User talk:Donaldesimpson1713

Welcome!
Hello, Donaldesimpson1713, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * Getting Started
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

cc of post at User talk:71.182.162.83
I realize you only began editing Wikipedia today, judging from your and User:Donaldesimpson1713's editing history, but we do not remove properly cited reliable-source footnotes as you did here at Don Simpson (cartoonist). This is a violation of WP:VERIFY and, in this case, a violation of Wikipedia conflict-of-interest guidelines. It's also bad form to attempt to hide your registered self behind your anonymous IP. You appear to be acting as a single-purpose account for the sole purpose of self-promotion, and have violated several Wikipedia policies and guidelines while doing so. If such edits continue, an admin will be asked to intervene. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your understanding and collegiality. I'm actually a longtime admirer of your work, going back to the 1980s and that wonderful, creative explosion of independent comics. You're certainly right in that the entry needed expansion, and I'm very glad to have done my part. Wikipedia doesn't forbid subjects from working on articles about themselves, as long as everything's properly cited and neutral and there's no original research (i.e., unpublished, personal-knowledge claims). Neutral encyclopedic tone takes a little while to get the hang of, and I'm sure you will. With best regards to one of comics' true originals, -- Tenebrae (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Right. As the world's greatest living expert on Don Simpson :), it will be a bit hard to turn off the "personal knowledge claims" (which is why I study city planning academically!), but it can be done. As far as citations, I'll have to go into my storage locker as soon as the spring comes and dig out some of those articles and interviews and other clippings (I have not been the best archivist of my own career!) and see what I can find that can lay claim to being more objective. Anyway, this is not a major pursuit (I don't expect to become Grand Loosbah or whatever in this lifetime), but I thought I'd give it a try. (I think what bothered me the most was having the link to Anton Drek -- long since an open secret -- being over emphasized and overshadowing other accomplishments like the Al Franken book. I also think that it is about time people realize that yes, cartoonist Don Simpson is also the same guy who now has an unlikely PhD in art history.) I hope to branch out and perhaps to contribute to other Wikipedia articles in other domains at some point in the future. Figured I'd start on my own page first. I frankly was surprised at how "real time" the feedback came! Thanks again, Tenebrae. Donaldesimpson1713 (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Minor point, and one I wouldn't expect you to address, but I would like to know how Comics Database thought Border Worlds was ever going to be a 4-issue mini-series. This might have been stated publicly somewhere (maybe even by me) but it's a surprise to me. Anyway, that was why I had removed it. I would dispute it but I can't refute it, in other words. What is fascinating about this process is that what kept me from amending the page for so long was because I felt it would be egotistical (I gather it is not completely uncommon on W?), but once I started I found myself behaving as if it was my own web page, which of course it is not. It is a public document, and as such should only contain verifiable information that is beyond dispute (a lesson all web pages, to say nothing of academia, could learn from). I was a bit shocked at being corrected, especially nearly in real time, but it is really a great learning experience. As far as having privileged information and too much of a bias -- well, that's why I chose to be a scholar of architecture and city planning, not comics or even art history so much (I teach art history but as you can imagine I'm very opinionated; less so with architecture and city planning). It takes a peculiar form of objectivity to open the can of worms of one's own W entry, even though I am no longer in the field of comics. In any case I want to thank you again for taking the time to consider all of this, Tenebrae, and to smooth things out as objectively as you have. Best, Donaldesimpson1713 (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)