User talk:Belltower57

Welcome!
Hi Belltower57! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 20:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Emily Sachar


A tag has been placed on Emily Sachar, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Hello, Belltower57. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Emily Sachar, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest 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, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. – Athaenara ✉  04:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I have no external relationship with the subject of my article, Emily Sachar. I am not being compensated in any way or by anyone for this entry. If I had a conflict of interest, I would disclose it, in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Belltower57 (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's hard to believe that you don't know the subject. Is it just coincidental that Sachar just uploaded a picture of herself so that you could include it in the article?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You never responded to the above question. I just reverted your changes to the Sachar article. If you persist in editing the article directly despite your COI, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Bbb23. I apologize for not responding to your above question; I did not see it until now. I really do not know when the photo that I used was uploaded. I do not personally know the subject, but have followed her career . That picture is all over the internet, and she was just featured on a 40 minute NPR program, and so that may explain why the picture was uploaded. It was just there when I looked.  The reason I removed the material that I did was an effort to make the article neutral. The article was never intended to be promotional, and I wanted to remove material that could possibly be construed that way. I am new to Wikipedia, and this is the first article I have written.  I am a retired physician, and I am not being compensated for anything. I humbly request that you restore the changes; it is not my intention to present a biased article.  Belltower57 (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The picture was supposedly taken by Sachar herself in 2019, although it was obviously taken by someone else. What does that have to do with a recent NPR program? There's little point to uploading a picture to Commons unless it is going to be used in an article. You say the picture is "all over the Internet"; give me some examples.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know who took the photo. I mention the NPR program because I assume she may have anticipated news coverage after it aired. I see that photo on a publisher interview (Our Hometown, and on her LinkedIn page (and other social media), and I believe I have seen it in physical print articles as well. I am trying to find a link that is not social media. I tried to attach a link, but this platform wouldn't allow me to do it. I am going to have to be on the road for much of today, and so if I don't respond to you right away, please know that I am not ignoring you. I take all of this extremely seriously. Thanks. Belltower57 (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That doesn't explain how it magically got uploaded as you wrote the article. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The most stupid thing that gets them caught is image was uploaded on Commons on 03:09, 3 August and used on the article on 03:35, 3 August, the same day, just after 25 minutes. The commons file still doesn't appear on Google because it hasn't been patrolled yet. Even if there is no paid stuff here (Emily declined any paid connections on VRT) but there's definitely a close connection between Emily and Belltower57. That's the most common sense here. ─ The Aafī   (talk)  13:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but I have no explanation as to the timing. I wish I did, I can see what you are saying. I am not trying to be difficult. I appreciate what you are doing, and I do not want this to turn into bad feelings on the part of anyone. I want to work within the guidelines, and appreciate editorial suggestions. I was upset because, while I know of the subject, and have researched her extensively, I don’t know her personally and do not wish to cause her harm. I admire her work, and have since I first became aware of her when she was at Newsday. I am concerned that your template makes it look like she hired me to write it, and that is not true and could harm her. Praxidicae, I want to also apologize to you for not first contacting you about the edits. I really am new at this, and am just learning the etiquette. I would be grateful if you could help me fix the article, make it better, and more encyclopedic. I tried to fix it, removing the things you called “puffery” and making it neutral. The subject is not a controversial person, and she really is a notable person. Her name was in Wikipedia before I wrote my article. She appears twice in the article on the Fred M. Hechinger Prize (under winners) and had a red link indicating that her article did not yet exist. Other Hechinger winners have pages, and I decided to try to create one for her. Nobody asked me to do it, and nobody paid me. Please do not punish her for something she is not responsible for. Thank you. Belltower57 (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No one is "punishing" Sachar; that's silly. You keep saying that you are new. Yet, in a series of edits on August 5 you created that article, suppposedly from scratch. Putting aside the blatant promotional aspects, it was not the work of a new editor. What other accounts have you used at Wikipedia?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I wrote the article on Word before I put it in the Sandbox. I didn’t even know how to set up a sandbox when I started. I have no other accounts, and the things you see under Belltower57 are the only things I have ever done. I am being honest with you. I am learning as I go, and I am operating in good faith. The reason I say “punishing” is that it may look like the subject paid for an article when she did not, and that could stain her character. I honestly feel a little flattered that you think I look like I know what I am doing; I don’t. I am not a professional writer, although I have written articles for medical journals in the past. I am at your mercy here, but want to do things the right way. I am asking for help to make this right. I know you are only doing your job, and I appreciate that. Belltower57 (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I am going to have to be on the road today, driving from Atlanta to Cincinnati. If I don’t respond right away, please know that I am not ignoring you. Belltower57 (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The article was never in your sandbox.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

