Talk:Susan J. Elliott

Conflict of interest editing

Please update to include the just-released Getting Back Out There. The paperback is available and the electronic and audio versions will be available 1/27. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.44.101 (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

. Please help. There is a notice that someone close to the source may be contributing. I was asked by my publisher to source some recent articles about me and the book on here. They are all factual. It is all neutral.

I was merely footnoting and there are many more sources I could cite to keep the page relevant and up to date. I am being quoted constantly and if I did something wrong by adding these sources, I am sorry but please remove the warning at the top as the entire article is both factual and neutral. There is nothing in it that is hyperbole or self-promotion. In fact, there is so much NOT here because I don't want it to sound over the top. Please remove that warning. Thank you so much. Susan J. Elliott

I was just trying to keep my sources about me and my book and my work (esp my charitable work) relevant. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.182.89 (talk • contribs) — 108.6.182.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please do not write or add to an article about yourself, as you apparently did at Susan J. Elliott. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The subject of an article has a legitimate interest in ensuring the articles accuracy and balance. Please do not use template warnings in this particular situation. If there are further difficulties, please engage in thoughtful discussion with the subject, or the editor claiming to be them. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

the templates were created for the express purpose of ensuring that we are providing appropriate language and links to appropriate sources. If there is anything wrong, then the template itself should be modified. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. A template cannot properly serve every situation. They are written for the most common situations. When there is an uncommon situation, such as this one, use of a template can make matters worse. Jehochman ^Talk 12:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of the "editor claiming to be them" do we have a policy or other guidance on what to do when an IP is claiming to represent soeone? I ask because I have just looked at this [1] Look down in the comments section. People are attacking her and her work directly and we see someone claiming to be her reacting calmly and taking these rather harsh criticisms in stride. No YELLING IN ALL CAPS, no threats, basically nothing like what we have seen here on Wikipedia from a user claiming to be the same person. Do we just take this IP at their word? They could actually be a fan, a PR person, their mother, or even trying to pull a joe job on her. If this were ana ccount claiming to be them we might have blocked them for that and referred them to OTRS to verify their identity by now. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

We should always keep in mind that somebody saying they are the subject might not be, and avoid slapping COI tags on things based on the claims of an anonymous editor. There's no official policy I'm aware of regarding editors claiming an identity. Jehochman ^Talk 11:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I looked this author up as I was reading the book and a few articles on this person and then tried to edit a few things but saw it was locked, probably due to the hubbub here, but I suggest which I suggest some of you do who have edited here. Several issues. 1) a person who has passed the bar is an attorney, not a lawyer. She also is licensed in Texas and admitted there since 2003 though inactive as she does not live there any longer. 2) Phi Beta Kappa is an honor organization to which you are elected and are a lifetime member and it includes people such as Bill Clinton and many other notables - it's not a sorority as some editors here seem to think it is. You ARE a member of Phi Beta Kappa and it's an illustrious achievement especially coming from such as background as she did. It's not a membership you ever lose and it's a highly recognized achievement (LOOK IT UP ON WIKIPEDIA) 3) You misspelled her name in at least once instance. 4) My knowledge of this person is an incredible source of help throughout a difficult life including the illness and death of her husband and she started another blog to journal about that so as not to keep her "breakup" readers from feeling as if they could not share on the GPYB blog. From what looks like happened here, it's pretty lame to claim that biographies of living persons must be treated cautiously and then be wrong about this one. After seeing the mistakes in here and what seemed to have been a hubbub, the editors of the page just seem pretty petty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.138.242.235 (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

"a person who has passed the bar is an attorney, not a lawyer" That's nonsense. In American English, the two words are interchangeable, with "attorney" seen as the more pretentious/upscale word. We call lawyers lawyers, here; there is no such category as "Wisconsin attorneys" or "Tennessee attorneys": just "Wisconsin lawyers" and "Tennessee lawyers". --Orange Mike | Talk 18:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC), IANAL

It is not nonsense. Please see http://www.legalmatch.com/lawyer-or-attorney-difference.html If you do not know what you are talking about with regard to the legal profession, please refrain. Please cite sources that this is nonsense. I do not understand how Wikipedia "editors" can make such bald assertions such as "nonsense" when there is ample evidence to the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.108.230 (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It has been 5 years since Getting Back Out There was published. There was a simple request to have it added to the page and that has not been. What is the issue? Why does Orange Mike think that is turning the page into an autobiography? He obviously has some issue with this author and others I've seen him remove information. The published book is a neutral, factual thing. It's a book published by Hachette Books, who are one of the "big 5" publishers. Yet no one can check that publication easily on Amazon or the review from Publisher's Weekly? These are all factual, neutral and legitimate resources easily verified by typing in "Getting Back Out There" on an Amazon page. The person who wrote that the editors of this page were pretty petty is correct in that assessment. To not have a book that is easily verified and much of the author's work not acknowledged when a simple request to do so has been made, is TOTALLY petty. Why? Why is the second book not included and how do we get it there? Editors? (Not Orange Mike who has some vendetta against some authors - this one included. To OMIT books is to not source properly and it's not okey. Please add the second book and other, factual, neutral information about the author. </ref>Thank you. Jackieofalltrades123 (talk) 05:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)jack of all tradesJackieofalltrades123 (talk) 05:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Name/Subject Verification

