User talk:Rjbristow

Welcome!
Hello, Rjbristow, and welcome to Wikipedia!&#32;Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Nathan Dylan Goodwin, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article.&#32;Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to 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)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk 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! --Animalparty! (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi, AnimalParty. Thanks for your welcoming letter. I am trying to create the article and have been editing it as quickly as possible in order to satisfy all the various policies where it was orginally found wanting. It is particularly helpful to come across people like you and RebeccaGreen, who have both taken a coaching or modelling approach to help make the article prove itself as fitting. Thank you for the proof-reading offer - that is very helpful and I will take you up on this offer, if necessary down the line. However, I do hope to be left to make this article fitting by building on from where it is now, if editors permit it. Finally, please rest assured that I am not paid for creating this information article and my username is my own long-standing personal identity (RobbieBMilo (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)).

Nomination of Nathan Dylan Goodwin for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nathan Dylan Goodwin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Nathan Dylan Goodwin until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Praxidicae (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Your Family Tree reviews
Hi, Would you be able to give more information about the reviews in Your Family Tree magazine? One is a reference for "a keen eye for historical detail", but doesn't say which book the review is about, and the other is in the list of sources you added as "Reviews in Your Family Tree magazine, Rees, A. (ed.), Feb. 2014, Issue 138." If you could let me know which book was reviewed in each of those issues, I'll add them as references in the appropriate place. Also, do the reviews have an author named? Is A. Rees the editor of the magazine, or the review page, or ?? Are there other reviews in other national magazines, UK or US or wherever? RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi, I want to say thank you again for the support and coaching-welcome that you have shown. I do not wish to break any policy and will continue to work to render the article admissible. I will double-check the things you ask for here. And, although I was working apace, I think that I made sure to include a name every time that one was given by the reviewer. Where none was given, the editor will have written it, I assume. I will see what I can do on that one. More soon. Regards, (RobbieBMilo (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC))


 * CommentHello - so sorry for the delay @RebeccaGreen I have looked up that the Feb 14 review was for Hiding The Past, while the Nov 14 review was for The Lost Ancestor. Thanks! (RobbieBMilo (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC))
 * Hi, thanks for this info, I have added it to the article. I was just looking through the official author website, and noticed that The Spyglass File has one review from "Historian". Is Historian a person, or a magazine? If it's a magazine, could you let me know the details - the publisher, place of publication, date, issue number, page number, etc, please? Other editors commenting in the deletion discussion are looking for more nationally published reviews. I had thought that there would be reviews in 3 national UK genealogical magazines, Family Tree Magazine, Your Family Tree, and Your Family History Magazine, but realised that the latter seems just to have "Meet The Author", and interviews (which I presume that is) are not regarded as independent or reliable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines. (I can see the point with some types of interview, but not with all - but that's how it is, anyway.) So it would be great if there were any reviews in other national magazines. Cheers, RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello. I am still on the track of the 'Historian' ref. However, I have found this review, authored by Peter Calver. https://www.lostcousins.com/newsletters2/midjun18news.htm, for The Wicked Trade. I'll keep looking... (RobbieBMilo (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC))
 * Sorry, LostCousins is not considered a reliable source - that's why I haven't included any of Calver's reviews! I receive the LostCousins newsletters, so I did know of them - it's probably how I heard of the books! RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * CommentHi again @RebeccaGreen and thank you for your continued modelling / coaching - I must admit that I am bemused as to the process that the page is undergoing generally. The concensus (by the definition of the word) seemed to have been 1x delete, 3x Keep and others with comments now completely addressed. Then, all of a sudden on the 8th day, an editor (who has a rating where they have deleted 118 users' pages and helped 1) relisted the page for AfD to create a consensus???? Isn't this just trying to kick the decision down the road until enough people can be found to change the consensus and 'vote' to delete? Isn't this just that the editor doesn't want it to make it in spite of the work of me and other editors to bring the piece in line with all highlighted policies? I am (easily :-)) confused about the process and, importantly, who has the right to decide the consensus to keep is there and remove the AfD? I have read the deletion policy and it is a bit wooly on this... What is your view? Any further next steps? There are more offline refs that can be found. Thank you! (RobbieBMilo (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC))
 * It can be rather confusing! and frustrating, sometimes. Editors who close or relist AfD discussions look at the number of keep and delete votes, but also at the Wikipedia policy-based arguments that editors have referred to in their comments. I do agree with one of the editors who voted to delete that major, national magazines and/or newspapers are better sources to establish notability than local ones, which is why it would be great to know about any other reviews in sources like that (and to include them as soon as possible, so any other editors who look at the AfD can consider them). Notability by Wikipedia standards is not the same as real-world notability, that's just how it is - at the moment, anyway. There are many authors, musicians, etc, who have many excellent reviews on sites like Youtube, Amazon, Goodreads, etc - but Wikipedia considers those sites unreliable, so unless or until there is other evidence, in sources Wikipedia does consider reliable and independent, Wikipedia won't have articles about those people. This may change, but that's how it is now.
 * And as for who votes, who closes and how they decide - it's kind of random who decides to look at an AfD and vote on it. If the article creator or any other editors think that the closing decision was not in line with the consensus, it's possible to ask for a deletion review. I haven't really figured out how editors closing AfDs decide whether to close or whether to relist, sometimes that does seem quite random - so I don't know whether this will be closed on the 27th June, or relisted. I don't see 3 keep votes currently, just 2 - mine and yours, and the nominating editor counts as a delete vote too, so currently there are 3 delete votes. If it stays at those numbers, that might be closed as delete, or perhaps as 'no consensus', which defaults to keep.
 * The other big thing concerning editors who have voted to delete in this AfD, is that Wikipedia guidelines say that editors who have a conflict of interest in regards to a subject should not edit articles on that subject - it's better to provide the sources to an uninvolved editor, who can then use them to write an article (and any information that can't be found in reliable, independent sources shouldn't be included).
 * There are some changes I would suggest making (or could make) - eg even though there are sources for "widely acclaimed", the first source is promoting an event, so is likely to use words like that to encourage people to attend - and with the second source, I would ask, what evidence does a writer for a local publication have that someone is widely acclaimed? It's better to show evidence of independent people writing in reliable sources about someone, than to say that someone is well-known, acclaimed, etc. Then, the information about his interests (apart from being unsourced) is not really relevant to an encyclopaedia article - or at least, to a Wikipedia article! In one article I worked on, that had gone to AfD because it didn't show notability by Wikipedia standards - I added a lot of information and sources, and some of the information was deleted by other editors as unencyclopedic, even though it was there in historic sources. The article did end up being kept, but quite a lot of what I thought was interesting information got deleted as irrelevant. I hope these thoughts are some help - though as you can see, I am still learning about how Wikipedia works too. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Nathan Dylan Goodwin
I tagged this page for deletion because, after you posted your comment there, you removed it and added it to Articles for deletion/Nathan Dylan Goodwin instead. At that point, the talk page of the Afd was blant, and so I tagged it for deletion. You asked Would it be important in my view, or is it just a housekeeping point that won't affect my authored content? - the answer (in my opinion) is that it wouldn't be important. You added a comment, and then removed the comment - deleting the afd talk page wouldn't affect the content of Nathan Dylan Goodwin at all. I hope this explanation makes sense, and if you have any more questions please let me know. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: I am sorry for that confusion - I didn't readily understand that this was about the talk page only. I am trying to answer everyone's concerns and react instantly to advice given on improvements. Talk about steep learning-curve! Thanks for taking the time to help my understanding. Best (RobbieBMilo (talk) 10:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC))

