User talk:14rayvonne16

July 2015
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Resolute desk. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. You seem to have added the same work of biography to several articles where it does not appear to be of any relevance. McGeddon (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Referencing books by Ray Edinger on apparently tenuously connected articles
Hello, 14rayvonne16. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Resolute desk. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Relevance
What does a book called Love and Ice: The Tragic Obsessions of Dr. Elisha Kent Kane, Arctic Explorer have to do with spiritualism, Henry Grinnell and the Fox sisters? --McGeddon (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Not being a practiced Wikipedia user, I am going nuts trying to figure out how to respond to you these last few days. I hope this is the correct vehicle. Your concern seems to be that the book (Love and Ice) suggested as a reference in several articles is only tenuously related to the articles. This is hardly the case. Here are extracts from the blurb for the book, which covers Arctic exploration, spiritualism, and even the Resolute desk: "This is the story of the famed explorer who perhaps was the greatest American hero of the 1850s . . . . The poignant love affair between Kane and Margaret Fox, the Spiritualist medium, adds heart-warming contrast tp the explorer's frigid adventures in the Arctic." Furthermore, Henry Grinnell was Dr. Elisha Kent Kane's sponsor. And the Resolute Desk (for which you have removed the reference) was a direct result of the Kane/Grinnell relationship and is the complete subject of the book's Appendix. I do not understand how you can judged the relevancy of a book to an article based solely on its title. I hope this clarifies your concerns. Thank you for your attention and I hope this message reaches you. 14rayvonne16 (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I skimmed a summary of the book online and it didn't mention any of this, which is why I erred on the side of cutting it. I see now that Kane is mentioned in the Fox sisters article, but a biography of a man who was in a relationship with a spiritualist seems tenuous for "further reading" on the much broader subject of Spiritualism. --McGeddon (talk) 08:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems unlikely to be a better resource than the full books about Spiritualism that are already listed. Can I ask if you have any personal connection to the book or its author? --McGeddon (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)