Talk:Alan M. Wald

Creation
Started --Aboudaqn (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Help!
One strives to write an objective biography -- and this is Wikipedia's response?

Help, please!

"Excessive or improper use of non-free material"
''This article may contain excessive or improper use of non-free material. Please review the use of non-free media according to policy and guidelines and correct any violations. The talk page may have details.''
 * I contest: please clarify and demonstrate.--Aboudaqn (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There is only one long quote--worthy of quoting for its unusualness.
 * If you refer to images from subject, I have written permission to post -- so perhaps I chose the wrong copyright selection? Please advise before taking any action.
 * The number of non-free images is excessive. (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * (talk) - PhilKnight, thank you for a reply, but what is a "non-free image," how many is "excessive," and what steps does one take to remedy those images that are somehow "non-free"? Gratefully - --Aboudaqn (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

"Promotes"
This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information.
 * I contest: please clarify and demonstrate.--Aboudaqn (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

"Connection"
A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.


 * I contest: please clarify and demonstrate.--Aboudaqn (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I was the article reviewer who added these tags to the article. I've had another look at the article, and here is what I can see:
 * I added the non-free material tag because I (correctly) suspected that a number of images on the page were not compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy. I see that those issues have been dealt with, and images deleted. So, I have removed the tag. Unfortunately my knowledge of the image copyright policies is not very good, so I suggest you try at the Help Desk if you have further questions.
 * Thank you, but it would be much more helpful if you (and Wikipedia) had clearer, easier guidelines to follow! How should one post an image for which one has received permission to post?  This happens so often on Wikipedia, one would think there would already be a click-through set of choices to expedite.  Please help ask Wikipedia for clearer, simpler facilitation of this process.
 * Meantime, Dr. Wald will email Wikipedia directly to have 3 images restored and the last one further corrected.
 * The "peacock" tag was prompted by phrases like "renowned expert" and "not only a professor but author and writer", which, although perhaps not deliberately promotional, certainly don't appear to come from a neutral point of view. So, I suggest you go through the article carefully and examine phrases which are perhaps a little more than factual in their description of Wald.
 * , you find "renowned" non-neutral? Next time, please simply edit it out yourself.  Meantime, please also note:  Dr. Wald is indeed renowned is his field by any definition of the word – or do you know of other American professors more expert in Communist literature of the 20th Century?
 * , I will not change "not only a professor but author and writer": this is factual.  If you know of a more "neutral" manner in which to express these facets of Dr. Wald, feel free to edit yourself--provided that you maintain the facts.  For that matter, I challenge you to add in further that he has been a lifelong political activist into the same sentence--neutrally and readably.


 * The "connection" tag I placed because of the combination of the peacock terms and the comments on images that had been "provided" to you by Wald. This certainly seems like you have at least some connection to him. I have no doubt that you intended to write a good biography, so I might ask you to declare here what your relationship to Wald is. I will remove the tag from the article.
 * , There is no "connection" other than that I contacted Dr. Wald and asked him for photos which me would permit for this entry. So much for "connection," and no indication of "closeness" therein.  Again, in future, please refrain from assuming; rather, ask first to know more before you judge or take action.


 * In short, while your article is very well researched and sourced, there's just a couple of issues which needed to be addressed. You need to remove the links to deleted images from the page, and double check it for less-than-neutral writing. Also, in future, don't make any comments on the article itself, just leave them on the talk page as you did. If you'd like to get a particular user's attention, use in your message, or use the help template again. Feel free to ask me if you have any further questions, Triptothecottage (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , in sum, use the Talk page first, before you strike out at or strike down items. And before you use the Talk page, read an entry more carefully.  Consider it.  Based on consideration, make informed decisions--not decisions caused by Wikibots.  Then, if there is something you can change yourself, please do so.  After someone has taken time and effort to start an entry, I strongly recommend that you fix what you can, if you can.  Certainly, you could have made the text-based edits yourself:  bottom line, please be more respectful of other people's time.  --Aboudaqn (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I certainly should have left a note for you on your talk page about the issues I noted; I apologise for not doing that and will do this when I review articles in future. I did read your article thoroughly, and as I said, it is well researched and thorough. The tags were not an indictment of you or your work but rather issues with the article that I felt needed to be addressed to bring it to Wikipedia's standards. I do not always have time to rewrite parts of articles that I feel are not quite neutral, and in any case, writers such as you are often able to use their knowledge of the subject to make the changes more effectively. Words like "renowned" need to be backed up by sources which are independent of the subject, and as far as I can tell, in this case they were not. As for the image permission question, I don't have any special influence over changing Wikipedia's policies in that area, and as I said above, I'm not too familiar with them myself. Another venue might give you a better response to your query. And just lastly, please don't edit my, or others', comments on talk pages to add emphasis in future; this could easily be construed as attempting to change the meaning and tone of my messages. Thank you, and I hope you continue writing excellent biographies such as this one. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)