User talk:Abila.pao

This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding these Wikipedia articles:

William Andrew Oddy
Oddy test

Welcome!

Hello, Abila.pao, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Quinton Feldberg (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bulleted list item

This is abila.pao. I have been accused of edit warring but I am not aware that I have tried to re-introduce any text deleted by others. I do not mind what is deleted from the bits I have written, although some text has been deleted that would have been of great value to 'historians of museum conservation' in the future. So be it. However, yesterday (21st August) I was trying to edit the references in line (I hoped) with what I had been advised by another editor when whole sections of the text disappeared. How did this happen? Have they been edited out or did I make a mistake and accidently delete them myself? The evidence seems to be that me and someone else was trying to edit the text at the same time. However, should I reinsert the missing sections (titles: [Research on] the history of conservation and [Research on] the philosophy of conservation? Or will I be accused (again) of edit warring? One of my problems is that I am not a user of 'social media' so these question and answer and discussion sites are a mystery to me. I don't seem able to contact directly whoever thinks I am overstepping the mark? So much for responding to an appeal on the site to 'improve' it by adding detail and references from the 'horses mouth'. I do understand, however, that Wikipedia is 'fact-based' and should not contain opinion and that itb is not a place for personal aggrandizement. But, I am a constant user of biographical articles on Wikipedia and know what I like to find out. Any help gratefully appreciated.Abila.pao (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Andrew Oddy

Hi there Abila.pao, thanks for your edits to the William Andrew Oddy page. I take it you're the man himself? If so, I owe you a thanks for some of your papers—particularly those on Sutton Hoo (the coins, and especially your appendix on the helmet in Bruce-Mitford 1978), and also your Independent obit on Nigel Williams, about whom it was hard to find information otherwise.

Regarding the William Andrew Oddy page, I have a couple suggestions:

Cite everything you can. Especially as editing your own article can be contentious (see: WP:Conflict of interest, WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, WP:Biographies of living persons), users may remove unsourced information. For example, sentences such as "Of 110 freshman at new College that year, only 10 were from grammar schools and four of those were reading chemistry!" and "He was promoted to Senior Scientific Officer in June 1969 and Principal Scientific Officer in December 1974" are at risk of being removed, should someone take a critical look at the article. I would try to find sources for those, and other uncited material, if possible.
Link to related articles. Lots of things could be linked, but are not (e.g., Elgin Marbles, British Museum, Sutton Hoo, ship-burial). In turn, if you add related content to those articles, you will probably find more people reading yours; the Herbert Maryon and Fishpool Hoard articles links to yours, for example, because they cite your works.
I would recommend separating out the references and bibliography by using short footnotes (i.e., what I tried to do earlier today). Two examples: Nigel Williams, Sutton Hoo helmet. This has several benefits:

It let's you have a coherent bibliography (e.g., alphabetized or by year) that's not just organized by the order in which the sources are used.
It let's you cite to different pages of the same work without creating a new entry each time. The Nigel Williams article cites to ten different pages from his 1989 book on the Portland Vase, but it only needs one entry in the bibliography. The way your page is currently set up, you would either need to dispense with the page citations and just cite the general book each of the ten times, or create a whole new reference (Williams, Nigel (1989). The Breaking and Remaking of the Portland Vase. London: British Museum Publications. ISBN 0-7141-1291-7. p. 10" "Williams, Nigel (1989). The Breaking and Remaking of the Portland Vase. London: British Museum Publications. ISBN 0-7141-1291-7. p. 11" and so on) for each citation.
It makes the article easier to edit, because you're not constantly looking at long strings of reference material.

Finally, idem works in print, but not well on Wikipedia. Because the page is dynamic, the moment someone puts a new source between what are currently numbered 3 and 4, the idem will refer to the wrong publication.

Anyways, hope that makes sense, and feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More simply, if you are indeed Oddy then you should not be editing the article at all and should instead be confining yourself to the talk page there. There is far too much trivia being added, in my opinion, so please don't be upset if some of it is removed later. - Sitush (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at William Andrew Oddy. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 12:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiliam Andrew Oddy

I'm sorry but I think you are going to have to stop editing William Andrew Oddy. You are making far too many mistakes of the sort that a casual reader would not pick up. For example, you are citing things where the source(s) do not support the entirety of the statement and you are using still more self-published sources.

