User talk:Nathongunn

December 2013
You left a request for admin help in the wrong forum. I've removed it. Please ask your question here, and I'll try to help you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23 - I made a bunch of edits, moving a link around a few times and saving a few times in a row when suddenly Wikipedia added the alert on the page that a major contributor is potentially related to the page (yes, me!). But my intentions were to make the page more balanced and verifiable. What does Wikipedia require to not have that alert? It implies that the page is maybe less authentic, but what has been updated actually adds more balance and actual citations from research (there were maybe three links or so before and many more now)... so the page is better off, but now sounds less reliable. Can you tell me what is best here for the page? Nathongunn (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Not to cut in, Bbb23, but I placed the template for conflict of interest, and have subsequently removed some of the most blatantly promotional and/or unsourced content, and added citation tags to relevant passages. A lot of the problems were created by the edits of the last day--well meaning as they may have been, they turned the biography into a press release. My suggestion is that any users affiliated with the subject read Wikipedia's policies, especially WP:COI, WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and WP:NPOV. Generally it's best to edit an article about one's self with the greatest care, and to request assistance from objective editors. Bbb, feel free to add to or disagree with my observations, but I wanted to explain the rationale behind my edits. Thanks and happy new year to all, JNW (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand why the objectiveness is important, I was doing my best to get some needed data alongside stuff and I had no other idea how to efficiently start that process. I appreciate why it is more appropriately balanced now and thanks for taking the time to improve it - hope 2014 is a good year for you both. Now... if I were to have citations or articles that could fill some of the holes you've identified, is it better to send them to you/someone, or add them? Is the tag removed automatically or does someone have to review it? Thanks and Happy New Year. Nathongunn (talk) 04:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I worked on the citation currently number 18... and it is really weird looking down below, I couldn't figure out what the tagging/formatting issue is, so I am leaving this looking strange.Nathongunn (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)