspect of things, as a previously uninvolved editor? Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Chocmilk03: Thanks for your conscientiousness. The article to me is neutral. Where I actually agree 100% with ITBF is that the claim about applying to 25 top-ranked universities and getting an offer from each of them, stated as fact in wikivoice, seems inappropriate, even if BBC News and The Australian appear to accept it as fact. (I've now modified that sentence in the article to say, "According to Beaton...") Even though it is very likely true in this particular case, this is the kind of fact that is usually unverifiable for data protection and privacy reasons. (It's possible that Beaton has all 25 acceptance letters framed and has shown them to the journalists, but it's not mentioned in the BBC News article and I don't have access to The Australian...and that still wouldn't account for any rejection letter or waitlist letters that didn't get framed; you would still have to take him at his word.) In any case, it sounds like a (self-aggrandising) claim that anyone could make about themselves, plus it sounds slightly ridiculous (as I was saying before, who cares??? it's not saying that you got degrees from 25 schools...and many people get offers from lots of schools and usually choose to keep it private). For Beaton personally, it was a claim that helped him get funding for his business to begin with, and get customers, but we don't have to keep repeating it for him as such a remarkable achievement/fact that it deserves a DYK hook, etc....plus in real life, he has earned actual degrees since then and built a business. I have now struck all versions of ALT0, so there's no confusion; I have also created "Crimson Education" as a redirect pointing to Jamie Beaton, so we're making it explicit that this biographical article also covers a commercial entity, and is subject to the rules covering article pages about businesses and WP:PROMOTION. Of course, the article can continue to be improved, but at the moment it seems "good enough". This probably was more of an answer than you were expecting, but thanks to your cautiousness, we've now made things a little better, so I'm happy for you to proceed with the final approval part. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: ALT1 approved; I've wikilinked the universities as I think that may be useful but happy if promotor wants to remove. Thanks heaps for your help; you've addressed the nervousness I had, and agree with your assessment of the 25 universities situation! Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle, Chocmilk03, and MaxnaCarta: Stanford University is not cited in our article and only appears as a wikilink in the infobox. After this is fixed I can promote. Bruxton (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

To speed things up, I added the information with a reference Bruxton (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jamie Beaton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Spinixster (talk · contribs) 01:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the start Spinixter. Give yourself some credit, I am sure you will be a great reviewer. It is not a complex bio so we should be okay! I'll start working on the feedback you left already. I do need to link those sources. I have been through a few GA's and I am always willing to act on feedback. Thanks! — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

This may be a little out of my league, but I'll be reviewing this. Comments are coming shortly, but I'll do the basics first.

• Copyvios: 9.9%, no issues because parts are common phrases.
• Sources: seems reliable, no red flags. I suggest linking the website of all the sources like the others (if there are ones), for example, Stuff to Stuff (website), National Business Review, etc.
  • Source 11 erroneously wikilinks to The New Zealand Herald (it is Stuff (website).)

Here are my comments.

• Lead:
  • I would expand the lead to include more information about Beaton per WP:LEAD, but that's not really needed fpr GA.
  • The lead says the company is Crimson Education, but the next sentence says the company is Crimson Consulting. Crimson Consulting is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Is this another name for the company, or an error? If the former, it should probably be clarified.

Y Done!

• Early life and education
  • The lead and infobox says that Beaton was born in 1995, but the information is not found in the body of the article.

Y - Well, I actually don't have a reliable source for his year of birth. I just know it's 1995 due to the age he is at certain years. But without a reliable source, it will be removed.

• • His mother separated from his father while she was pregnant with Beaton. Beaton's father was not involved in his upbringing. Both parents later remarried. The sentences, especially the latter ones, are quite short and could benefit from being merged.

Y done, now reads Beaton's mother separated from his father during her pregnancy and, subsequently, Beaton was raised without his father's involvement; later, both parents remarried.

