User talk:Rocinante108

Welcome!

Hello, Rocinante108, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Chris Hosea, 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. 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:

Best practices for editors with close associations
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
The Teahouse, our help forum for new editors

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, visit the Teahouse, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 18:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jay8g, I appreciate your attention to my updates to this article. If you could characterize or specify portions of the article that need to be addressed, that will help me make edits to ensure better neutrality. Looking forward to learning more. Rocinante108 (talk) 03:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rocinante108. You used the {{Help me}} template, but you wanted an answer from a specific editor. If you still need help, please add your question to that editor's talk page instead, or reply to them here using the {{Reply to}} template. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join Wikipedia's Live Help IRC channel to get real-time assistance.

Hello again, Jay8g. I have revisited recent edits made to page Chris Hosea. Thank you for indicating they needed revision for neutrality and to avoid suggestion of COI. I've cut unsupported statements, deleted wordy passages, added third-party references for selected new claims, and inserted a critical take from a negative review. Really appreciate your help as I am a new editor. Can you suggest further changes that may help improve the entry? Rocinante108 (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: @Jay8g Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rocinante108, I just looked at the article and it still doesn't match the formal encyclopedic tone expected of a Wikipedia article. It sounds more like what someone would post on their own website or some place where they promote themself. It also appears that very few of the references are properly independent, which is never a good look and brings into question the notablilty of the article subject (to be clear, I haven't done any research to tell if it is a notable subject). If you want more advice, I'd suggest checking in at the Wikipedia:Teahouse to discuss with people who have more experience with this type of issue. Thanks! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 20:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jay8g, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions about improving article Chris Hosea. As a newbie editor, I appreciate your care and concerns.

You assert, in your message of 11 June 2024, above, that "very few of the references are properly independent."

However, currently, all 31 references are from independent third-party websites, organizations, publications, &c.

In fact, on 12 June 2024, @Masterzora reviewed and confirmed the existence, authority, independence, and correct citation of all 31 references——making (very helpfully) many small corrections for proper style, and so on.

It does seem, in fact, that, at this point, all references cite verifiably independent third-party sources.

Not a few, indeed, are organizations and publications that currently hold unparalleled authority in the subject's professional field of poetry and art, including: The Academy of American Poets, The Poetry Foundation, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Poets & Writers, Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, and the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art, and others.

As for the "notability" of the subject, the references authoritatively support the fact the subject is:

(1) the recipient of Walt Whitman Award (which the Library of Congress lists as a US literary distinction); (2) the award was judged by John Ashbery, whose (highly vetted) Wikipedia entry begins: "Ashbery is considered the most influential American poet of his time"; and (3) news of the award appeared the day it was announced in mainstream press organs with extremely broad readership, such as the Associated Press and the Huffington Post.

Thanks to your helpful comments and @Masterzora's most welcome reference checks and updates, I believe we are left with this question:

Are there any specific references remaining to be questioned as to their third-party independence?

Grateful for this help. Appreciate your experience, time, and input. Thank you! @Rocinante108 Rocinante108 (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I did not "confirm the existence, authority, independence, and correct citation of all 31 references". My edit was more mechanical, focusing on the form of the citations, and I did no work in verifying the suitability of any of the references. Masterzora (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for misrepresenting your work. May I edit out that claim? Rocinante108 (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Masterzora. I misinterpreted your work on the article, writing above, "In fact, on 12 June 2024, @Masterzora reviewed and confirmed the existence, authority, independence, and correct citation of all 31 references——making (very helpfully) many small corrections for proper style, and so on." And later referred to "@Masterzora's most helpful reference checks and updates." This was due to my erroneous assumption that @Masterzora reviewed the references as well as their citation style. In future, I will check with an editor to be sure that I accurately reflect their work. Learning as I go here, and appreciate the patience all around. And thank you, @Masterzora for your very welcome attention to the entry. Rocinante108 (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.:Jay8g [V•T•E] 17:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to User talk:Jay8g could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Sjö (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that, if the legal threat is taken back, I am still concerned with your ability to edit collaboratively with other people. Even without the legal threat, the screed on Jay8g's talk page was not acceptable. If you continue with that behavior, you'll be reblocked. This is not the opening salvo of a long, aggressive argument; it is simply describing what will happen. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and Jauerback for raising legitimate objections.

