Talk:Charity Dean

June 2021
Hello. I see that with the 4 edits you made today, every single one of my changes was reverted. To provide further explanation for the changes, please consider: Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a concern of the article being used as WP:COVERT advertising for The Public Health Company, rather than focussing on the individual.
 * The website link is not in accordance with WP:EL.
 * Linking to multiple faculties of the same university seems like WP:PUFFERY.
 * The article reads like a resume, rather than an encyclopedia article- hence the Fanpov tag.
 * Hi, thank you for following up - I made multiple edits so I could review and explain each change to your one edit with an edit summary , , , . I think the concern that led to the article getting listed on the 2021-05-15 WT:WPSPAM list is due to how it appeared on May 14, 2021 , which is very different than how it appeared after it was extensively revised, including by myself . After the revisions, the article had an extensive and reliably sourced discussion of Dean and her career, and one line with four three independent and reliable sources discussing the Public Health Company, so the WP:COVERT concern appears to have been addressed before (and after) your edit.
 * Per WP:ELYES, Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any, and as far as I can tell, the Public Health Company is currently her official site.
 * I believe that linking to her actual universities is not WP:PUFFERY, because she did not attend Tulane University for an undergraduate degree, she attended the Medical School for an MD and the School of Public Health for an MPH, both of which are reliably sourced and have their own Wikipedia articles. It seems much less helpful for readers to imply she did not attend medical school or earn an MPH, particularly in the context of her work as an epidemiologist.
 * The article is written in prose-style, not a bullet-pointed resume simply listing her accomplishments, so from my view, it does not look like a resume, and the Fanpov-tag does not seem appropriate for resume-style articles. I can work on adding more content from the multiple independent and reliable sources to expand the article, but the Fan pov tag, (i.e. implies that the content is unimportant and that the contributor's judgment of the topic's importance is clouded by fanaticism. Thus, use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil) does not and did not seem applicable to this article before the addition of the tag.
 * Based on this explanation, I will revert the article to the way it was before your edit, but I welcome further discussion if you wish to discuss specifics. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No you don't, so please spare me the hollow platitudes. By reverting my edits every step of the way, you are WP:STONEWALLING this article, which shows a lack of respect for other editors. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * But I have continued to revise the article based on the concerns you raised, as I understand them, and have asked you to further discuss specific concerns. I am trying to show you respect by engaging in detailed discussion and responding to each of the points you have raised, including with further revisions. I apologize for appearing disrespectful, because that is not my intent. Beccaynr (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That is untrue, all of my changes remain reverted by you and the issues are still present. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The article has been marked as "OK" on the WT:WPSPAM list, and it remains unclear to me, based on the current state of the article, how one line of text stating that she co-founded the company, supported by three independent and reliable sources, in the context of the entire article that is otherwise focused on Dean, raises a concern per WP:COVERT. This does not appear to be a hidden ad, and the inclusion of the company website does not appear to be within the "deceptive" practices that the WP:COVERT guideline appears concerned with. If you have a specific concern that relates to this guideline, I would appreciate further explanation, because I have not been able to discern the issue based on only pointing to the guideline.
 * I also responded to the general link to the WP:EL guideline with a more specific part of the guideline that appears to support the inclusion, and I have asked you to specifically address any further concern, because it otherwise appears to be a valid addition to the article based on the guideline.
 * I could further explain why it seems important to provide specific information about her concurrent alma maters, which both have their own Wikipedia articles, but you have not explained how your concern still exists after my explanation.
 * And as I noted above, I have made a variety of revisions to the article to remove a questionable source, add more prose from existing sources, and add information from additional sources, which all appear to address the concerns about WP:COVERT or seeming like a resume. I continue to request that you identify specific concerns, because I am working to address the general concerns raised, both by making revisions to the article and by trying to better understand your concerns. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)