User talk:Encyclopedist1

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!  Will Beback   talk    19:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Help request
Thanks for your welcome message. I do find some of the technical coding confusing and some of the Help pages a little unintelligible, but I'm not much of a techie.

Two questions:

How do I start a "disambiguation" page from scratch? I'd like to straighten out the three "William Malones", which are now only distinguished by a note at the top of the first page that pops up.

Also, is there any problem with my citing myself (in the 3rd person) in bibliographic footnoes? I am a published professional historian and I only write about subjects on which I have some expertise - in most cases, I know or have known the biographic subjects personally.

Especially when I write a new page from scratch, or do research that's beyond the usual book/journal quotes, or add information based on interviews that I can't cite directly, I'd like to insert my real name in the notes, mostly to give the research some credibility.

If you'd please look at the pages on William M. Malone and Thomas Braden (an old friend, recently deceased) you'll see that I've tried to do this in different ways. Does this meet Wikipedia criteria?

Thanks again.


 * A brief answer for now: please talk to us live, with this or this.


 * If I see you online there, I think I can help you better. If I don't see you there, then I will answer here in full, later.  Chzz  ►  21:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

'''Answer re. disambiguation'''


 * A 'disambiguation' page is, really, no different to any other article. Hence, you could create William Malone (disambiguation) and put something like this:

William Malone may refer to:
 * William Malone, a New Zealand World War I Lieutenant Colonel
 * William Malone (director), an American filmmaker

Help : Bill Lockyer
helpme

Hello again. I have a particular problem on which I'd appreciate expert advice.

On the page about BILL LOCKYER, the current Treasurer of the State of California, which I wrote in part, some potentially libellous remarks have been added about Lockyer's wife:

"...Nadia Lockyer's appointment as head of the ACFJC was engineered by Nancy O'Malley, then Chief Assistant DA of Alameda County. Because state and federal laws forbade Bill Lockyer from using his position as Attorney General to benefit his wife, the selection of Nadia had to appear objective, but was actually rigged by Nancy O'Malley's stacking the selection committee with employees subordinate to herself, and, under the California Constitution, to Bill Lockyer himself. [4] "According to press reports, Nadia Lockyer may be a candidate for the District 2 seat on the Alameda County Board of Supervisors in the June 2010 election. Lockyer has made her candidacy official and was quoted as saying she would "work her tail off", leading some wags to point out she may have worked her tail to get the job she currently holds.[5]"

I understand that one source has continually re-inserted similar statements over a period of years, each time they were removed.

Is there a way of preventing these attacks permamently without continuinally removing the libellous information?


 * Based on a quick look at the page history, I would say that the problematic edits are few and far between, so page protection would be an over the top response at this time. Furthermore, the addition appears to be sourced (I have not however checked the validity of the source at this point).  I would say the wording is not neutral so at the very least that needs to be fixed - but if the source is inadequate then potentially defamatory additions should be removed immediately per WP:BLP. If appropriate, you could warn the user about unsuitable edits using one of the template messages. Regards,  Doktor  Mandrake  20:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * On closer review, the sources do not seem to support the POV edits at all, and they should be reverted.  Doktor Mandrake  20:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response.

While I've contributed quite a number of articles, I'm still a complete novice at the technical process. Could you please advise:

1. How can the text most easily be reverted to the original?

2. And how can the page then be given Page Protection?

The contributor of the POV edits has a long history, going back several years, of continually re-inserting this material.


 * 1. The last edit can be undone on the article history page. You can also go to an older version of the page, click on 'diff' to show the difference between that version and the next, and then - at the top of the left-hand version you can 'Restore this version'. Sometimes though it's easier just to edit and remove stuff manually.


 * 2. You can request protection for pages in WP:RPP  Chzz  ►  20:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm requesting editorial consideration of the biographic article on BILL LOCKYER. Reasonable editorial changes were made several days ago, but then the article was also tagged for an NPOV dispute. However, there is no discussion of the grounds for this on the Talk page. The existing comments on the Talk page were written over three years ago.
 * The maintenance template was added by 69.105.28.158 with this edit. While you are free to remove the tag if you don't think the issue exists (as long as you explain so in the edit summary or on the article's talk page) it is suggested that you try to resolve this NPOV dispute.  You can ask the user why the tag was placed on the user's talk page at User talk:69.105.28.158, bring up the issue on the article's talk page at Talk:Bill Lockyer, or ask for more opinions on whether the article is neural or not at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.  I suggest all three.  Please let me know if there are any more questions.  Thanks!  --Mysdaao talk 15:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Rosalind Wiener Wyman
Hello. I've been working my way through all of the articles dealing with Los Angeles City Council members, starting in 1925, adding what information I have been uncovering, complete with sources, and will probably get to the above article within the next month or two. I would like to preserve your welcome additions, but, according to Wikipedia policy, we should have inline references for the information you added. Otherwise some of it might be deleted. I wonder if you could add same. Thanks so much. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Help : Bill Lockyer redux, 2012
Again requesting editorial consideration of the page on current California State Treasurer Bill Lockyer.

It's been several years since I originally revised that page. In the interim, it was edited by a variety of contributors, some objectively, some with apparent political axes to grind (not surprising for a politician who's held elective office continuously for 40 years and is still a prominent public figure).

There were two headers on the page when I began my current re-write - one complaining of "peacock" prose, the other of subjectivity. I went through the piece carefully to remove "peacock" language, and also to meet all the requests of some earlier editor for sourcing.

Though I may add a little content in future, based on new public sources, I think the page is now a reasonable summation of Lockyer's accomplishments and failures and am asking for an editorial review so that the NPOV header can be removed.RHS (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2012 RHS (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)encyclopedist1
 * Be WP:BOLD and do it! Mdann52 (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)