User talk:Moak7509

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Moak7509, 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:

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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Capitalismojo (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Forgive me for utilizing your kind invitation for assistance so rapidly, but I'm afraid I might be in need of assistance. I have a Wikipedia page (which I did not create) that has existed for several years, without incident. I am a college professor who writes extensively on gun policy, the presidency, and other subjects (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spitzer_%28political_scientist%29). Well, just within the last few days, a Wikipedia editor who identifies herself as Sue Rangell has apparently taken it upon herself to dismantle and distort the fairly brief entry about me. I understand the principles behind Wikipedia, but she has eliminated basic factual information (such as my academic degrees, various honors) and sought to paint me as some kind of gun control zealot. I favor the simplest, most straightforward, objective information, but this person seems unsatisfied with that. This debate has unfolded on the "talk" page behind my entry. I have responded, as have others who do not agree with what Rangell is doing, but I am, frankly, bewildered at what is going on. If you are disposed to do so, I would appreciate your perspective on this. Thanks much.Moak7509 (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia content should be based on reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For example, if no one but yourself and the organizations bestowing the honors has ever bothered to write about them, they probably are not all that important in the first place; discussing those honors on Wikipedia in the absence of third-party coverage would give them undue weight. I don't think the article had any reliable third-party sources before Sue Rangell started editing the page, and it's still heavily based on your own writings and the websites of organizations you are affiliated with. In such cases removing insufficiently sourced, arguably promotional content such as a list of honors is indeed appropriate. If you think such content should be contained in the article, you should point us (on the talk page) towards a third-party source we can cite for it. Huon (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. There were only two honors things, which by themselves are not a matter of great import. The elimination of my academic degrees was odd, as they constitute my academic credentials. I understand wanting to avoid promotional materials.Moak7509 (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]