It was, under Draft:Emily Sachar. I moved it from the Sandbox. Belltower57 (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I may have done something wrong, but it was in a sandbox called Draft:Emily Sachar, and I worked there before moving it. Belltower57 (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

On the road…. Belltower57 (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You made one edit to your sandbox. A draft is not a sandbox.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t know. I really don’t know what I am doing. I thought I was moving it from the sandbox to publish. Where was the Draft space? Please don’t punish me for my ignorance. Belltower57 (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Draft:Emily Sachar.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Then I must have screwed up. Belltower57 (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

It was copied from Word to what I thought was my sandbox. I didn’t know the draft page was something different. I must drive now. Can’t text or edit for a bit. Belltower57 (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, The Aafi: Actually, the picture I used was found on Wikimedia search, not on Google. I had actually been trying for a while to find a usable photo, and had checked Wikimedia for one on several occasions while I was working on the article in Word. I didn’t know exactly when it was added, but I’m sure I was looking every day or so as I was writing. When I added it, that was the first time it showed up in my search. Belltower57 (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, I've evidence stating that Emily was asked by someone to upload the image on Commons. ─ The Aafī   (talk)  06:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is all very fishy. Especially that Belltower57's story about the image being added to the article (within 30 minutes of Ms Sachar uploading it to commons) changing from "that picture is all over the internet" to it being "found on Wikimedia search", after Belltower was requested to provide examples of where else the image was found. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, MrsSnoozyTurtle. When I first Googled the subject, the photo that I ultimately used appeared on at least three sites on the internet, and was the most commonly used photo I could find of the subject. It appears on the websites for The Daily Catch, for a publisher interview (Our Hometown Web Publishing) that was uploaded to YouTube, and on the subject's LinkedIn page, and I had also seen it in print media, but could not locate the source. It may also have appeared on the website for Heart of the Art NYC, but was not there when I last checked. When I was reading about how to write an article for Wikipedia, I learned that photos could only be added from Wikimedia (and could not be added from photos that you had downloaded from the internet), and so I started to look in Wikimedia and was not immediately successful. While it may appear as if my article was written over a matter of just a few days, it actually took much longer, as I researched and wrote it in Word over several weeks, and only then added it to what I believed was a Sandbox. It was titled Draft in my Sandbox and at some point was inadvertently changed to a Draft article in the draftspace, but I didn't realize that its location had changed.
 * In any event, I had been checking intermittently for a photo in Wikimedia, and added it the first time I found it. I am not surprised that someone may have asked the subject to post a photo to Wikimedia, given the recent publicity surrounding the subject's appearance in four NPR segments (reaching millions of listeners). But that was not me. And I do realize that the timing looks fishy, but there is nothing that I can do about that.
 * Some of the material that I found on the subject did originally appear in sites like LinkedIn or other social media sites over which the subject had control, and consequently this material required verification from independent sources. Where this was possible, I added independent citations for support; ultimately, I ended up removing material that i felt could not be supported independently. Some sites, like the Faculty sites for SUNY-Ulster, are checked for accuracy; the material appearing on those sites is verified. You can't fabricate degrees and history for a public university.