Bearing in mind that I also still think you probably have a conflict of interest, it would be better if you proposed changes on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HELP. Someone is removing my messages on this page. Why is this being done? It means that my response to comments above is deleted and not available. This is unacceptable as I have been accused of 'edit warring' which is not true. - at least not intentionally. I did try to follow the helpful advice of one contribution above but suspect that as I was editing, another contributor was editing at the same time. Now part of the text is confusing as someone has removed a 'heading' and a 'piece of text'. However, the removed heading is not the one to go with the removed text. So in the article there is now a section of text with a meaningless heading. It looks as though I am incompetent, which I an NOT. Also yesterday a corrected spelling mistake was 'undone'. This suggests mischief-making. Finally, I put in a reference to explain who the G F Willmot was who is mentioned in the text - as a citation had been requested. I used his obituary from the Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, but that has been deleted. I will stop trying to make this article comprehensive - but I have asked the question before. What are Wikipedia biographical articles for? I am a frequent user of Wikipedia bios and I know I want the complete picture. Too much detail can be skipped, but if it not there in the first place the purpose of the article is not achieved.Abila.pao (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fret not

Hi, Abila.pao and welcome to Wikipedia

Fret not. You're not the first new contributor to Wikipedia that finds himself baffled initially by Wikipedia editing policies. Can assure you though, that our policies developed over-time by trial-and-error until we could maintain millions of articles that meet (or nearly meet) WP encyclopedic standards. Rome wasn't t built in a day and new editors can't understand it all overnight. Also, see it as OK to be upfront about your obvious COI as it alerts other editors that you may posses expert knowledge in some of those fields. For the time being however, just be content to add suggestions to the articles talk-pages -where you will get some feed back, advice and help.

Next: how to add a photograph of yourself.

In this day an age of digital cameras it is easy. Simplest method is to get a relative or friend to take some photos. Pick the one you like best. Then ask them (not you) to upload it via Special:UploadWizard. If they choose the Copyright cc-by-sa-4.0 then the upload should go smoothly. Then all you have to do is place the file name (that the image was uploaded with) on the talk page of the article about yourself and other editors will add it to the article without you having to lift a finger.

Finally, Many people ruin their family heirlooms by applying stuff that they have seen advertised on TV when better treatments are available. Maybe you would like to read through such articles as Renaissance Wax. There you shouldn't have a COI but rather the expertise to add more useful information on conservation. Aspro (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Aspro Thank you for the helpful comments. I am sure you can understand my frustration when spelling corrections are deleted and bits of text removed so that what is left is a non-sequitor. Oh well, c'est la vie. Are you a Wikipedia employee? or just someone who has seen my cry for help? Renaissance Wax was invented by my first boss at the British Museum, so I will have a look. I also see there is an entry on Harold Plenderleith that could do with some improvements.Abila.pao (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we have many, many, many articles that could do with some improvements – feel free – yet suggest you stick to the talk pages for a short time until you have more of the hang of it. I am not a WP employee, rather just a former new editor who found that just thrashing about in the water left me feeling like I was drowning until I discovered I only had to relax and go-with-the-flow, and then everything started to make sense and editing became very enjoyable and addictive. Same with non-sequiturs. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, some things need to be explained on the talk pages for the benefit of other editors whom may be less informed. So whilst some things may make you ( and me sometimes) first go Arhhhh! Coming back just a few days later, one can often see just where and how to use the pruning saw to lop off that faulty branch of reasoning. Finally, you don't have to learn everything about WP to become a good editor ! Just the basics and other more experienced editors will help you navigate the more geeky stuff . Think it was just a bit unfortunate that you ran foul of COI before you knew the policy even existed. Also, we have Conservation-restoration of cultural heritage. Aspro (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have made two or three factual corrections to Renaissance Wax and to the Conservation-Restoration entry. This is woefully short on references and tries to do the impossible of combining the conservation of fine art/applied art/archaeology and ethnography at the same time. Ideally the article needs splitting into four. (Then there is geology and zoology!!)Abila.pao (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is best viewed as work-in-progress and finding good reference is something you can help with – especially as you're well placed to spot the many omissions. Just as most visitors think of a museum as a building in which to display objects (with a few attendants to stop small boys climbing on the statues of (say) the winged lions from the Palace of Ashurnasirpal etc.) and without awareness of what is going on behind the scene -Wikipedia is like that. Most of our time is spent researching for good references rather than reverting edits. So join the club. In my opinion the wax article is too small as yet to warrant splitting into sections. As the introduction mentions gemstones I think that any normal reader will grasp that this includes geological specimens. Zoology I will have to think about and there is (in the same breath) the usefulness in using it to protect the chrome work on vintage cars etc. What I have added to the wax article is a 'See also' section to link to Conservation-restoration of cultural heritage. It may get reverted by another editor but let's wait and see. You could also make your user page more personal by rewriting it in the first person. User pages don't require references and you can included any other interests you may have that are not necessarily connected with your profession. Hope this has given you a lot to ponder – from which to go forth. Aspro (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have just added a tag to the top of this talk page to save you from being questioned again as to whether you have a COI when adding suggestions to the article about yourself. Note too: In the WP way of doing things it is not 'Your' article but simply an article about you, if you can grasp the subtly of this difference. So, if you spot any errors or factual inexactitudes then bring them up on the article's talk page for other editors to correct. Aspro (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Aspro Just found several messages so thanks for your help. You mis-understood one thing I wrote. It is not the Renaissance Wax article that needs splitting but the Conservation-Restoration Article. There is, in fact, a whole book here which is why I think it needs splitting into (perhaps) four different articles - and into six if geology/mineralogy and zoology are seen as separate from stone conservation and ethnographic conservation. However, I don't have the time to do this. I will, however, try to add some relevant footnotes to expand the reading base for those who use the articles.Abila.pao (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A thought that has come to mind for getting guidance for how to find good references which are acceptable to WP is to ask Matthewcock (talk · contribs)(but on his talk page not user page). He used to work at the British Museum as the Head of Web. Finally, thanks for pointing out my misunderstanding. It certainly does not embrace the totality of 'conservation'. This is maybe where we got our wires crossed. I admire the Victorian zeal for wanting to place everything in to classifications in order to make sense of our world. The classification Culture is the social behaviour and norms found in human societies and in my humble opinion does not included, bones, rocks, stuffed lions, etc. These other conservation efforts really need 'separate' articles created, which focus on that specialty of conservation & restoration, rather than the said article being split. You missed out metallurgy (if you are of that certain age where you played, with not computers, but Hornby train sets and Dinky toys, you maybe aware that they need metallurgic conservation too, due to the The Zinc Pest . As you find your way around WP you will find editors that are palaeontologists who are aware that some fossil bones start to crumble when exposed to the air and geologists with the same problems. In a short time, you will come across these editors and you will be able to share and 'cross pollinate' expertise. As I said. Wikipedia is 'work in progress'. Happy editing. Aspro (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Brian Dobson (archaeologist)

