Talk:Jim Moody

Please discuss significant changes
There have been some edits and reverts in the last few weeks and it appears that at least one non-logged-in editor is claiming to have a WP:Conflict of interest. Another editor has also called a logged-in editor a professional (i.e. paid) editor.

In the interests of avoiding edit wars and the possibility that this page will become protected in a way that prevents some editors from editing it or which prevents their edits from becoming immediately visible, I recommend that before making significant content changes to the stable version, please propose the change here and wait a day or two to see if there are any objections. I also highly recommend that any new information be backed by reliable, independent sources.

Editors with a conflict of interest should follow 71.22.254.178's example and declare the conflict of interest. They should also not make significant changes to the article at all unless specifically allowed to by Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline. Instead, they should propose changes here and politely ask that their proposed change be incorporated into the article. Proposed changes which are not well-referenced are likely to be rejected out of hand. Those which appear to be promotional in tone are likely to be rejected but they may inspire an editor without a conflict of interest to re-word the text so that the information winds up in the article. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  02:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Assistance requested
I have asked for assistance in improving this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wisconsin and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  03:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Previous version requested
I am new to Wikipedia and I am learning through this experience how to navigate through the complexity of Wikipedia and the proper guidelines. Recently, Jim Moody asked for my assistance in updating his page. He is highly concerned that the citation box warning is on his page and he would like to revert back to previous unchallenged version before the unacceptable edits were made. In the meantime, he and I are working together to do our research to gather the proper documentation that satisfies the Wikipedia guidelines. Is it possible to return to the version where there were no issues? This is extremely important to Mr. Moody and he wants to be in compliance with Wikipedia. Thank you for your assistance and patience with us while working through these changes. Ava Roth devi dasi (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Unacceptable edits"?? Unacceptable to whom? You have to understand that Wikipedia is not Jim Moody's web page; it's an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, it needs to have sound information. As has been mentioned numerous times in edit summaries, this means that all information must be supported by reliable sources. That's why the citations needed tag is on the article - it requires reliable sources to support the assertions made. This is particularly important for biographies of living persons. Read the WP:RS policy to see what a reliable source is. One person's sayso is never a reliable source. Self-edits and edits by those close to the subject of an article are always iffy - they're often made with ulterior motives; that's why WP has a conflict of interest policy that strongly discourages users such as yourself from editing articles to which they have ties. Other policies you should be aware of include those on writing from a neutral point of view (no peacockery, no selective presentation of facts, etc.), what Wikipedia is not (it's not a resumé), and no original research. As to changing the article back, it sounds like what you really want is for the tag to be removed. That's not going to happen until reliable sources are provided. It needed reliable sources long before you got involved (although it was probably your COI editing that brought it to someone's attention). So if you can provide reliable sources, I'm sure someone reading this talk page will be able to add them to the article.70.134.226.55 (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for assistance and guidance
As a newcomer, I must state I had no clue of the complexity of Wikipedia governance. As a favor to my associate who is Jim Moody's previous Congressional aide from many years ago, I agreed to make the desired edits. I have not nor am I going to receive payment for my efforts here as I have learned more about the guidelines. I ignorantly thought this would be a simple and fast process, intending to edit the wording on Congressman Moody's page. Initially, I took dictation from Congressman Moody feeling that he was the acceptable source of the information. What are the choices moving forward? I am not going to amend anything unless I am specifically given permission from Wikipedia. Congressman Moody is concerned about his page being in the state it is in with the alert on it and he has asked me to change it back to the way it was before I touched it. Ideally, I would like to provide the proper verification to have the page show Congressman Moody in the very best way possible that meets the guidelines. I am going to keep looking here for a message about what to do next. To clarify, I am requesting on behalf of Congressman Moody that his page be returned to it's previous state before I changed it. Also, I would like to continue as a contributor to his page by giving the correct and acceptable citation. I appreciate the opportunity to increase my skill set and I very much want to please the Congressman. I have learned a great deal so far and I ask for permission to contribute at a later date. I appreciate the professionalism and I look forward to contributing. Ava Roth devi dasi (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * to have the page show Congressman Moody in the very best way possible: that's against our principle of neutrality. Editing to please the subject of an article constitutes promotional editing, something we fight against very strongly. If things are just plain wrong, provide us with citations to reliable third-party sources and we're delighted to change them; but the subject of an article is not deemed a reliable source for information on themselves. (You need go no farther than Scott Walker's recent book for a screaming example of this fact.) This is not because we have anything against Moody; heck, I voted for him several times myself, and talked to him once, briefly, when I was his constituent. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Jim Moody. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110727145313/http://www.open-chicago.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68:2010-annual-event-speaker-profiles&catid=38:major-event to http://www.open-chicago.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68:2010-annual-event-speaker-profiles&catid=38:major-event

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)