 * I appreciate your comments regarding citations that are still inadequate, and will try to find other acceptable sources for these citations. Some of them, like HudsonValley360, are real news outlets, and the material they reported came from secondary sources, such as The Olana Partnership. I did not feel it was my role to question whether the newspaper independently verifies everything it publishes, but HudsonValley360 is a third-party source. Others sources, like Academia.edu, also has standards for what can be published there, although I am not aware of how closely things are checked there. It is not considered to be a social media website. You questioned the citations linking to the actual NPR stories in which my subject is interviewed. If I link instead to news articles reporting on the existence and content of these NPR stories, would that be acceptable?
 * I apologize if I sound ignorant about all this. I am trying to learn the right way to do things, and I am trying to learn the etiquette and follow the rules. I swear I am not a paid writer or editor, and I would file an affidavit with Wikipedia to that effect if it would make a difference. And from a comment above, Sachar "declined any paid connections on VRT." I am admittedly an admirer of my subject, and have followed her career for many years, since she was writing her award-winning education columns at Newsday. But I do not know her personally, I was not paid anything by anybody, and I am embarrassed by the mess I have made of things.
 * Sachar is a respected journalist, editor, and publisher, and she is very worthy of a Wikipedia entry, although what I have created may not be that entry. MrsSnoozyTurtle, I note that you are a participant in the Women in Red WikiProject, and my subject is precisely the kind of woman that the project was designed to recognize. She appears twice in the Wikipedia article on the Fred M. Hechinger Grand Prize for Distinguished Education Reporting, and of course her name is in Red (twice). This award is (according to Wikipedia), "the United States' top annual prize for journalism about education." And in the fifty years it has been awarded since 1972, Sachar is the only person to have won it twice as an individual writer (as opposed to as part of a team). Other Hechinger winners (such as Donald Kimelman, Stephen Henderson, Jacques Steinberg, Kenneth Weiss, Eric Eyre, Joshua Benton, Bob Hohler, Daniel Golden, Alex Blumberg, Ben Calhoun, Ira Glass, Alex Kotlowitz, Brian Rosenthal, etc) have blue links to their own Wiki entries, and most of them won as part of a team. Do you notice a pattern here? There are literally only a handful of women on that list whose links are not red, and of those women, only two (Nikole Hannah-Jones and Hannah Dreier) earned their prizes as individual writers.
 * In any event, at this point in time, I plan to stop actively working on this article. While some may feel that the "undisclosed paid" tag (and the "advertising" tag) are just routine maintenance tags and not punitive or damaging to the subjects of articles carrying them, I respectfully but strongly disagree. The first tag is almost never used: of the roughly 17,000 articles added to Wikipedia each month, over the past five years only 9-98 of the monthly additions (0.05%-0.57%) carry it. It stands out because it is so rarely used. Most readers will have never previously encountered it while using Wikipedia. It impugns the character of the subject, suggesting that they had to pay to have an article written about them, and that they were morally ok with that. When it is an untrue accusation, it amounts to libel. The insertion of "may have been" into the accusation may make it legally defensible, but the tag is in brilliant red with a large dollar sign, and it is frankly very damaging to a subject's reputation, and yes, it is unwarranted punishment of an innocent living person.
 * This article, as it stands, may be a lost cause. If you can tell me what I must do do have these "maintenance tags" removed, I will gladly attempt to comply. But I cannot register as a paid editor; it is simply not true. I have truly tried to remove any material that sounded promotional, and wanted to present an unbiased and well-documented and encyclopedic entry. The Red Hook Daily Catch is mentioned because it is an important part of her biography, and it is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, not a commercial enterprise.
 * The article will incubate until we can figure out how to fix it and get it to the point where editors and administrators can agree that these tags are unwarranted and take them down. I hope that will at some point be possible; maintenance tags are not intended for permanent display. But it may not be possible. Perhaps it must fall to someone else to write a fresh entry for her. If that is the case, then I am resigned to it, and this article can die. Belltower57 (talk) 15:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Emily Sachar moved to draftspace
Please refer to log comments. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Emily Sachar
Hello, Belltower57. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Emily Sachar, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)