• • Beaton joined Young Mensa and became its national coordinator. He also attended King's College on an academic scholarship. I suggest moving the second sentence to the front and clarified that he joined Young Mensa outside of school, per source. Currently, I think the sentences imply that he joined Young Mensa first and attended King's College later. I would also clarify that Young Mensa is a society.

Y Done

• • Beaton went on to study and complete six degrees, including a bachelor's degree and master's degree from Harvard University (graduating in 2016) and a DPhil from Oxford University, as a Rhodes Scholar. This sentence is unsourced. I would also clarify what a DPhil is (or just state that it's a Doctor of Philosophy degree instead of an acronym, like the other degrees) and remove brackets so that it's more formal.

Y removed as there is actually no appropriate source confirming the completion of a dphil anyway

• • He took three years to complete his bachelor's and master's degrees in applied mathematics from Harvard, with the typical time to complete the course being five years. Instead of a separate sentence, you can merge parts of the last sentence with it, ex. Beaton went on to study and complete six degrees, including a bachelor's degree and master's degree in applied mathematics from Harvard University, which took three years rather than the customary five years, and graduated in 2016. and continue with the other degrees.

Y Done

• • He also earned two degrees from Stanford University and he received a master's degree in global affairs from Tsinghua University in Beijing. Remove the second "he" as it's not needed.

Y Done

• • He is completing a seventh degree at Yale Law School. Per MOS:REALTIME, I'd say that the information is true as of the source's date, ex. As of 2022, ...

Y Done

• Business
  • I suggest making the first sentence clearer and more concise, ex. In 2013, Beaton founded Crimson Education, a company that helps to prepare students for admission to prestigious universities, with Fangzhou Jiang and Sharndre Kushor.

Y Done

• • The source says the company is valued at 60 million in New Zealand dollars, not 70, with Beaton's share prized at around 40.5 million. Saying that Beaton owns just under half of its shares would be original research since the source does not say he owns under half of its shares. It does say that Beaton is the company's biggest shareholder, so that can work instead.

Y Done

• • Customers of Crimson Education have reportedly paid tens of thousands of dollars for tutoring services when attempting to gain entry to an Ivy League school. I would also remove "tens of" so that it's more natural.

Y Done

• • Suggest merging the second and third paragraphs together as one-sentence paragraphs are not encouraged.

Y Done

• • Crimson Education chose not to comment on the assault claim filed by Beaton. Regarding the litigation, Crimson stated it was not unusual for companies like Crimson to "experience some commercial litigation". Remove "Regarding the litigation" so that it's less repetitive.

Y Done!

• Personal life and politics
  • After losing the 2020 election, the centre-right New Zealand National Party announced a review into its election campaign, and Beaton sat on the review panel. The sentence is confusing. Try something like Beaton sat on the review panel of the centre-right New Zealand National Party's election campaign after the party lost the 2020 election.

Y Done!

That's all for now. I'll be putting this review on hold. Spinixster (chat!) 09:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Spinixster all done, thanks for the comments. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my concerns. I just have another thing that I didn't notice in my first review. The lead says: Since founding the firm, Beaton had acquired several other enterprises which operated in partnership with Crimson Education., but the body does not seem to say that Beaton has acquired other enterprises, and per MOS:LEAD the lead should reflect what's in the article. Can this be clarified and/or changed? Spinixster (chat!) 07:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Done, thanks @Spinixster I removed that — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, passing now. Spinixster (chat!) 07:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article issues

Hello, there are a few issues with this article that I think are worth raising to obtain consensus on:

(1) the article frequently refers to Beaton's Crimson Education as having obtained a "valuation" of certain figures. I think its important that we qualify that these valuations are occurring in the context of Venture Capital funding rounds; these aren't necessarily whole-of-business valuations being made for the purpose of an acquisition. The importance of this is: just because Tiger Management happens to think that 10% of a business is worth $100M, that doesn't mean the business is going to be valued at $100M to the wider market.

Adding the qualifier 'post-money valuation' flags this issue to the reader and avoids misleading them.

