User talk:Wulzenway

February 2021
Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Rosalind Wulzen, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''Please read WP:MINOR. That is not a minor edit, it does not belong in the lead, and it is completely unsourced.'' Meters (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't even know that she applied, let alone that she was denied entry "because she was a woman". Meters (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Mr Meters, I am the great-niece of Dr. Rosalind Wulzen. I was present during family discussions with Aunt Rosalind who made these statements to me herself. Wulzenway (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Auntie Rosalind informed me that she never would have earned a PhD in physiology had she been allowed to pursue her dream of becoming a doctor--physiology was her "Plan B". Her former student and long-term domestic partner, Dr. Alice M. Bahrs, MD herself applied and reapplied numerous times for medical school and was finally admitted at 49 years old, righting the wrong which had been done to Rosalind decades before. While living with my Aunt Rosalind, Dr. Bahrs became a sole practitioner in Corvallis, Oregon and also made after-hours home visits (an old country doctor). During one of our visits with Aunt Rosalind and Alice in the 1960's, she brought me on a home visit with one of her patients. Wulzenway (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't know that you are who you claim to be. It is quite common for editors to claim to be someone connected to an article's subject in an attempt to influence the article content. I have no reason not to believe you, but if you want to be identified as a particular person you will need to prove your identity to Wikipedia. You may email WP:OTRS at info-en-q@wikimedia.org to prove your identity. Any information you provide(other than your name) will not be made public, but your account will be tagged as having had your identity confirmed.
 * Having said that, there are a few other things you need to consider.


 * 1) As a relative of the article's subject you have a conflict of interest in editing the article . Please read WP:COI and propose any changes on the article's talk page.
 * 2) We cannot use anything based on what you claim you were told. Wikipedia is based on verifiable published sources. What your aunt supposedly told you is not published, and is not verifiable, and is not a reliable source. Please read WP:RS and WP:V. You will need to find a reliable published source for this claim, for instance a newpaper or TV interview, or a book.
 * 3) If you can source it, it should go in the body of the article, not the lead. The lead is a brief summary of the key points of the article. Meters (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I completely understand, appreciate and support the concerns you noted about the motivations of some editors. Looks like an awful lot of work to subsantiate my authenticity to others, however--I'll be satisfied to pass it on to my children and grand children as an oral history. Thanks very much for your meticulous care and commitment to insuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's content, Mr. Meters. That's one of the reasons why I make it a point to donate annually to Wikipedia 😊 Wulzenway (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)