User talk:Olliemae

40 acres and a mule
Hi! First off, I'd like to offer you a much belated thank you for your edits improving Wikipedia. Second, I wanted to let you know I partially undid your edit to the 40 acres and a mule article, because using phrases like "some say" is not really in line with Wikipedia policies on verifiability or neutrality; we really want to stick to the facts, or be sure to attribute opinions to sources. Please let me know if you have any strong feelings about this. Thanks again, Steven Walling &bull; talk   05:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

W. Burlette Carter
Hello! I saw that you are adding a lot of information regarding subjects like the Defense of Marriage Act and Unisex public toilet. I also notice that you briefly said you are a professor in the Washington DC Area. I want to point out that if you are, in fact, that person, you may wish to review our Neutral point of View and Conflict of Interest guidelines. The Pony Toast (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest question
, if you have any connection to W Burlette Carter, can you please disclose that information? You do not need to out yourself if you are he, but you do need to disclose whether you do, or don't, have some kind of professional, personal, occupational, academic, or other connection with him. I'll add the boilerplate text about this, which has some links to Wikipedia policy that you should read. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Information.svg Hello, Olliemae. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

cted articles (see the request edit template);
 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affe
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

, The only category I fall into is that I wrote the article that needed to be cited but that category assumes I get some sort of benefit from the appearance of it. What I get is that it contradicts the other side. I also cited others who were not included in the original piece. I am not employed as a professor any longer. I don't get paid to write my articles. I don't anticipate getting paid for this article or for future citations to it. It is available free on the internet. I am not advertising or promoting anyone or anything. The fact is that my article happens to be the leading contrary article. It just came out in December and was just put online in January. I followed the form of using my name because the professor whose scholarship is opposite to mine name was used. So I followed the flow of the article. Given the types of citations that were in this piece, it is pretty clear that some folks editing it had major conflicts of interest. Probably would be a good idea to do a sweep because they would not otherwise have been in a position to know some of what was written or to know the import of it. I am an attorney but I do not have clients and do not expect to have clients and have not had clients for more than 15 years. I don't work for pay. I file amicus briefs in the court on my own behalf and I pay for them mhself.

The slant of the original piece was that of advocacy. Given its dedication to fairness, ikipedia should never have allowed it to stay up for so long. So while we are discussing conflicts, I suggest it is time for a clean sweep because quite clearly this article was written by foks who wished to promote one-sided advocacy. So I am happy we are having this discussion.

Wikipedia's rules of no citation actually don't cover my situation. Perhaps they should but they do not. However, I have no problem indicating I am a connected contributor. I have no worries that my scholarship will stand up as accurate as against what the page proclaims.

By the way, in my published article at page 243 I note that Wikipedia is wrong. Olliemae (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Unisex public toilet
You already know the drill about WP:COI, so just a reminder about it, in connection with Unisex public toilet. If you are the author of sources used in that article and wish to cite them, please disclose that fact here, and at Talk:Unisex public toilet. Recommend you create a new section, with a section title like COI disclosure or similar. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed rollback at Unisex public toilet
There is a discussion going on concerning content added to Unisex public toilet that may concern your edits there. You are welcome to contribute your thoughts at Talk:Unisex public toilet. Mathglot (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Citation styles
Olliemae, regarding the first paragraph this comment of yours about citation styles at Talk:Unisex public toilet: Wikipedia has various reference styles that are recommended, and indeed does have a standard short form (in fact, more than one). See Citing sources for details.

The previous style you used at Unisex public toilet, e.g.,  was very close to the standard short footnote style, and the recent change you made unfortunately departs from the standard. (Among other things, we never use Ibid, op. cit., supra, or anything of that nature.) In using the sfn (short footnote) template, it will not only generate a note much like your previous style, it will also hyperlink the note to the full citation, so there will not only be no duplication, but every note will be linked to the one, fully-specified citation. I'll do that for you, this time.

Wikipedia does have a thicket of policies, guidelines, recommendations, styles, how-to guides, and essays, and it can be hard to navigate, especially for someone new. You can use Wikipedia's advanced search to find them (takes some getting used to how to use that, itself) or even just a Google search for wikipedia short footnotes will get you there. If you have any questions about citation style, or anything else regarding Wikipedia practice, don't hesitate to ask any editor directly on their User talk page. An easy way to resolve problems of this nature is simply to create a new section here on your talk page, ask your question, and add the token  somewhere in your message, and an editor will come by to respond. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, going back further to rev. 880869043 right after your initial batch of edits in January, you correctly used another style, called named references. for eleven of the citations. So, rather than switch to short footnote templates, I'll switch back to named refs, in order to follow recommendations on consistent style in this article. But be aware of sfn templates, in case you need them for some other article you are working on. Mathglot (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!


Hi Olliemaen, thank you for your contributions.

I am EMsmile, and I am a part of a group of people wishing to improve sanitation-related articles on Wikipedia (which also includes topics around water supply and public health). If you have any questions about this work, please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page.

We ran a SuSanA Wikipedia Edit-a-thon for World Water Day in March 2017, followed by a joint editing drive for World Toilet Day in November 2017. We've put together an outline of how such an editing drive can work here in our Meetup page. We are currently focussing on a select few number of articles (we have chosen 70). Also we are focussing mainly on improving their readability scores and their leads.

Here are some pages about Wikipedia editing that you might find helpful:
 * Quick introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia
 * Identifying reliable sources for medicine-related articles
 * How to edit medical articles
 * Manual of Style for sanitation-related articles

Please sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ) when you post on talk pages. This will automatically produce your username and the date.

Also if you are interested in improving sanitation-related articles, you may want to join WikiProject Sanitation.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! EMsmile (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)