Dear Andrew,

In regards to your recent edits to the page for the late Brian Dobson here I've had to remove your citation using a 'personal reflection'. Any sort of unverifiable mention, such as this (whilst appropriate as a pers.comm. in academic work) is not suitable for Wikipedia I'm afraid - no matter how true the claim actually is. I have replaced it with a 'citation needed' flag, highlighting to other editors that this claim may be true but needs a reliable secondary source in its place. Any questions, let me know. Best wishes. Zakhx150 (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Zakhx150 I guessed that it was wrong to sign this edit, but all edits seem to require a numbered reference and this is clearly impossible in many cases. My edit here came from personal knowledge of Brian Dobson in the 1960s when we lived in the NE before I went to work at the British Museum. I attended a Brian Dobson extra mural class and went on some of his Hadrian's Wall tours. They were VERY instructive and are surely a part of his biography. But how do you reference them??? They live on in the fond memories of that ever decreasing band of people who enjoyed them. But have they left a paper trail? There will have been forms to fill in to reserve places, and there might be a mention somewhere in the Newcastle/Durham University Archaeological Department archives. But these are not accessible for reference purposes.

I have not yet fathomed how the communication between Wiki editors works. When you get this - if you do - please send me a message with thoughts on how to reference 'memory items'.

Thank you

12:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)86.139.99.170 (talk)

Grrrrr!!! Now I have failed to sign my response in spite of hitting the ~ four times. Will try again 86.139.99.170 (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abila.pao (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Abila.pao. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... Hello. My user name is abila.pao and I am the subject of the Wikipedia entry for William Andrew Oddy born 6 Jan 1942. This entry is deemed unsatisfactoey but, understandably, I am not allowed to edit it. How can 'we' get it right. My suggestion is to start from scratch and that I should submit a new entry based on the Wiki entries for Neil Stratfors anf Elizabeth Anne Voigt that can then be overseen by 'you' before being downloaded. If 'you' have a better suggestion please let me know. Thank you Abila.pao (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC) Abila.pao (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried making edit requests on Talk:William Andrew Oddy, providing third-party sources that support the changes you wish made? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 11:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that I am not sure what is deemed to be wrong which is why I suggested starting from scratch based on 'acceptable' wiki entries for two people |I know. What I would submit for consideration would be purely factual but it is impossible to reference every statement - for instance how do I reference the award of an OBE in June 2002? abila.pao2A00:23C6:1A21:200:2092:6CC5:85CE:EA5A (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An official peerage website, I would imagine. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 11:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]