Skilmory58

Welcome!

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, Skilmory58, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Ingenium, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Best practices for editors with close associations
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style
The Teahouse, our help forum for new editors

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, visit the Teahouse, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Leventio (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for clarifying that. I was mostly trying to suggest that I had knowledge of the organization. I try to edit only things I know about, which was why I looked at their page. My sincere apologies. I didn't realize that this might be a conflict of interest. Please be assured that I received no money or other consideration for the edit. It was a spur-of-the-moment idea on my part. Also, thanks for the welcome! :) Skilmory58 (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

August 2024

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, Skilmory58. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page LeBreton Flats, 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 article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
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 Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
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, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 22:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your message. I was mostly just trying to say that I knew something about the area through previous associations. I try to edit only when I know about something. There is no compensation or promotion involved at all. :) Skilmory58 (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

David W. Barber moved to draftspace

Latest comment: 1 month ago13 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for your contributions to David W. Barber. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability, you may have a possible Conflict of Interest and most of the sources are primary. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. S0091 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your message. Any help is most appreciated. As a professional writer, editor and translator working with major institutions around the world, I confess that I find Wikipedia's rules somewhat mystifying at times, but I'm happy to learn. 😊

My questions regard the following:

"needs more sources to establish notability" — There are references to Who's Who in Canada and other high-level sources within the content, so I'm not sure what kinds of additional sources you require, or are looking for. Do you mean external non-Wikipedia references? If so, those are easy to insert instead of Wikipedia pages. My assumption was that you'd want people to stay on Wikipedia, but there are many more comprehensive external sites I could link to.

"possible conflict of interest" — I'm not sure I understand. This is a person I know only as a Toronto-based Canadian composer and author, and I have not accepted or requested any payment or other consideration for putting together this page. Can you tell me how Wikipedia defines conflict of interest? I've looked at Wikipedia's guidance on this, and I still don't understand how this is determined. To date, I've edited a number of Wikipedia pages where there is no conflict of interest (unless awareness or experience of something counts as a conflict), but I've been flagged three times now in various contexts.

"most of the sources are primary" — Is this because I verified some information with the person the page is about? If so, I felt it was better to contact them via their website to verify certain facts, given that this is about a living person. However, if that is not allowed, please let me know what Wikipedia considers acceptable non-primary sources and I will do my best to find some other way to source information. 😊

Thanks very much for your guidance. Skilmory58 (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I'm still waiting for a bit of guidance. I haven't found anything in the various Wikipedia resources to tell me what to do with the issues you've flagged. Any help you can provide in relation to these concerns would be much appreciated.

Thanks very much. Skilmory58 (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Skilmory58, I missed your initial query and likely editors who have left you messages have missed your responses because unless pinged the only way to catch it is through one's Watchlist and most editors have thousands of pages on their Watchlist. Not your fault because I am sure you do not know about pings but just explaining why. It's been a few days since I moved this to draft and I have looked looked at hundreds of articles and drafts in between so I need take the time to re-familiarize with this one in order to respond effectively. If you do not hear from me in the next couple days, click the "talk" link next to my signature and leave me a note on my talk page (i.e. bug me). In the interim, you may find Your first article helpful. S0091 (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your quick reply. It's much appreciated. 😊 I'm experienced in most forms of writing for public audiences, but I'm definitely a total newbie at writing for Wikipedia, so my apologies for making extra work for you, and definitely take whatever time you need. Have a great rest of the day. Skilmory58 (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

To address some of your questions, Who's Who in Canada is not a good source because of the lack of fact-checking. They publish what the subject says about themselves. Encyclopedia of Music in Canada does appear to be a reliable source, published by a reputable publisher. I don't have access so cannot determine the depth of coverage (full bio with critical commentary or just a listing with a couple sentences or so) but even so being included there is not enough establish notability own its own. The sheet music sites are commercial sites selling sheet music so poor sources and not helpful for establishing notability. The other sources are primary with some also not being independent (meaning they are affiliated with Barber), such as his publisher, employers, etc. While primary sources may be fine to use to support very basic facts, they cannot be used to establish notability and some them do not mention him so not helpful for supporting facts either (ex. https://www.torontochamberchoir.ca/ and https://nna-ccj.ca/award-archives/list-of-winners-since-1949/#3). In addition, much of the content is unsourced so fails verification.