Please note the author's name is spelled with two l's and two t's. The name is spelled differently throughout.

Please note the author has four children, not six as the article claims.

Please note the Michael A. DiCarlo Brain Tumor Foundation is a separate entity from the National Brain Tumor Society. Each year the Foundation forms a team to raise funds for the NBTS but they are separate entities and do not have a partnership as indicated in this article.

Please note the author is a member of Phi Beta Kappa, which is the world's most prestigious honor society and once elected, a member remains a member. Even Wikipedia's entry for former President William Clinton states he "was" a member of Phi Beta Kappa. This is indicative of a misunderstanding of Phi Beta Kappa which is an honor bestowed at graduation and continues through life. It is not a fraternity or sorority but rather a lifelong Honor Society and the most prestigious in the world.

The editing of this article is poorly done and does not comport with the guidelines for biographies of living persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.45.235 (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Can we get some sources for these assertions? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

1. How you SPELL someone's name is not an assertion. It is a FACT. If you look AT the footnote FOR THE BOOK, it clearly shows how the name is to be SPELLED. How can you be an editor and not check the reference? The subject's name is spelled out for the ARTICLE. The subject's name is listed ON THE BOOK. How can the spelling of a person's name be an assertion??? How can you EDIT an article and allow the spelling of the subject's name to shift throughout? Why is this sloppy editing allowed on Wikipedia? The SPELLING of the subject's name is not an assertion.

2. The author dedicates her book to her FOUR children. Again, this is not an ASSERTION, it is a fact. Please cite any material anywhere which shows this author has SIX children and not four. Please name these fictional other two children.

3. If you LOOK UP Phi Beta Kappa in WIKIPEDIA, it states, "The Phi Beta Kappa Society is the oldest honor society for the liberal arts and sciences with 280 active chapters in the United States. Widely considered to be the nation's most prestigious honor society, Phi Beta Kappa aims to promote and advocate excellence in the liberal arts and sciences and to induct the most outstanding students of arts and sciences at American colleges and universities.[1]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.108.230 (talk) 11:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Verification for "assertion" that Phi Beta Kappa is an honor society: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phi_beta_kappa 173.56.108.230 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

How can you continue to claim there are SIX children in the obituary. You are counting DAUGHTERS IN LAW. How many times do you have to told that your editors cannot read before you change it? 173.56.108.230 (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

You may not be aware that on Wikipedia, as in many other areas of the internet WRITING IN ALL CAPS IS CONSIDERED YELLING AND SCREAMING AND AS SUCH IS OFTEN JUST IGNORED. If this were not so it would be really easy to get seriously OBNOXIOUS by using some simple wiki-code and whoever knew how to shout the loudest would win. Make your point with references to reliable sources, not by yelling and insulting people, and you may find others more interested in listening to you. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

So, what I see in that obit is that Michael DiCarlo was the father of five children. The way it is phrased is a bit awkward but if you parse it out it says he was the father of Christopher, Michael, Nicholas, Theresa, and Gina. It doesn't say how many of this children, if any, were the product of his marriage to the subject of this article. As such I find that the number of children is improperly sourced and so per WP:BLP I am removing it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2022

Getting Back Out There 2015 by Hachette Book Group. Same author. 50.198.111.85 (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. AwfulReader (talk) 05:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2023

Susan passed away on February 6, 2023. https://www.tributearchive.com/obituaries/27237701/susan-jean-elliott 151.203.196.86 (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2023

Add date of death as February 6, 2023. Source: https://everloved.com/life-of/susan-elliott/obituary/ 2600:1702:3DC0:34D0:B0B9:1E95:1B39:DA77 (talk) 01:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

 On hold not a reliable source? I'm not sure. -Lemonaka‎ 01:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This obituary was (supposedly) written by her son (see bottom of page), which indicates that there is little or no editorial oversight or fact-checking on this. If I'm understanding correctly, anyone can publish an obituary on everloved. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I also found this source, but again, the reliability is iffy. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)