User talk:Avwd60

Welcome!

 * }

February 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Amy Welborn has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://amywelborn.blogspot.com. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Please explain what is false regarding the sourced information you've deleted. Also, yours is the third account in several hours to make this edit--as already explained elsewhere, there is a concern re: WP:SOCKPUPPET, especially following the warnings issued to the first account. JNW (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I am attempting to answer this but am unsuccesful. I don't really know how to do this. I am the subject of the article and the previous attempts at editing were done by readers who then brought it to my attention. The linked article is defamatory and libelous and it is my understanding that Wikipedia does not publish libelous material. Is this not true?

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be inserted and if present, must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. " Right? This article was poorly sourced, is libelous and false. The author (now dead) of the article never interviewed me or anyone connected with me. No one. The author never answered my requests to be interviewed by him when I heard he was writing this. The editor - E. Michael Jones - has never responded to any of my correspondence over the past few years. Legal action is my only recourse.


 * Then I'd bring your concerns to the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Editing an article about one's self is a conflict of interest, and is discouraged. I can't see what is libelous or defamatory in the information presented under 'personal life', nor does a threat of legal action work here, but a discussion and explanation, rather than continuing to delete the content, is welcome. JNW (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

thank you. The information under "personal life" is not false - technically - although I would argue with the implication. The source however is defamatory and libelous. I was not threatening anyone here but merely describing a process that is ongoing on my end regarding the article.


 * Okay; I'd suggest perhaps replacing the source with a link to the article you wrote, in which you openly discuss the marriages--I'll do this. As for the substance of the article you refer to, I don't know whether or not it's libelous, but one needs to be careful making the claim publicly. JNW (talk) 00:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

THANK YOU. *Very much.*


 * You're welcome. For the record, I'm not familiar with your writing, so I'm an objective observer: when your biography was nominated for deletion I did a spot of research, found a number of reliable sources supporting notability, and suggested it be kept . So I do keep an eye on such things, and try to support balanced content. Best regards, JNW (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well - deletion would have been fine with me!!! But thanks for finding my "notability." Just one more question if you don't mind - if I am not supposed to edit my own article (which I didn't know) - how can I do something useful to it like add a list of books with ISBNs which I see is standard for authors on Wiki entries. Should I have someone else do it? Seems like an unnecessary step since that is truly objective material. Sorry to bother you since i see that you have "retired!"


 * I don't think it would be a problem for you to add such a list, since it's non-controversial and easily verified. It might garner attention as self-promotional if the list were extraordinarily long, or included books that had, let's say, a printing of 50. Also, they wouldn't be linked to your website or some other similar vehicle for sales (these are all niceties that underscore why working on one's own article is discouraged). If you think conflict of interest is an issue, though, you can request help at the article's talk page, or at the BLP noticeboard I mentioned above. Having said all that, if you adamantly wished to not have an article about yourself, you could bring that up there, too. As for my retirement, I'm not fooling anyone, alas. JNW (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

thank you again. I was just asking about the books because there are some of them up there but not all. So I just thought if there was a list it might as well be complete. I see from other author entries that just the ISBN is the way to go which makes perfect sense. If not there would be real problems with self-promotion and not-so-subtle attempts to monetize Wikipedia. All of my books have been published by *real* publishers and all but one are still in print. Amazingly. Have a good evening and thank you again.


 * Thank you for correcting my spelling. I'm glad we were able to use your article as a reference. Very best regards, JNW (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, I just read your 2003 piece in Commonweal: it's poignant and beautifully written. JNW (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)