Talk:Nathanael Greene Historical Foundation

[Untitled]
speedy deletion - as the original author of BOTH this Wikipedia entry and the NatGreene.org website, it is a bit confusing as to how one might infringe on their own writing - particularly when one is writing about themselves in both sites.

However, if there is a footnote, disclaimer, asterisk to copyleft that has been overlooked please let us know and so the appropriate changes can be made. We are a small organization with a minimal amount of resources and would seek to capitalize on much of our prior efforts to share with others.

Upon further reading, we have added this phrase to the footer of our NatGreene.org site "Unless expressly stated, everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed." which was tweaked as described in "Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License

Hoping that this resolves ant confusion - and thank you in advance for your assistance in helping us to avoid these types of full body deletions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NatGreene (talk • contribs)


 * That is not acceptable. GFDL allows for the text to be modified and redistributed.  You cannot donate this text under the GFDL and also disallow its modification.  There is of course an additional problem in that you have a conflict of interest, and simply copying a website does not make for a good encyclopedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the speedy deletion notice and replaced it with copyright violation notice to allow more time to resolve the copyright and licensing issue. -- Whpq (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

the footer on all pages has been revised to the following (restrictive use pages would be marked individually as described in the GFDL documentation)

"Copyright © 2009 Nathanael Greene Historical Foundation (NatGreene) - The text of this web page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later and under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike."

as for conflict of interest - the earlier term WRITING ABOUT THEMSELVES was used in the abstract as in group and not any specific individual.

as for content - we do intend to "spruce it up" currently it serves to demonstrate to the local Doubting Thomas's that editing is not out of the reach of the public or completely encumbered by restrictions that stifle legitimate reuse. NatGreene (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

GDFL updated on website and Newer format created (see temp) - is that all, whats next?NatGreene (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

COI, Notability and References Cleanup
Appreciate the input and will always welcome any edits, improvements or corrections to aid in the accuracy of the information particularly when it helps to add to dealing with the supportive documentation of this or any similar organization.

In light of a recent discussion related to Nat Greenes' AfD - it was suggested that the second version of this organizations structure and tone would adopt a style common with other organizations found in Wikipedia like Make-A-Wish and United Way. In this manner, the article can adopt the same standards, tone and practices demonstrated by these and other approved articles. If you can suggest other articles to review as an alternative example, that would be appreciated.

Regarding the three points TAGed on this article:

COI - while there is no denying that a user named NatGreene writing about the Nathanael Greene Historical Foundation would undoubtedly appear on the surface to have COI. There has been greater care given to the content through adopting structure and tone (described above) of other articles. Should a line or two specifically appear to lack this NPOV please point them out or help improve the tone directly yourself. Future content would continue to contain a level of self-moderation while welcoming third parties in actively adding similarly NPOV content.

Notability - had believed that this was covered in the beginning in the earlier AfD - specific to this being the initial commentary provided by CHzz initial research. To his credit, it appears he saw value with an organization involved in events that affect the general public - in this case, the preservation of public history, a common thread running through the organization. Here lies a good rational in seeing behind the superficiality of the topic at hand and provides an important aspect of true editorial purpose. An editors ability to see, promote and cultivate content opposed to strict interpretation of rules would appear to again be complimentary to the spirit of Wikipeadom.

While the NatGreene own site does its share of promoting itself, would it helpful to add some of these news articles core subject matter to the forefront of this Wikipedia article.

References - apart from "While Greensboro had always been involved in some aspect of cultural attractions for its neighboring communities since the late 1700's" which is being removed now until it can be cross-referenced by other Wiki articles. It would be helpful if other references can be pointed out that are currently of concern - whenever possible it would seem prudent as well as beneficial to cross-ref within Wiki itself. Absent to that another site reference (as in the FLOOD notation) and finally, when specifics can be called into question - books, articles, dissertations, peer reviews maybe even the occasional clinical trial.

Looking forward in hearing how we can improve upon this article for even a novel starts with the first page and probably a poorly written and formatted one at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NatGreene (talk • contribs) 16:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

-

Would appreciate additional input in rectifying these TAGS - while I had hoped the above earlier reply can get us through this phase, feel free to add to this PAGE for additional direction. One of the difficulties with the extremely general "I see something blue, change it" is its lack of example driven commentary. Obvious prose is easy to edit, however this section has been reviewed by a number of individuals outside of our organization and as a whole we are finding it difficult to identify the difference between this and other articles discussed above.

As always, feedback on improving this content is appreciated.

- This article was TAG'd and asked to respond to this TALK page but NO ONE is responding to help - do I need to escalate this to have this resolved and the TAGs removed?NatGreene (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

NatGreene (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The notability of the foundation has not been addressed with reliable sources. Until that happens, the tag should remain.  The article has no references to verify any of the information, so until these are addressed, the tag should remain.  The article has had no content editting beyond the single editor with a conflict of interest.  Until the article is reviewed by a neutral party, the tag shoudl remain.  Regards. - Whpq (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback but there are still some questions unanswered - first, how is the "notability of the foundation " not addressed by the earlier points originally made by CHzz who's initial research appeared to help to make this article a keep. Do these articles in fact need to be emphasized more strongly and if so how does that not create more conflict in NPOV. Secondly, does a GuideStar listing act as a credible source of a Foundations existence - how is this different than United Way is recognized(or is it simply that EVERYONE knows United Way?) Lastly, Wikipedia does state that the primary issue of COI is in lack of the NPOV and that being personally involved is allowed provided:

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
 * 2) Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
 * 3) Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * 1) Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

This being the case - how would the edits made by myself to make the article more NPOV be dismissed as COI - it appears the high level term of COI is negating the conscious effort to maintain NPOV even when COI guidelines are being addressed?NatGreene (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)