User talk:Ella Baker

Reference errors on 24 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * On the University of Minnesota page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=745981382 your edit] caused a URL error (help) and an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F745981382%7CUniversity of Minnesota%5D%5D Ask for help])
 * This is related.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 25 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=746205883 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F746205883%7CHennepin County Sheriff's Office%5D%5D Ask for help])

Joe Walsh
Thank you for your willingness to edit Wikipedia, but your recent edits to Joe Walsh were unconstructive. It is best to avoid "Controversy" or "Criticism" sections in biographical articles, like Walsh's. There are potential WP:NPOV issues involved with such a section, and it can sometimes be difficult to determine which occurrences should be placed there. Please read WP:CSECTION. Besides, the layout of the article is best in chronological order, at least in my opinion. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

1990'sguy, thanks for the feedback. I actually didn't add the "Controversy" section or the "Criticisms," on the Joe Walsh page. I just added subheads to existing parts of it. I don't see them as unconstructive or outside of the Wikipedia norms, though. My observation is that they are a pretty pro-forma section on most balanced and objective biographies. Regarding chronological order: it's actually in reverse chronological. But it's a useful debate to have regarding whether chronological or reverse chronological is the best route to go, if that is where you're coming from. So thanks for bringing it up. I'll look into APA and Wikipedia standards. Journalistic and legal standards preference reverse chronological, but, Wikipedia might differ. Ella Baker (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Looked at links you provided. And, see your point. Not really sure what to do since the section was already on the page as "Controversies." Since I have tried to avoid deleting others' edits. Ella Baker (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It's a good point that different publications have different standards and formats, so I understand why you added the headers. But yes, Wikipedia strongly discourages these sections. I added the "controversial statements" section because those statements were all from the same chronological period (his talk radio career), so I didn't need to reorganize the article. Maybe I was wrong in that decision and the header should be removed. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Good idea to write something on your user page
This is our user talk page; if you create your User page User:Ella Baker here then your contributions won't light up red in each article's history section (and will be less likely to be reverted). FYI--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip. Will do.

Disambiguation link notification for March 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Richard B. Spencer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mother Jones. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Original research and content removal without discussion
Thank your recent contributions to the article, Killing of Dolal Idd. Several of your edits appear to be based on original research and do not appear to be constructive. If you dispute the sources and content in the article, please discuss it on the article talk page. Also, removal of large blocks of sourced content without discussion may be reverted. The explanation field in the edit summary is not always sufficient when making such big changes, especially when you remove reputable secondary sources. Also, several of your recent edits did not have a summary or had a misleading summary description (e.g., saying something was not sourced when it was). Happy to chat more about the article content. Kind regards, Minnemeeples (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from original research on the article Killing of Dolal Idd and deleting sourced content. Again, please make use of the talk page. I am really trying to be helpful. For example, I included some secondary sources on past citations against the officer. It would be helpful to know your objections. Thanks! Minnemeeples (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reaching out and apologies my edits weren't clearer. To respond to your comments: re: "original research." I believe that all edits that I have made have been cited with primary sources relevant to the article and/or where those aren't available, media sources. If you can let me know which you feel aren't constructive or properly cited, I can look into those specifically. I do note that at least one relevant addition that I made with a primary source has been removed. I'll add that back in and ask that if you have concerns with it you express those to me before removing. re: disputes with sources. I actually haven't so much disputed sources, as disputed claims and quotes, etc. made without source citations. I made this conclusion not on my own, but, based on Wikipedia's alerting of them as such. I do see that many of those have been added back in with citations. Thanks for that. re: edit summaries. I can certainly be more detailed in these. I wasn't due to them already having been flagged, so presumed that was sufficient context/self-evident. But I can be more detailed if I make any additional ones. Apologies. re: deleting sourced content. Apologies if I did. I certainly didn't think that I did. Perhaps there has been some sort of disconnect between your citations and the flags I saw on them? As you mentioned, it does appear that you've added citations to all or most at this point, though. Thanks Ella Baker (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that a citation can also come at the end of a paragraph, per Citing sources, not just at the end of each sentence. The talk page at the article is a useful way to help other editors understand the intention of major edits and to collaborate in a way to improve the article. :) Minnemeeples (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)