User talk:Arnie1000

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sharon Pincott (December 12)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sharon Pincott and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the.
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister  talk  17:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Sharon Pincott has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sharon Pincott. Thanks! SwisterTwister  talk  22:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Sharon Pincott has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Sharon Pincott. Thanks! SwisterTwister  talk  00:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Talkback
cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵ3at BULAGA!!! 03:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Presidential Elephants of Zimbabwe

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Arnie1000. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Sharon Pincott ‎, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
Please stop removing maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sharon Pincott, without resolving the problem that the template refers to. This may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Your participation on the talk page and gaining consensus before any further reversions is expected. Toddst1 (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Arnie1000, here is what you cannot do: make a million unexplained reverts (I see what you're doing with those small edits and their long summaries, but that's not helpful, and the history suggests that you were just hitting Undo, Undo, Undo). Given your likely COI, and given that your interest in Wikipedia seems to be focused exclusively on this one person, and given that this article has come under some criticism from a seasoned editor, it would behoove you to stop the reverts and seek the talk page--and perhaps to read over our guidelines and policies again. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Arnie, A couple of things:
 * What is your connection to Pincott?
 * You need to understand that you are trying to WP:OWN the article about Pincott. That will get you kicked off Wikipedia pretty quickly.  There are no "Approved versions" or "seasoned editors" who can OK content.  Once you have posted content to Wikipedia, you cannot stop anyone from editing text you have written. As each edit page clearly states:


 * "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone"


 * Similarly, by submitting your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) to Wikipedia, you allow others to challenge and develop them.
 * Toddst1 (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And another thing--that another editor may have done something on the article, or whatever, doesn't make for an endorsement, doesn't mean it's OK. I'm sure you saw the edit I made to the very first sentence of the article, an edit that follows guidelines for the lead. And in this case, that user is no longer with is and their work is deemed problematic. Drmies (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

00:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Toddst1, Please know that I'm not trying to 'own' the Sharon Pincott page. I am merely the original creator of it. I do not know Sharon Pincott personally but have followed her elephant work, and book writing, for 18 years. I am a wildlife conservationist and a lover of Africa. I ask, please, for you to reconsider any deletions you've made that have been adequately and professionally Referenced. Zimbabwe is hot in the news right now, and so is Pincott with her documentary. I can see that the number of people viewing her page has been substantial each day of late. Please know that there are still various people with hidden agendas still out to belittle her solid achievements for elephant conservation in Zimbabwe (with key elephant things still ongoing) and this is most unfortunate. I'm just asking you to please relook at it and consider if there is anything you could perhaps add back. I have read your page, as it now stands, and cannot see anything there that is not referenced fact. I would be grateful too therefore if you could remove the banner across the page that suggests it is promotional and like an advertisement. I can assure you that alot of work has been put in by myself and I know of two other wildlife conservationists (all of us unknown to Pincott) to ensure that just facts are stated. We each have been extra careful to ensure lots of References have been used well. I thank you in advance. Arnie1000 (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC) Arnie1000 (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "my page." In any event, that article was most definitely a promotional piece before I started editing it - a tone not appropriate for an encyclopedia.  I'm all for improving the article and I certainly don't own it either, but reverting back to the version before I started editing it, would not be a good thing.  We need to ensure that every article has a neutral point of view.    The material I've deleted is loaded with what we call weasel words and presented an entirely inappropriate picture of this highly motivated expert in her field.
 * If there's more to discuss about the article, let's continue on Talk: Sharon Pincott as others have joined the discussion I started there.Toddst1 (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi again Toddst1, I'll leave it with you. Drmies is right; I have only ever created this one Wikipedia page. I am no Wikipedia expert but did ask for ever-so-much assistance upfront, when creating this page. (I have tried to reply to him but I'm having trouble even with this Talk page.) Please just know that Zimbabwe is hot in the news right now, and so is Pincott with her documentary being extensively viewed right now. There are unfortunately still people around intent on trying to belittle the solid and important elephant conservation work done/achieved by her since this is all still in the news with the election mess going on in there. Please could you just consider the rewording of some sentences if they are problematic rather than deleting entire further sections if they are well referenced. Thank you.