User talk:DyerFarm

Welcome!
Hello, DyerFarm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Mary Dyer did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm moving the comments you left on my talk page here, as I think they may be of more use to other Wikipedians if kept in the same place. I'll respond after I paste in your comments:


 * Mary Dyer Article


 * Plimpton (Mary Dyer: Biography of a Rebel Quaker) is a novel, NOT a fact-based biography. Stop calling her "biographer." She is not. Her book is replete with fabrications and errors, and a profound lack of documentation. For example, there is no source documentation for Dyer having ever met George Fox or visiting Swarthmore Hall. Not in Plimpton. Not in the vast Quaker or other historical records. Fact: There is not a single contemporary or near-contemporary document referencing Dyer's stay in England between 1651 and 1657, excepting her departure for England and her return to New England. In between, all is speculation. It doesn't work to cite Plimpton as a source when Plimpton herself doesn't provide a source.


 * As a result of the frequent citing of Plimpton, the Mary Dyer article suffers greatly from factual errors, fabrications, and misinterpretations.


 * Note. Dyer was not hanged from a "tree." She was hanged from a gallows made the traditional way: two upright posts and a cross-timber. From my biography of Mary Dyer (2017): "The earliest map of Boston to depict the gallows shows two posts and a cross timber. William Burgis, Plan of Boston in New England, 1728, Norman B. Leventhal Map Center, Boston Public Library. The earliest maps showing the location of the gallows are Abel Bowen, A Plan of Boston, 1722, and John Bonner, The Town of Boston in New England, also 1722, both in the Norman B. Leventhal Map Center, Boston Public Library."


 * The best documentation for where the Quakers were hanged (Wikipedia footnote 71, another citation to an undocumented source) is:
 * "Boston Common is frequently given as the location of the gallows where the Quakers were hanged, but the gallows were not erected on the Common until many years later. For a persuasive discussion of the location of the gallows, see Michael J. Canavan, “Where Were the Quakers Hanged?” Proceedings of the Bostonian Society (1911): 37-49." Again, from my book.


 * We've only scratched the surface here. Disheartening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DyerFarm (talk • contribs)


 * Hi DyerFarm. If you read the notice I posted for you above, I have no opinion on the content you added, or who is correct here. My issue is that you did not cite the content properly, nor did you add it in an encyclopedic manner. Please read the links I provided above about citing content. Also, as you are wanting to cite yourself, please familiarize yourself with the Conflict of Interest guidelines around connected contributors. I will also leave a notice after this edit with some links to policy guidelines around that. For improving the Mary Dyer article, please seek consensus with other editors on the article talk page before proceeding, and remember not to add personal commentary into the body of encyclopedia articles. Best wishes, - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 02:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, DyerFarm. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Mary Dyer, 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 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 WP: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. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 02:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of all of these comments from CorbieVreccan. It seems if I am an authority on Mary Dyer (I have published multiple articles and a book), then I have a conflict of interest. So, we leave the future writing and editing of the wiki Mary Dyer article to the ignorant and uninformed. Gads. Then I'm out. No hope for getting the story right.