(2) Beaton's stake in the business as of 2022 is unclear. I think its worth including a sentence that his present stake in the business is unknown; although his stake in 2016 was around half.

(3) Alot of the attention upon Beaton (especially the media attention) focuses on his numerous amount of credentials from elite universities. I think this is part of what is driving his media interest, the coverage, and hence his notability. I think its worth including a paragraph in the opening to reflect this, reading: "Beaton has received media attention for obtaining an remarkably large number of credentials from various elite international universities. He has obtained degrees from Harvard, Stanford, Tsinghua, a PhD from Oxford, and is studying law at Yale."

What do we think?

Jack4576 (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jack4576: I agree with you that (1) could be clearer in a couple of places. How about "In 2016, the enterprise was valued by investors at over NZ$75 million"? It's already clear that the US$550 million valuation is based on venture capital, I think.

(2) doesn't seem needed to me as long as it's clear that it was only as of 2016 that his stake was known to be around half, which I think is currently the case. (3), I'm neutral on but would delete "remarkably"; that it's a large number is enough. Others may have different views on all of this, of course. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

For (1) I’d prefer: “In 2016, the enterprise was given a post-money-valuation by some investors at over NZ$75 million” Jack4576 (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jack4576: Hmm, I'm not keen on the phrase "post-money valuation" as it seems like quite a technical term (I've never heard it before). Is there an alternative way of phrasing this? Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It is a technical term indeed… it’s the precise term for the type of valuation that’s happening.

How about, “In 2016, some investors bought a stake in the business, which they valued at over NZ$75 million”

what do you think? Jack4576 (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Additional issues

(4) Beaton has a doctorate from Oxford, and so I think the article should start "Dr Jamie Beaton" rather than merely 'Jamie Beaton'.

(5) I think we should remove the sentence "According to Beaton, he then applied to 25 of the top universities in the world and received an offer from each", as he is not a RS for this claim.

Thoughts? Jack4576 (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jack4576: In relation to (4), MOS:PHD says "Academic or professional titles (such as "Dr." or "Professor"), including honorary ones, should only be used with the subject of a biography if that subject is widely known by a pseudonym or stage name containing such a title (whether earned or not)". Beaton is not widely known as "Dr Jamie Beaton", therefore he should not be referred to in the lead of the article in this way, although the article can of course mention his doctorate.

In relation to (5), my view is that the statement is fine as currently worded. It says "According to Beaton" which is correct. It is a claim that he has made (and that has been widely repeated by other sources). If the sentence just said "He applied to 25 top universities and received an offer from each", that would be a problem. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks User:Chocmilk03, appreciate your input Jack4576 (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi @Jack4576 and @MaxnaCarta: I thought I'd bring the discussion here given there seems to be some disagreement. I personally largely prefer the previous wording of the article, although the substance hasn't changed. In some ways there's not much to choose between them, but given the article has GA status I think making major changes to wording should be discussed on the talk page first, ideally. Some immediate comments:

(1) For the first sentence, I don't think anything was wrong with the previous version (Jamie Beaton is a New Zealand entrepreneur who founded an education mentoring enterprise, Crimson Education, at age 17) except that it didn't link to Crimson Education directly. It seems a bit far to say he is "primarily known" for this as this is arguably our interpretation of the sources (one could arguably say he's equally known for having obtained so many degrees). Crimson Education's role in his life is clear enough from it being the first thing mentioned about him and from the article. I also think it is over-linking to link the common word "company".

(2) The previous version read better to me because the company's valuation was given chronologically, i.e. starting with the lower valuation in 2016 then covering the higher valuation in 2022. I don't necessarily have an issue with giving the NZ$ valuation instead of US$ but it would be good to be consistent with the two valuations.

(3) It is not necessary to add sources to the lead where points are not controversial and covered adequately in the body of the article, see MOS:LEADCITE. It could perhaps be useful to include a citation for the 2022 valuation of the company given that this is quite impressive.

