User talk:888fortune

Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks

The official name of the museum is Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks; the phrase 'Wild Center' is still only a marketing term used by some to promote the museum. An encyclopedia should refer to this institution by the official name.

Disney's P.R. people can call Disneyworld the 'Happiest Place on Earth' but the official name is still Disneyworld. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your interest here? The museum calls itself the wild center on its web site, brochures, email addresses, letterhed signs, etc. Your reference to a nickname is not accurate. I am not sure of your position with the museum but I think people look up The Wild Center, and your insistance on another name is confusing. I would suggest you look at their web site, I am looking at their about us page, which says - "The Wild Center is a not-for-profit..." <---- written by user:888fortune

Response

My interest here is accuracy. What is the official name of this museum?

Next year the P.R. people could start referring to the museum as 'Otterland', 'Squeakerville' or any other nickname they dream up but the official name is still going to be Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks. An encyclopedia is not the proper place for posting inaccurate information. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Your recent edits at the article Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks may be considered vandalism. Please stop. This issue has been discussed previously; you do not have the right to change this info to something else that you may prefer. Duke53 | ^Talk 00:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it vandalism at this point is going a bit too far, I think; our friend 888fortune does not seem to be trying to harm or disrupt the encyclopedia. But, 888fortune, it would be more polite if you discussed your objections to my changes on the article's talk page before reverting without comment. I don't understand why you think the museum's official name should not be given prominence; could you please help us grasp where you're coming from? Thanks, alanyst ^/talk/ 00:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

888fortune is disrupting the encyclopedia by adding this misinformation again. The facts have been laid out (and proof given) but this editor still wants to promote his POV.

p.s. did you notice this editor's posting history? pretty much has only one item on his agenda Duke53 | ^Talk 07:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

888fortune, I reverted the edits you just made, since they don't seem to be supported by the discussion at the talk page. It appears that using the name "The Wild Center" rather than "Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks" is important enough to you that you won't accept opinions to the contrary. I'd like to understand your position better. Would you please share your reasons for pushing so strongly for those changes? I'm sure we can have a friendly dialogue if you're willing to talk about it instead of making edits that you know have some opposition. I'm still willing to assume your good faith. Please help me see where you're coming from so this doesn't turn into an ugly edit war. Thanks, alanyst ^/talk/ 03:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here we go again ... is this considered vandalism yet ? The edit history of this person seems to show a person with one (1) thing on his mind. A pattern has developed where he pops in occasionally to make his POV edits and then leaves. How many strikes does he get? What does it take for the AFG rule to be broken? 06:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke53 (talk • contribs)

Duke53, this user has only been editing Wikipedia since mid-September and his/her edits only occur on four distinct days. Plus, the user doesn't seem to be very familiar with Wikipedia concepts (discussing on talk pages, signing their name, etc.) so I have little doubt he/she is a new user who's still learning the ropes. I disagree with the position that 888fortune has taken about the naming convention in the article, but nothing about that position suggests an intent to deface Wikipedia or undermine the project in any way; it's just a stylistic argument, from my perspective. 888fortune is persistently making the same edits despite our objections and without discussing them, but this is not vandalism but rather edit warring—different policy being violated. Since 888fortune is new here, we can show a good example by inviting discussion and being willing to listen to his/her point of view, and attempting to find common ground, instead of assuming bad faith. If the editor persists after we're satisfied they understand why their edits or approach are problematic, then we may need to rethink the assumption of good faith; at this point, though, there's been little real conversation with 888fortune to establish whether they are unwittingly or deliberately stepping over the line. Have patience and try putting your virtual arm around 888fortune's virtual shoulder, even if in the end you two have to amicably disagree about the naming style in the NHMotA article. There are ways to resolve disputes like these without getting upset. alanyst ^/talk/ 06:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing your concerns

888fortune, I found your comments at Duke53's talk page that flesh out some of your concerns. I'm glad to see them, and I'm sorry I didn't spot them before I left my earlier message. I'd like to try to address some of those concerns.

If I'm not mistaken (and please correct me if I am), this seems to be your core concern: "I believe it is confusing to a person searching for that name to find another name." You might be unaware of this, but Wikipedia has a "redirect" feature that can take a commonly used search term and re-point it to the article it refers to, if that article exists under a different name. You can try this: type "The Wild Center" into Wikipedia's search box; it should take you to the Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks article.

From a reader's perspective, the redirect does have the potential to be confusing: "I typed in one thing, and the big headline at the article says something completely different!" Naturally we don't want such confusion. There are two things that can help. One is that Wikipedia will show a little message saying "(Redirected from The Wild Center)" so the user at least knows they didn't somehow hit the "Random article" link or something like that. Another one that the editors of the target article can do is to make sure the common search terms are mentioned. In this case, the article's lead sentence highlights this by introducing "The Wild Center" as an alternative name, and it's in boldface so it's harder to miss. A person searching on "The Wild Center" and arriving at the Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks article will probably not be very confused, since they'll see "The Wild Center" prominently displayed on the page, and since they'll more than likely already know that The Wild Center is a museum of natural history located in the Adirondacks, so the full official name is unlikely to surprise them.

You also say "I think that the Museum has the right to choose its own name." I don't think anyone would disagree with that, but it's reasonable to think that the nickname "The Wild Center" could be in vogue for a few years and then replaced by another nickname. ("The Otter Stop", perhaps? <grin>) If there's a stable, official name that will stick with it for as long as it's a museum, it makes some sense to use that name for the article title and to set up redirects for all of the popular nicknames. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to aid the museum in marketing itself, but it's definitely reasonable to adopt some of the marketing phrases if that's how a significant number of people might identify the place.

