Talk:Robert Whyte

Conflict of interest
I declare a Conflict of Interest as the subject of this article which was added as possibly useful further information about the main editors of The Cane Toad Times, an existing article which I edited in attempting to bring it within Wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertwhyteus (talk • contribs) 02:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Updating biographical information of self
Hi Wikipedians. If anyone is interested I have been updating my own biography, which had fallen a little out of date. For example a new edition of one of the published works mentioned was published on 9 June 2013. It is not a commercial publication, therfore I posit I am not adding information about the revised edition for personal commercial gain. The book is a community environmental resource. I hope my material on myself is transparent, balanced, and written according to Wikipedia guidelines despite my obvious conflict of interest. The Wikimedia community here in Brisbane, Queensland, is not very active at the moment (I am a member of Wikimedia Australia) and all the editors I know I haven't been in contact for some time and I suspect they haven't the time to look at the page and update it. On balance, I believe it is better to update the page myself to reflect true facts than leave it out of date. I would welcome any comments, suggestions or feedback on this matter.Robertwhyteus (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Article tagged with autobiography template - request for advice
The tag-template autobiography was added to this article by an anonymous user. This template is used when an article is "an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject" in order to flag the possibility that it may need editing to conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. As a COI was declared on 29 March 2011 and further explained on this page on 8 July 2013 the template autobiography is possibly redundant, and gives the impression the article does not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The appropriate steps if the editor was so concerned would be to communicate re concern, maybe suggest methods for improvement, do so with user tag, discuss on talk page, and so on. "If the maintenance template is of a type that requires support but is not fully supported. Some neutrality-related templates, such as (associated with the conflict of interest guideline) and (associated with the neutral point of view policy), strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page), to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, the template can be removed;”. I invite any or all editors with an interested in this issue to contribute to discussion on this talk page. If the editor/s have concerns that the article does not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view or any other policy I invite them to discuss the matter here. It has been my aim to comply with and encourage Wikipedia guidelines that articles satisfy the criteria of notability, proper referencing, neutrality in point of view and encyclopaedic tone. It is not my understanding that the template autobiography should be used to merely reflect the factual situation, rather it is a flag to the article possibly not satisfying these criteria, in which case it seems incumbent upon the editor using the tag to show how this might be so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertwhyteus (talk • contribs) 06:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It's clear to me that the autobiography template is justified, at least for now. Deletion is not. The subject is notable, particularly for his substantial contributions to arachnology – e.g. new species, major guide to Australian spiders. On the other hand, there is more on minor activities by the subject – minor in the sense that they are not in my view notable in Wikipedia – than I would include, e.g. publications with a very limited number of copies printed, so I think some trimming could usefully be performed. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Peter that seems a reasonable and sensible way forward. It would probably be inappropriate for me to make those or any edits, and I certainly have no problem with using the "requested edit process” (now that I know about it). Would you be so kind as to do any of that trimming you have time for. If any of the other editors who have contributed to this debate were to find a moment to do the same it would be much appreciated. Robertwhyteus (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2019 (UTC)