User talk:GradyELoy

To Nytend:

Regarding Cornville, Arizona.

1. First, the section on natural history. Cornville is a small town; I am not sure that the geologic and descriptive aspects are better described in other substantial sources. If I can find such I will add it, however I was a long term resident of the area and did receive some geologival education locally so the information I am providing is not speculative. It would be senseless to suggest that information is better for no other reason than because one can quote another person having said it.

2. Regarding the history, My family has been living in Cornville since the 1880's. I have a considerable amount of direct knowledge of facts and events concerning the town. That being the case notwithstanding I have endeavored, in consideration of the standards of Wikipedia and the spirit of cooperation, to cite 3 of the only references that even exist in print to the history of Cornville. If the form of the citations is problematic I humbly request that you direct your edit to having me correct that (I am new to this). If you do not think the references appropriate in some way I would like to know how you conclude that (The references in two cases are recorded eyewitness accounts by the original settlers and I think I also referred to the US census)

Your forbearance and understanding and your kind assistance where appropriate are grately appreciated.

For this reason (and not to be difficult) I have undone the deletion. Again, lets do this right. I want to see the entry corrected. I did not find it in a satisfactory state when I looked it up.

Best Regards

Grady Loy

Cornville
Overall, the problem is that the information you have added is either unsourced or improperly sourced — it's not verifiable. For example: what is Those Early Days? what is 1984 AARP? I'm not trying to say that you can't add information :-) but it has to be possible for me or for anyone else to verify it. For that reason what you know as a longtime resident isn't acceptable: how do I know that the person who has the Wikipedia username "GradyELoy" has ever been to Cornville?  Original research isn't allowed on Wikipedia for this basic reason.  We absolutely must have high quality citations to ensure that the text here is as correct as possible.

As far as the source: that's the only source that I have seen that discusses the question. Can you find a good source that supersedes this? If you can't find a source to disprove it, it really should remain up.

Again, please don't think I'm opposing you or that I'm saying that you're wrong in what you put up: I simply don't know if you're correct, because I have no way of checking that you're right. Nyttend (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No complaints, but would you please sign your posts with ~ ?
 * As for what you say about the other site — I'm not really familiar with tripod.com, so I didn't realise that it was a simple webhosting site. You're right that it's a problematic source; individual personal websites aren't reliable sources.  I've removed that data.
 * Forgive me if you already understand this, but...with print sources, we need much better documentation than with online resources. With the online reference, a simple link might work, as someone could go to the website and format it better; but with your print sources, you need to give proper data so that I (or anyone else) can look it up.  I'm not requiring you to use a source that I myself own, but it must be published.  See Citing sources/example style for an explanation of how to do this.  For one example — I did know what the AARP was (sorry for being confusing), but "1984 AARP" I assumed to be a magazine, not a book.  By the way, there are templates that can help you: Cite book is a fine example — just add the data into the right fields, remove the empty fields, and it will give you a fine finished citation.
 * As far as your "first hand information" and other unpublished information — please read No original research. In the short term, your best choice is to do as you said, finding sources that support what you say.  Since you're into history, why don't you check old newspapers?  In the longer term, you'll have to see that the information is published by a reliable source.  Perhaps you could see if your local historical society could get something published?
 * Finally, don't forget pictures. They can't do everything, and they definitely can't tell the past, but if you want to say "_____ is located in Cornville", you could go out and get a picture of it (especially if there's a sign at the site) and post it at the Wikimedia Commons; it's a bad idea to have too many pictures on an article, but you could theoretically place the picture on Commons and then reference it.  Be careful with your pictures, but it's possible to do it.
 * I need to get to work; but please get back to me if you need or desire so to do. Nyttend (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to answer questions one at a time. (1) About the reinstatement of the paragraph: see the talk page for your explanation.  (2) Don't simply repost, and don't send it to me: just write it in your sandbox.  Do you have a personal sandbox?  If not, simply create one as a user subpage.  Of course you may repost if you want (far be it from me to be a dictator :-), but if you want me to see it beforehand, the sandbox would be a far better idea.  (3) Did I miss something?  If so, tell me and I'll answer that too.  Thanks for your work!  Nyttend (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Christian Settipani
Re Bobrayner's deletion of citations of scholars regarding the research of Christian Settipani:

The sources I cited were far superior to Hallfond. Everyone apparently knows this except Bobrayner, even Hallfond. I am going to add two more sources from established historians (though nobody, and certainly not Hallfond are as preeminent in this particular area of Early Medieval History in Gaul/France as Werner, Heinzelman, Taylor, Bouchard and Mathisen. All of them relied on Settipani's "genealogical idenfications" and other advice, often asking him for the advice in the first place.  IF Bobrayner had been paying attention, he would have seen that even Hallfond recognized that Werner was preeminent in just this feild.  He just did not bother to read far enough to understand Werner's regard for Settipani'S work.  Actually check the citations please.  And when it comes down to it, since I (not you or some other editor) added Hallfond in the first place as a way of providing some "neutrality" to the article which someone or other had complained was inadequate I hardly see where Bobrayner can reach the conclusion that this is the only pertinent source. The mistaken reliance upon Hallfond as being the best in this area suggests to me that Bobraynor may be making value judgments in an area without actually knowing much about it. I have complied with every request by editors, legitimate and otherwise, to provide supporting information. These serial erasures are seriously becoming abusive. If editors are not prepared to say why they do not think the endorsements of Settipani's work by Werner, Heinzelman, Taylor, Bouchard and Mathisen are appropriate or adequate, they need to be prepared to indicate why that is the case and additionally why they believe these authorities are somehow less pertinent than Halfond when, frankly, few people including I am rather certain, these editors, would ever have heard of him and his review had I rather not regrettably cited it in the first place. I would ask that editors please do not delete or materially this material again unless you are able to do that. To do so is to unfairly deprive readers of pertinent and researched information that falls clearly within Wikipedia standards. Editors are obliged to make articles better if they get involved at all, not make them worse.

Respectfully

Grady Loy

GradyEdwardLoy
Have you abandoned the GradyEdwardLoy account? I can't see any reason for you to be using both accounts.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware I was using more than one. It may be that I inadvertenly signed up again after not signing in for a long time. I am happy to abandon one if that does not create any problems.11:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've blocked GradyEdwardLoy to prevent any future mistakes.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks06:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

unblock request
Got it. This is the first and I hope only time I have this experience. Unless I can be automatically logged on to the offending site on another computer (all of them turned off at the moment) I should be OK. Thanks again.08:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank youGradyELoy (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)