User talk:ThePageCollective

January 2022
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "ThePageCollective", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it seems to be the name of an organization. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The name is not an organization. It is a personal name with no connection to any organization
 * "Collective" usually refers to a group. However, thank you for the explanation. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, ThePageCollective. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Orrick Glenday Johns, 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:


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

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I work for the New York Department of Homeless Services. My name is Clint Irwin. I often go under the name The Page Collective as an artist and a writer. I, on my own time, study the early 20th Century Poetic Renaissance. I have been reading a book called Time of Our Lives, which involves much of this era. Over the last decade, this book and its author have been a part of recovery and reassessment particularly among scholars in the Southeast US. I am simply making this information available as it has been fairly neglected and is being rediscovered, but mostly behind paywalls. I am merely making it available. My only "conflict of interest" is my interest in the period. I think it is AT LEAST not warranted to delete everything I wrote outright based upon assumptions. Any questions or issues could easily have been addressed, here, before any decision was made. If anyone needs anything else, I am right here. Just ask. There is no reason to be peremptory.
 * I have not been outright deleting your content based upon assumptions of COI, I have been reducing what I consider an WP:UNDUE weight on the works and quotes of Orrick Glenday Johns in articles only indirectly pertaining to him, while still retaining portions of the content. Per WP:BRD, the way I have approached this is a strong method of improving articles and gaining consensus through discussion. I want to confirm that you are saying you do not have any relation to Orrick Glenday Johns? --Cerebral726 (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

That's correct. This all started when I saw the Orrick page originally connected him to Hemingway et al. This is simply incorrect. This is why Wiki, with all due respect, has a pretty bad reputation. If I had an interest in promoting Johns, I would simply left that egregious error because Hemingway is obviously more well-known. But, first I took down that reference, and replaced it with one more accurate that he was part of an earlier, lesser-known group. I have an interest in the period: 1913-1915, so I explored further. Now, "reducing" seems to mean up to 95% and not simply quotes of Johns. I presented the comparison of two poems and the main points of their comparison because much of the information is behind paywalls. That was outright deleted, not "reduced." I didn't base any of it on "weight on the works and quotes of Orrick Glenday Johns." It was based on a wider field of evidence than one source. And what was deleted had no quotes from Johns's book. I may have started with Johns, but I wanted to do more. Clearly this was in error. When wholesale, arbitrary, unilateral reduction are called "reduction" I am at a loss. Honestly, do what you want. Revert the Orrick page back to its grossly inaccurate information. I don't have the time for this. I have a job to go to.
 * If you want to have a discussion on re-adding in that content, I welcome improvements to the articles and you should start a discussion on the relevant talk page(s). My concerns are that the discussion on what appear to be one scholar's paper (all other sources are primary, only Mark Hama is provided as a secondary source) on the inspiration behind the The Red Wheelbarrow with an in-depth side by side discussion of both poems is greater WP:PROPORTION than is due. "An article should [...] strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." --Cerebral726 (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)