User talk:Beverly Wilson Palmer

Welcome
I am adding what you added to Thaddeus Stevens to the Lydia Hamilton Smith page.Critic11 (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
Hello, Beverly Wilson Palmer. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Thaddeus Stevens, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

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.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * 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.

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. BusterD (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, my concern here is definitely NOT that you know a lot about Stevens. Wikipedia greatly needs content experts like yourself. My concern is that you've added material sourced to your own work. It's a minor concern, I'll grant. The template above provides links to the appropriate policies. It might also be useful for you to be aware of WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. Again welcome, and if I can be of assistance please call on me. BusterD (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Not much problem here that I can see. People quoting their own writings can be a problem sometimes, people citing collections of material they edited is a bit less of a problem. But I'd like to challenge BWP to write a better sentence than "But no evidence exists as to the exact nature of the relationship between Stevens and Smith."  It seems to me this is a purely subjective statement, depending on how you define "no evidence" and "exact nature"!  Do you mean "Little evidence exists on the nature of the relationship between Stevens and Smith"?  Well, that's at least theoretically falsifiable, facts could possibly prove the sentence wrong!  Stop by my talk page for help if you'd like.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 22:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)