User talk:Gayle Baker

Welcome!

Hello, Gayle Baker, 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 my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!  Will Beback   talk    19:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style


 * PS: Part of Wikipedia's "house style" is to use sentence case for section headings and article titles. That means only the first word and subsequent proper nouns have their initial letter capitalized. See WP:MOS for more information.   Will Beback    talk    20:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedic tone, Conflict of interest, and verifiability of vanity press sources
Hi. I saw your additions at Catalina Island, then went back and looked at the other additions you've been making. There are some serious (but correctable) problems.

First, the tone of your additions is very folksy, not an encyclopedic tone (examples: "Their stories have been told and retold for so many generations", "Some believe that"). Without this flowery language and coffeeshop gossip tone, much of the content could be pruned. See Writing better articles for good ideas along these lines.

Next, using your own books as a source. Certainly this raises conflict of interest/self-promotional issues, which have been debated heavily around Wikipedia. In the very least, it's recommended that you state conflicts of interest such as this.

Third, your sources appear to be from a self-published/vanity press. They are certainly not what would pass as a verifiable and reliable source. See WP:SOURCES for a great explanation of what is acceptable. The best sources would be peer-reviewed journals, historical society publications, newspaper articles, or books from publishers with a history of editorial control over what they publish.

I hope you can contribute in these ways. I suspect you have done the research before writing your books; using those citations would be excellent. tedder (talk) 05:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Tedder. . . .As a new contributor, I have a lot to learn, and I appreciate your comments. I can certainly agree with the Catalina entry, but wondered if you would review and give me specific suggestions to some of the other sections, Point Reyes being the longest, and short edits for Denver, Newport Beach, Cambria, and San Diego. I found the existing entries incomplete, many simply a series of unrelated facts. I had hoped to provide a context to some of the information so that readers will see their importance to the development of each of these unique towns. If I have strayed too far towards storyteller, I welcome your input.


 * As there were large gaps in the histories of the towns about which I am knowledgeable, I thought it would be of service to add some information. I do not see this as a conflict of interest, but am happy to identify myself. How should I do this?


 * I found your old fashioned (and inaccurate) use of the term "vanity press" insulting. I believe you are making an unsubstantiated assumption without any information upon which to base it. Each of my books undergo extensive review, both peer and professional. Each have three peer reviews, in addition to a professional content review. Most of these professional reviews are done by the designated expert of the local historical society. Content reviews were done by the Archivist of the Catalina Island Museum, the Archivist of the Santa Barbara Historical Society, the Archivist of the Point Reyes National Seashore, the Archivist of the Sherman Museum, Newport Beach, and the Archivist of the San Diego Historical Museum. The only exceptions were Cambria, without a historical society, where a team of three local experts collaborated, and Denver, where I was honored to have Dr. Tom Noel ("Dr Colorado") perform the review.  With over 60,000 copies in print, they are continuously being reviewed. As a result, Chambers use the information on their websites, and Visitor Centers recommend the books as the most accurate history available. They are even used as textbooks in college courses (University of California, San Diego and Arapahoe Community College.)


 * In the fast-changing world of publishing, many authors see little value in partnering with publishing companies. Although my first two books were published by a reputable small press, I chose to decline offers from publishing companies for my most recent seven books. Having published both with and without partnering with a publishing company, I know that the accuracy of my books improved when I was not limited by publishers' budget and timelines constraints, free, instead, to seek the best peer and professional reviewers. If you believe that "self-publishing" means, unreliable, and unverifiable, I ask you to rethink your assumptions. Please consider judging based upon research and review methods, rather than publishing modes. The value of any published material stems from the accuracy of the research (I read everything published on each town and have at least four sources for everything) and the professionalism of the reviews, rather than the publishing choice selected.


 * I know I have a lot to learn if I am to continue to contribute to wikipedia, and I appreciate your feedback. Please, though, let's talk about content. I am delighted to discuss where I have gotten it wrong, but, please, drop the labels and assumptions about self-published works, okay?


 * I would love to continue to contribute to wikipedia if it appears that my knowledge, lifetime of research, and passion for the fascinating towns I study can be helpful. I look forward to your feedback. Gayle Baker (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Gayle


 * I've indented and properly threaded your discussion. I'll reply when I have more time. Don't worry about getting the commenting/threading wrong- it's much less important to get correct, compared to other topics we are discussion. tedder (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * (I don't usually edit articles about California, but I'm friends with Tedder, so I thought I would chime in.) Hi Gayle, I just wanted to let you know that I'm sure Tedder didn't intend any slight by using the term "vanity press", but we so often see people whose sole aim on Wikipedia is to drive traffic to their website and/or sell (rather badly written) books, vs. helping us improve the encyclopedia. So I hope you will understand if some of us are a little jaded about authors using their own publications as references. Most of these self-promoting authors are not as qualified as you appear to be and they aren't interested in collaborating with us or improving the factuality of articles. So thank you for joining what I'm sure will be a productive discussion. Valfontis (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Valfontis. . . . Thanks for your kind response. I would be pleased to work with you and others to make my contributions the best and most informative possible. Yesterday I had assumed that I would stop contributing, (plenty of other exciting projects and another book in the research stage to focus upon) but would so love the Wikipedia histories of the towns I know well to be a bit more complete. So, I am ready to give it a try. Anything you can do to guide and help me would be sincerely appreciated. Gayle Baker (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Gayle

Thanks, Tedder, for the indent help. When I tried to replicate it in my response to Valfontis, it came out all wrong. Where should I look to learn how to thread and indent correctly on this page?