Conflict of interest
Hello, Rjbristow. 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 COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the COI guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI 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, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. – Athaenara ✉  14:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I have already responded to these issues in the first seven-day discussion. I declared it in the article in the info pane. I am not remunerated for doing this. It does not say that editors MAY NOT create an article about... I have and continue to use references, articles, weblinks, reviews, and numerous external sources to render the points made all someone else's assertions. Following your extension of AfD discussion in spite of a Keep-consensus, I (and others) have continued/will continue to improve the neutrality of the language EXCEPT where third parties have reported / made claims. I do understand the rationale / notion behind saying that editors should 'avoid' creating articles about themselves (having read the guidance) and have worked hard (and will continue) to remove the elements which could have been against the intention of this policy. The purpose of the page in question is not to promote; it's purpose is to enter the existence of an author into permanent record along with an ever-growing basis of reference for further reading about that person, much in line with the majority of similar articles existent on wikipedia. I do recognise that you must invest a lot of time into doing this work - and I am very sure that you do it most of the time to the positive benefit of the site - but I must ask you to consider whether the extreme, easily aroused stringency in your approach, could actually sometimes impoverish the development of the encyclopedia's articles? How much reflection do you afford your consideration of newcomers and other editors? Guidance sets out that all editors should assume good faith in writers of articles and encourages a more coaching approach from what I can tell, as opposed to 'let's see if we can pin a policy on this one and get rid of it, whatever the loss...', which is how this experience is appearing, owing to the lack of constructive investment in the discussion, I'm afraid... I will gladly contribute and develop my editing with positive, constructive proposals for change from anybody, as must be adundantly clear from these and the AfD pages (RobbieBMilo (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)).
 * Where have you disclosed exactly? Putting content in an article is not a disclosure. Secondly, you should, per policy, refrain from editing articles directly where you have a conflict of interest. It isn't forbidden because it's common sense in the same way that you can physically light your house on fire but you probably shouldn't. Lastly, stop accusing others of acting in bad faith, that is considered a personal attack and if it continues, your next step will be at WP:ANI where you will likely be sanctioned. Praxidicae (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologise unreservedly if it is able to be read in that way but I am not accusing anyone of bad faith but rather trying to express how it feels to be dealt with with one particular approach over another and to be treated as if I were acting in bad faith. I certainly have not alleged such. As to your question ref: disclosure, I entered my name on the info page of the article (which may not be enough, then?), I entered into the discussion in the AfD around my identity, and I have now also aired the COI on this page... Again - and as I keep reiterating - I am trying to show extremely willing to work forwards to improve the article with ANYONE's constructive advice for improvements. Apologies for any misunderstanding (RobbieBMilo (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)).
 * You cannot insert your name into an article and call it a disclosure, that doesn't indicate to anyone that you as an editor have a conflict of interest but not only that it is entirely unsourced. Praxidicae (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * On reviewing the comments, I have confused two editors identities and apologise for the comments above which I have striken through because they are not intended for the recipient. I have unfortunately confused the two users and apologise to @User:Athaenara for this mistake (as I have done on the AfD), where I thought the same user was pursuing me. I am unreservedly sorry about that (RobbieBMilo (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)).

Nathan Dylan Goodwin
After I explicitly denied restoring this article to your userspace, you went ahead and did it anyway. I've deleted it, per the decision at the AfD. As I told you on my talk page, if you have sources that establish notability and were not taken into account during the deletion debate or if you feel that I incorrectly assessed consensus, you can go to WP:DRV, but this is disruptive. --Randykitty (talk) 07:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)