(4) I'm not necessarily opposed to mentioning his multiple degrees in the lead, but the use of the word "obtention" is quite unusual and reads awkwardly. I'm also slightly uncomfortable with the phrasing "elite international institutions" as it's a bit WP:PEACOCK-y.

Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies this is the first time I have ever tagged an admin. I do not get involved in content disputes. It's not what I am here for. While no editor owns an article and I understand Jack has a right to edit this, I created this article, I had it put through DYK, I did the work in getting it put through a GA nomination. Jack has taken it upon himself to remove the GA tag of his own accord, make edits I feel are inconsistent with policy, and now appears to be engaging in further inappropriate behaviour by persistently making edits he feels are better without discussing on the talk page despite the article having been reviewed. There is an unlimited amount of other work he could be doing, and yet he just keeps going back to his standard conduct of finding articles others are trying to work on, making an edit they disagree with, endlessly restoring his preferred version, and engaging in lengthy and verbose discussions that get nowhere. Please note that many people have edited articles I am the primary contributor to, and it has never before resulted in anything other than cooperation. In fact, I regularly seek peer review on work for improvement. I personally find it difficult to perceive Jack's contributions as constructive or positive. Any guidance is welcome. My preferred outcome is that Jack is asked to focus on something else, if possible. I simply do not want to work with him, as I believe it will not get anywhere. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You rollbacked a series of edits, twice, without once bothering to engage in a talk page discussion.

If you ‘simply’ don’t want to work cooperatively with other editors, then that’s on you. I’m happy to engage constructively and reach consensus.

and your complaint that I removed the GA tag is silly. I was the one who immediately restored it upon realising my mistake. I don’t know why you keep bringing this up as an issue.

Jack4576 (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure, happy to follow consensus since it appears that multiple editors disagree with my drafting here. Jack4576 (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, User:MaxnaCarta, I'm honored I guess! Jack4576, you weren't drafting in the article, you were editing it. If you are happy to follow consensus, then I think you wouldn't have a problem reverting your recent revert, and doing the drafting here or in a sandbox. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Rolling back a series of good faith and constructive edits, without any talk page engagement or explanation, isn’t a good way to go about rollbacking. Jack4576 (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh and please don't link "company". Drmies (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I thought it was important for readers to understand the distinction between a private company, and public company here; but sure. Jack4576 (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Chocmilk03 by “previous wording” , do you mean the one with my edits that Maxnacarta rolled back?

Or the wording prior to my edits? Thanks Jack4576 (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Jack, I am making a request. Please restore version 1214624369 and find something else to do other than focus on the minute details of this article. That's what I am asking. Then you can end this discussion and focus on improving the many dozens of articles you have created instead of worrying about this. I keep bringing up the removed GA status because, to me, it really demonstrates your spirit of conduct: supremely confident in doing whatever you feel is OK to an article in a breach of guidelines and etiquette without discussion (but expecting others to discuss before they revert your mistakes).

You then double down on finding other "errors" in an article that are, at most, ambiguous and usually just incorrect interpretations of guidelines. You have not seen me make a claim that Beaton flew to the moon and removed it; you are picking at straws.

I'd just prefer that you leave me and anything I am working on alone. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

How about, we simply clarify what the consensus is that has been reached here, and follow it.

Set your personal feelings aside please. I treat you like any other editor and I ask that you do the same. Jack4576 (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jack4576: For clarity, I was referring to the previous version here, which is the same as version 1214624369 referred to by MaxnaCarta. I think best to roll back to that version and discuss anything more substantive on the talk page if necessary so we can see if consensus can be reached.

This is an article that's been peer reviewed as a Good Article, so I do think that the person seeking to make substantial changes to existing content should seek consensus on the talk page first. (Not always, for example I don't think that's the case for adding new information or correcting obvious mistakes or things like that, but definitely in this case.) Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Chocmilk03, happy to follow this consensus Jack4576 (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)