I apologize for and retract any legal threat.

I know nothing about Wikipedia editor dispute resolution.

My claims (but not any perceived threats) however inelegantly delivered, are factual.

I act in alarm and great haste.

Uncorrected false statements of fact in biographies of living public figures may cause damages in the larger world.

Such damages accrue for as long as such statements are not retracted.

I recommend the subject seek expert advice.

—-For future reference, I am pasting below the thread of thus two-editor exchange as of approximately 2pm 27 June 2024, when the block arrived:

== Chris Hosea (poet) references ==

Hi @Jay8g. Why did you write on my user page that this entry has "very few" "independent" references?

All 30+ citations, including prior to your comment, are made to websites or books published by independent, third-party institutions and publications, including national authorities The Metropolitan Museum of Art, The Academy of American Poets, and The Poetry Foundation.

For the entry's accuracy of citations and subject notability, one may begin by seeing:

https://poets.org/poet/chris-hosea

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/chris-hosea

https://lsupress.org/author/chris-hosea/

https://www.chicagoreview.org/chris-hosea/

https://apnews.com/9e163604c113410dab2450c2783666d7

And, for context:

Walt Whitman Award

John Ashbery

FYI Masterzora Masterzora recently made helpful citation style edits.

Rocinante108 (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rocinante108, as I mentioned previously, this is not an area that I know much about so I'm not able to be very helpful here. I'd suggest asking elsewhere -- I saw you already started a discussion on the article's talk page, which is always a good place to start. :Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @V Jay8g

You suggest you are not an expert in the field of American poetry, something that seems apparent, based on your erroneous claims about the Chris Hosea entry.

For some reason, you have written and published what amount to False statements of fact, without qualification, in your own words.

For example, you made the blanket assertion that "very few" of the entry's references were "independent," and suggested in writing that you based this falsehood on your own personal review of the entry.

In fact, the entry's truthful claims were and have been supported (before, during, and after your untrue assertions) by dozens of easily verified, independent, third-party references.

You have registered, moreover, false statements of fact about a Public_figure distinctively notable in their field.

Why, during the past 10 years, did no other editor, apparently, raise any doubts about the entry's references?

For over a decade, a quick review of the entry's revision history shows, Wikipedia editors have acknowledged the notability of Chris Hosea, based, initally, on his appearance, in 2013, on the List of winners of the Walt Whitman Award, a first book prize administered by The Academy of American Poets, and judged by eminent field authority John Ashbery, whose Wikipedia entry currently begins: "Ashbery is considered the most influential American poet of his time."

Prior Wikipedia editors for years have assigned Chris Hosea to the following categories: Harvard University alumni; University of Massachusetts Amherst MFA Program for Poets & Writers alumni; 1973 births; Living people, American male poets; American male artists; 21st-century American poets, and 21st-century American male writers.

You, personally, potentially may have the responsibility of defending your Burden of proof (law) in a Defamation lawsuit.

I believe any fair-minded individual would recognize that, at the least, you did not abide by the Wikipedia community's guidelines for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

Will you apologize for and retract your false statements of fact?

Thank you in advance for your reply. Rocinante108 (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and Jauerback for raising legitimate objections.

I apologize for and retract any legal threat.

I know nothing about Wikipedia editor dispute resolution.

False statements of fact against a living public figure for a rapid, detailed response.

My claims, however improperly delivered, are factual.

I act in alarm and great haste, and raise a concern with significant ramifications in the larger world.

I recommend the subject seek expert advice on how to proceed.