Does this satisfy any of your concerns? I'm interested in your response. alanyst ^/talk/ 07:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering on my talk page (and welcome to Wikipedia, by the way). Out of curiosity, and with no intention of making an accusation, are you involved with the museum in any official capacity? If so, I'd like to help you avoid some potential pitfalls here at Wikipedia regarding conflicts of interest. (That's a loaded term but I use it as neutrally as possible, and not to imply any unethical behavior.) If you're not associated with the museum, then I think it is a straightforward matter to resolve this disagreement between you and Duke53: find out directly from a museum administrator what the official name is. I'd be happy to send them an email asking them about it, and I can post the reply. 888fortune and Duke53, would you both be agreeable to that approach, and accepting what the museum officials give as the name for the article? alanyst ^/talk/ 23:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I'd be happy to send them an email asking them about it, and I can post the reply". When I attempted to do the same exact thing (show an E-Mail from the copyright holder of a certain photograph) I was shouted down by the crowd ... citing OR, wasn't it? Duke53 | ^Talk 16:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. " ... are you involved with the museum in any official capacity"? Interesting question; wouldn't the question of SPAMMING become relevant if that were the case? Duke53 | ^Talk 16:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an odd definition of spamming, which I think usually means conducting an unsolicited marketing campaign typically through bulk actions. What I've seen is simply an effort to favor what 888fortune believes is the correct name of the museum, which is no different than what you, Duke53, are trying to do too. If 888fortune is employed by the museum (which is NOT a conclusion we should leap to at this point) then there might be conflict of interest concerns, but that's a matter of educating the user about the rules and the right way to go about editing Wikipedia, and doesn't mean they have to stay completely away from the article. (If a user discloses a COI in good faith, they're typically encouraged to make proposals on the talk page but refrain from directly editing the article themselves; instead, they should use the talk page to communicate with other editors without a vested interest, who can change the article as appropriate.) alanyst ^/talk/ 16:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odder still is the fact that you didn't address my concerns over OR mentioned above; it is no different when you wish to use this method than when I offered to do the same exact thing where another issue was concerned.

On your talk page I showed a link to proof of the actual name of the museum: Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks, provided by the agency which regulates these groups in New York State. Apparently you have been too busy to acknowlege this info, or do not believe that it is a valid and factual source for this information. I provided proof of the museum's official name ... any future reverts to that name in the article will constitute vandalism IMO. Duke53 | ^Talk 07:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to use another editor's talk page to continue old discussions that they were never involved in, so I'll respond to Duke53's question about the other issue on his talk page.

Duke53 is correct about a few things. One is that I have been rather busy so responding to everything is difficult. I apologize for that, since I know it's frustrating to offer a solution and not get a timely response.

He's also correct that we have to be careful about introducing original research. My offer to send the email was intended as a way of helping resolve the disagreement on these talk pages, which might give us a way forward on the article. The problem is that we have several official-looking sources, and some of them (like the museum's website) use The Wild Center and some of them (like the New York state list of not-for-profit organizations) use Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks. I think Duke53 is persuasive that the state government's source seems to be more official, but I don't see the harm in finding out from the museum officials what their perspective on the names is, even if we can't directly rely on or cite that information in the article (since it would not constitute a verifiable source). Maybe they'd reply with information that supports Duke53's argument, and I think 888fortune would not continue to dispute the point if the museum itself disagreed with him/her. So, Duke53, please read this as a good-faith attempt to help resolve the dispute, and not to include original research in the article itself. alanyst ^/talk/ 14:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am correct about more than a few things; the only agency that matters concerning this issue is the New York State Office of the Attorney General. If you make a donation to the museum the receipt will say Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks, not 'Wild Center'.

This museum is allowed to call itself by any nickname they dream up, but until they file for an official name change (which they apparently have NOT done since their inception), their name is Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks.

In case anybody is interested, here are the dates of their annual filings under that name.

Annual Filing for Charitable Organizations 05/01/2000
Annual Filing for Charitable Organizations 05/24/2001
Annual Filing for Charitable Organizations 08/19/2002
Annual Filing for Charitable Organizations 10/10/2002
Annual Filing for Charitable Organizations 10/10/2002
Annual Filing for Charitable Organizations 10/10/2002
Annual Filing for Charitable Organizations 09/22/2003
Annual Filing for Charitable Organizations 09/22/2003
Annual Filing for Charitable Organizations 08/15/2005
Annual Filing for Charitable Organizations 09/05/2006
Annual Filing for Charitable Organizations 07/25/2007

Absolutely no evidence of an official name "just before it opened" (07/04/2006, BTW); rather, as of 07/25/2007 it is obvious that they haven't made such a name change in at least two filings since the opening date. This is an encyclopedia, so the official name is the only one that should be considered. E-Mails from museum staff stating differently will not change the facts; if they have continued to file under the original name, then that is still the name. Duke53 | ^Talk 07:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Welcome

Here's a more proper welcome to Wikipedia for you!

Hello, 888fortune! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! alanyst ^/talk/ 23:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

May 2009

If you continue to push this 'renaming' issue I will ask that you be barred from editing at Wikipedia. The name of the game here is verification ... I have verified the official name of the museum to be Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks. In case you are wondering I have this article on a watchlist and will see any and all edits made to the article. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

888fortune, you are not allowed to 'rename' the Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks; that was true three years ago, it was true last year and will be true next year. Knock it off. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

This is your only warning. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Natural History Museum of the Adirondacks, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Do not keep vandalizing Wikipedia; Knock it off !. Duke53 | ^Talk 17:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]