Malabar Facts

Louis Bromfield and Malabar Farm

It appears you are new here, so I am assuming good faith and writing this message as a courtesy. Please know: 1. You have to have reliable sources for the things you add. And you have to cite them. If you need help doing this, you can ask for help at the teahouse. 2. It is not a good idea to revert an editor's reversion of your edits. This is called edit warring. I am not going to do it, but will call in an administrator for assistance. 3. Are you connected with Malabar Farm? Your username suggests so. This could be considered a conflict of interest. Please leave a message here if you have comments or questions; I will check it later. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• All content added to Wikipedia must be verifiable, and controversial content should generally be cited to a reliable source. When an edit is revertd, it is better to discuss on the talk page than to simply re-revert. This is known as the [WP:BRD|Bold, Revert, discuss cycle]]. Such e-reverts are a form of edit warring and can be grounds for a block. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• When an edit is removed because of lack of sourcing, it should normally not be reinstated without a source being cited, see WP:BURDEN. Such a removal can be consideered as a challenge to the statement(s), so that a cie is thereafter rewuired.
• Please do not insert numbers in brackets (such as "[4]") in article text. It gives the apparent of being a footnoted citation, when in fact no source is cited. To learn how to enter citations, see Referencing for Beginners. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

This message refers to your edits to Louis Bromfield and Malabar Farm, particularly the latter of these. Please do not repeat these or similar edits, or you may be blocked from editing for a time. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Also, do not describe (by checking the box) as minor edits changes that are significant. Minor edits are things like correction of spelling and grammar errors, and of obviously incorrect wiki-markup. Small changes that do not change the meaning, and that no editor would need to review or could plausibly object to. Adding a paragraph of text is never minor. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Who are you Diamond, an employee of Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, or Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services who deleted the same additional information? I am the source and initiator of the investigations that are quoted, not a flunky from the state of Ohio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malabar Facts (talk • contribs) 18:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires that editors be civil toward each other, meaning no personal attacks or innuendos. The strongly recommended step after a dispute starts is to take the discussion to the Talk page of the article and try to reach a consensus there. This already mentioned above, as the need to create valid referencing. David notMD (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

About Louis Bromfield reverts: what happened at the farm after his death has no place in the article about him. Stop trying to add it. David notMD (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) DiamondRemley39 has been an active Wikipedia editor for over 2 years, and was simply acting in accord with Wikipedia policy, in removing unsourced and non-neutral content. I am a Wikipedia administrator and have been since 2006. One of my responsibilities is to enforce our policies as needed, another is to try to clear up problems, if possible without causing more upset than is required. We neither know nor care who you are, but you must edit in accord with Wikipedia policy, if at all. I generally prefer not to block users from editing, but I have done so many times, and will do so again if needed. I am also an unpaid volunteer, as are most editors here. You can read more about me at User:DESiegel.

Do you understand, Malabar Facts, the problems with your edits described above? If you do not, I will be happy to try to explain them more thoroughly and clearly. You may want to follow the links in my message earlier in this thread for policy details.

Also, asking for an editor's identifying details (such as employment) is generally considered impolite if not hostile. It is, however, acceptable to ask if a user has a conflict of interest for a particular topic. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Note also that Wikipedia is not a soap box and should not be used to promote, oppose, or draw attention to any cause, however worthy or egregious. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Malabar Facts, I hope you know by now that I'm just an editor working on this encyclopedia. You can click my username and see that my interests include mid-20th century American literature; that's how I learned about Bromfield, and then about Malabar Farm from the documentary on him. I don't need to explain myself or justify my actions to anyone, but I'm doing that because you seem to think everyone is against you. We aren't. And regarding what you've said elsewhere about the article -- it is not a great article and it definitely needs more citations. If you can add some, that would be helpful. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Malabar Farm State Park; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I am about to post further discussion on your talk page and on the article talk page. Do not continue to revert in the disputed content, please. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Malabar Farm State Park

I have reverted your re-insertion of two passages on Malabar Farm State Park. I have discussed my reasons at Talk:Malabar Farm State Park#Controversy. This is a warning and advice about conduct on Wikipedia.

When you make an edit on Wikipedia, it should preferably be supported by a citation to a reliable source. In some cases such a citation is required. When a living person is accused, particularly by name, of improper or criminal actions or significantly negative or controversial statements are made about such a person, quality sourcing is required. WP:BLPRS says: contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. That page goes on to say, in the section WP:BLPPRIMARY Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. ... Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

Moreover, even when no living person is involved, so there is no BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) issue, primary sources should be sued only with care, and only for limited purposes. The policy on original research says:

Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. ... Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; ... Do not' base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. ... Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people ...

Also, when another editor challenges content you have added by reverting your addition or by removing the content, do not simply revert the removal. Instead follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle (known as BRD) by opening or joining a discussion of the reasons for the revert, and the appropriateness of the content. Usually this discussion is best held on the talk page of the article involved, although when several articles are involved a single central location may be chosen. Such discussions may also be helpd on user talk pages, but that is less desirable, as they may not be as evident to other editors interested in the topic, and may not remain associated with the topic.

Simply reverting without discussion is a form of edit warring, and may be considered to be disruptive editing, and users who engage in such editing may be blocked accordingly. Also, all users in such discussions should remain civil and not engage in personal attacks.

I hope this is clear. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)