Hi Tedder and Valfontis. . . . I looked again at other history sections and edited the Catalina Island additions I had made. Still may be too much in the storyteller mode, but I made some progress, I think??? But, then I looked at the articles selected as "best" and realized that, no matter how much editing I do to my information, I will never be able to write one like the California Gold Rush article. The writing may not be so much different, but every line was referenced. I had not realized that before as I read other articles which were not heavily-referenced. If every line referencing is the only way, I think I should delete all the additions (Point Reyes, Denver, Catalina, Newport Beach, San Diego) I have made.

As a young doctoral student and passionate historian, my publisher insisted I remove all footnotes from my books he was publishing. He was convinced that our readers wanted accurate, relevant information, but were distracted and even annoyed by constant footnotes. I was initially horrified, but complied. Over the past almost 40 years since that first book was published, I have come to realize that the books I write are for armchair historians and that his insistence upon taking out footnotes was wise, given our audience.

So, all my books have extensive bibliographies citing all sources used, but do not line-by-line footnotes. They are accurate (extensively reviewed as I have noted), but not footnoted. Readers like it this way, but the information I have amassed over these years of research my not be what Wikipedia wants/needs.

Therefore, the issue that creates a huge hurtle may be one of format.

Please advise me. I will remove all edits I have provided (leaving the ones by others citing content from my books) if you think that is wise. Or, I will continue adding some of the information I have amassed over the years without line-by-line footnotes. I want to be a valuable addition to Wikipedia, not a problem, so I will comply with whatever you suggest. Thanks Gayle Baker (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'll reply with more information, I promise. The only reason I've typed so much text is because I think you can REALLY help out. I'll use your Catalina prose as an example, but it's going to be a day or several until I have time to do so. It's on my reminder list, I'm just overly busy in real life. tedder (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. . . .Absolutely no rush. I am currently in Mexico, hoping to be done with endless boat work and set sail soon- with luck by next Wednesday. I will on the Sea (out of wifi land) until about March 3rd. Take your time and don't worry. I will check in with you in early March, and we can figure out if I can be of any use to Wikipedia, okay? Gayle Baker (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tedder (and Valfontis??). . . . We arrived safely to port (and wifi) and will be able to connect until March 12th. After that, we will be on our journey again, expected to arrive home (and consistent wifi) by the end of April. I have this week to make any changes, deletions (maybe even additions?) you recommend - or - I can wait to do anything until we are home again and more consistently connected. Your choice. I have no problem waiting if that better suits your schedule. Cheers Gayle Baker (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tedder (and Valfontis?) Safely home again from our sailing adventures. I recognize I have a lot to learn to be a useful wikipedia contributor. I do, though, have a good handle on the histories of eight towns, with a 9th book, Victoria, in the research stage. So, if you feel it is worth working with me, I am willing to learn and, hopefully, become an useful contributor. Please let me know your thoughts. Gayle Baker (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC),


 * Hi Gayle! I used your book as one of the sources to write the History of Santa Barbara, California, as well as the Santa Barbara article itself.  I'm from Santa Barbara and quite familiar with its history:  you got it right (I had a few minor quibbles but don't even remember them now!).  I also specialize in the petroleum industry history of southern and central California, and cited you in articles I wrote on the Summerland Oil Field, the 1969 oil spill, and probably a bunch of other things.  I don't see anything wrong with using your book(s).  Let me know if you need help with anything -- with the minor caveat that I don't edit Wikipedia as often as I did years ago.  All the best, Antandrus  (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Antandrus - Thanks for your message and acknowledgement! I am excited by the promise of Wikipedia. I think (hope) the embarrassing and unfortunate charge of "Vanity Press" has been resolved. I would still like to contribute by filling in some of the large gaps in the histories of the towns with which I am familiar, but am a bit hesitant. I have not heard from Tedder and the Catalina entry, though revised, still has the "clean-up" notation. I know I have a lot of Wikipedia-eze to learn, but am willing. Should I proceed adding edits or wait until Tedder responds?

Thanks again for recognizing that I have value in certain historical areas (and for citing me!) I appreciate you perspective and would love your feedback. Gayle Baker (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Irvine Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big Four (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 14:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much. You are correct - I did not intend a disambiguation page and did not even know, until your note, what they were. Thanks for correcting my error and for your eagle eyes. I believe I have some information that may be helpful to readers, but have so very much to learn to get the wiki language and format correct. I will get better - especially with your gentle corrections. Thanks again Gayle Baker (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Denver, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brown Palace Hotel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)