Based on what you saying, it sounds like you contacted him and are using, at least in part, what he says. That is considered original research (read that) which is not allowed. What a subject says about themselves is not useful other than to help find sources. This also likely why a conflict of interest is suspected. An article should be largely based on what reliable independent secondary sources have written about him. In order to meet notability, the coverage also needs to be in-depth, not just brief mentions and multiple are needed (at the very least two but three is the norm...it depends on publication and depth of coverage). For authors and journalist (see WP:NCREATIVE), usually critical reviews of their work by reputable critics/publications are used to establish notability or winning a major award (like a Peabody). Similar for musicians (see WP:NMUSIC). S0091 (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you have access to newspaper archives or JSTOR? I did a quick search on ProQuest and JSTOR, there's one review for The Music Lover's Quotation by the Music Teachers National Association on JSTOR and quite a few in various newspapers for some of his work over the years. Some of those are by the Whig or other papers he worked for so want to stay away from those because they may not be viewed as independent but it looks like there are others. S0091 (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I forgot to reply about JSTOR. I don't have access to it myself, but I know a bunch of people who can probably provide me with access, or even source things for me.

Thanks for taking so much time to point me in the right direction. I truly appreciate it. 🙂 Skilmory58 (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here's the info:

Johnson, V. (2004). [Review of The Music Lover’s Quotation Book, by D. W. Barber]. American Music Teacher, 53(5), 90–91. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43516411

Wikipedia also has the Resource exchange so if you can't get a copy from elsewhere, you can certainly get a copy from there (someone will email it to you). S0091 (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much for this as well. I missed it earlier. This is very helpful. 🙂 Skilmory58 (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much for all this! I will look for other independent sources based on the useful links you've provided in both messages. David is well-known here, but not a worldwide household name. I spoke to him only to verify the sources/references I used, but I can see where speaking to him could be misconstrued as a conflict.

What you've provided is very helpful for me when it comes to learning what Wikipedia's rules might be. I normally write things like major museum exhibitions, UNESCO dictionary entries, massive websites and the like. Fact-checking using as many original sources as possible is essential for those types of things, particularly when they involve living people and existing organizations — you definitely get your wrists slapped otherwise! Hopefully I can adapt to Wikipedia and find the right kinds of non-original sources — your suggested links are a great place for me to start. 🙂

Thanks again for all your help. I will review the article again this week sometime and see if I can make it Wikipedia-worthy.

Have a great rest of the day. Skilmory58 (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see. Based on what you are saying, I don't think you have a WP:COI with Barber. You are doing what you would naturally do as an author but that not is what Wikipedia does. Wikipedia largely relies on secondary sources (what's already accepted knowledge, published by sources that has editorial oversight, been fact-checked, etc.). See WP:EXPERT, which is written for academics but some of it may resonate with you. Also, I changed the source about NNA award with the announcement in the Whig and updated the wording to align with what the source said (i.e. finalist and honorable mention). Though still a primary source, it also stated he started there in 1981 so it knocked out two birds as far as verification. If you are interested in expanding Wikipedia's coverage about museums, let me know. I can put you in touch with an editor here who has expertise in that area. I am also going to leave you another Welcome message given the first one was more about a possible COI and some of the info is probably not helpful. S0091 (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much for all this, and for going the extra mile with additional verification. That really is above and beyond. 🙂

Thanks also for the updated Welcome message. I will look at all of this again this week and will try to avoid anything that feels remotely like a conflict of interest, while also looking for more non-Barber sources.

As far as expanding Wikipedia's museum coverage, I think all of the museums with which I've ever interacted already have their own pages, so all I could probably do is perhaps correct a few things if I notice anything amiss. I've done that in a couple of places already, but again ran into "this is a conflict of interest" a couple of times. Wikipedia is a minefield for someone like me, haha!

Your help and guidance has been greatly appreciated from start to finish, and I also really appreciate the way you've tried to gently guide me and work with me. I've often heard that Wikipedia editors can be bullies, but you definitely don't fit that stereotype.

Thanks again! Skilmory58 (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Welcome!

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, Skilmory58!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, S0091 (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic