Nathaniel Albert Eaton

Nathaniel Albert Eaton, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Nathaniel Albert Eaton! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Epeefleche (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, Epeefleche. I will add no unsourced info. Please do not take info off the page Charles Aubrey Eaton unless you know it to be false. The page had been edited and some very important info was removed. Regrets if it was not well-enough sourced, but none of the info was incorrect. BTW, I was an editor at High Times (91-94) and wrote many cover stories as "Nate Eaton." Few writers listed on the High Times pages are sourced, or only a couple are. Please do not remove "Nate Eaton" as a writer for High Times because it is true info and I have an absurd number of sources and references. I have plenty of back issues in my attic and need to get 'round to citing sources. I'd appreciate it if you didn't delete my name again.Nathaniel Albert Eaton (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Please read wp:v and wp:rs. And please read the note below from Dennis -- as he indicates, in addition to the above problems, you have a classic conflict of interest. Thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm Dennis, an administrator here. You have what is known as a classic conflict of interest WP:COI here. The reason he deleted your name is that it wasn't sourced. In this, he is correct, you are mistaken. You should provide a link that verifies the named editor (you) are a writer there. Normally, the talk page is the best place as policy strongly prefers that people with a conflict of interest not edit articles directly if they are associated. It isn't barred completely, but this is exactly why it is discouraged. Right now, you are edit warring with another editor over this. Edit warring will get you blocked. The best thing is to discuss it on the talk page of the article instead of editing directly. You might also read WP:BRD. Generally, if Editor A adds material, and Editor B reverts it out, Editor A shouldn't add it back until a discussion is had on the talk page. If all else fails, on Wikipedia, we always err on the side of NOT including a person's name rather than including, via our policy on biographical information WP:BLP. Kick back, talk instead of fighting, learn. Most people around here are pretty nice if you let them be, and will explain policy if you ask. It might not make sense at first, but most of these policies are in place for rock solid reasons, typically to protect people and the integrity of articles. They will make more sense once you've been around a little while, and you will find yourself supporting them as well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, and please sign your name using four tilde marks ~~~~ (to the left of the 1 on your keyboard, use the shift key). That will automatically fill out your name and date stamp it. Another policy, but mainly it just helps so we know who said what. Ping me on my talk page if you have questions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dennis Brown - I am new to editing Wikipedia entries. My main concern was that vital info was removed from the Charles Aubrey Eaton page and it made him seem like he was a different person than he was. Most all of the information was already in the sources listed. I am satisfied with how it is now. I have added a new source and have used references already stated in the entry to improve it. I don't understand why there is a notice "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2014)" If you could tell me what "citations" are needed, then I can find them when I have a chance. I have many published sources, but said sources may not come from live links. All help is appreciated and no threats or intimidation are implied or being directed at anyone. I am a reasonable person, a person of peace. I just wanted to see my great-grandfather's bio on Wikipedia better reflect his true accomplishments.Nathaniel Albert Eaton (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown - I would also like to know if sources or references must be in the form of live links. I would like to add more info to the Charles Aubrey info page, but some of it comes from printed sources, magazines and books. Please let me know when you get a chance. All good wishes.Nathaniel Albert Eaton (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Books are always fine, same with magazines and such. The key is quality. Self published books aren't good, a New York Times article is great WP:RS is our policy on reliable sources. WP:V is our policy on verification. Keep in mind, you do have a conflict of interest, which means you need to be careful not to get bent out of shape when someone reverts or tags for citations. Many of us have conflicts of interest, including me. I just don't directly edit articles where I have a conflict. When it comes to articles on humans, we are pretty tough about having everything sourced. This is really to protect THEM, and their family. You might KNOW that a fact is true, but we don't, so you have to bend over backwards to work with others to help cite stuff. Once you've been here a while and you see the abuses that people do to some articles, I promise you will have a "oh, so THAT is why they are so tough on sources..." moment. Work with the editors who are active on those articles, just use the talk page and be patient. You will learn. It is always tough at first. Those aren't articles I normally edit, so I'm probably not much help. And so you know, as an admin, I'm no different than a regular editor when you and I are both editing the same article, admin don't have special privilege when it comes to content, we just have tools to block, lock articles, delete stuff, things like that. And we tend to try to jump in and help people before they get into trouble ;)

Honestly, the smartest and easiest way to learn and see if the tags are needed would be to go work with Epeefleche. He has 130,000 edits here and has a pretty good grip on editing policies. His tag above wasn't to be mean, it was to provide information. He is editing both of those articles, work with him if you can. Wikipedia is all about collaboration, and you are always more likely to improve articles you care about if you find one or two people to work with you. And be sure to check out the WP:Teahouse, which is full of pretty nice people who are there solely to help you adjust to Wikipedia. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown , Epeefleche - Thank you for your help, but I still have no idea what has been tagged in the Charles Aubrey Eaton piece that requires further verification or how to get rid of the "This article needs additional citations for verification. ..." How do I find tags or notes that need the verification? Also, I have a definitive biography of Charles Aubrey Eaton called Prophet in the House by Rev. J. Ronald Miller from a small, independent publisher, Community Church Press, Chicago (1993). The book has an ISBN number. Would using material from that be OK? I also have access toThe Eaton Family of Nova Scotia, by Arthur Wentworth Hamilton Eaton, (Cambridge, Massachusetts, The Murray Printing Company, 1929, privately printed). Is the latter source acceptable? All help is appreciated. Should I visit the Tearoom for answers to these questions or may Epeefleche help out because it seems said person has made most of the changes to the page in the past six months. All helps is appreciated. I'm not so concerned about the High Times question, but I will provide a reference when I get the chance. I hope people may be patient until that time.Nathaniel Albert Eaton (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Nathaniel Albert Eaton! Thank you for your contributions. I am Carriearchdale and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Carriearchdale (talk) 04:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Good to make your acquaintance, Carriearchdale. Thank you for your interest and tips. Nathaniel Albert Eaton (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to High Times. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have yet again completely re-added wholly unsourced material, that was challenged and deleted for failure to comply with wp:v. Epeefleche (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Epeefleche, (CC: Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER ) - I do not know what your angry tone is about. I want no conflict here. What unsourced material have I added to the Wikipedia entry of Charles Aubrey Eaton? I have asked you and Dennis Brown, and I was asking in the Teahouse, for help in finding out why Charles Aubrey Eaton's page was given a "This article needs additional citations for verification. ..." tag. I had not received an answer. I do not know who put that tag there or for what reason. Now it seems to be gone. Good.

I was, in fact, a writer for High Times for a few years. I was managing editor, too. I have written more than a few feature stories for them and a few top-selling cover stories between 1991 and 1994. "You have yet again completely re-added wholly unsourced material," you say. I added my name, that's all. None of the other writers listed on the High Times page in that particular writer's section were sourced, except some had links to personal pages on Wikipedia. So my addition was not unusual for that page. Now, you or someone else has removed the entire list of writers. If that's Wikipedia policy, then so be it. In my opinion, that move deprives people of useful information. I am not sure why you are so angry with me or singling me out. I asked for a bit of time to get my references/sources prepared in an earlier comment in a talk section in which you were a part. I did so respectfully. I did not want to upset anyone. I will not add anything to the High Times page again unless I have a source or sources prepared first. I get the point. I do not want, nor do I believe that I deserve this kind of anger or threat.Nathaniel Albert Eaton (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• It is just an automatic template, don't read too much into it. It isn't personal. I've asked him to help you with understanding policy. If he does, perfect, as he is certainly familiar. If he doesn't (some people aren't comfortable in the role of mentoring), then I would try to find someone else to help you along. We do things at a fairly fast pace here, you will soon enough, trust me. The problem he has is that you just readded the same material without adding a citation, which is kind of a no no, and it looks like edit warring. Again WP:BRD is the guideline that is helpful. I know it wasn't intentional, but don't add it back just yet, talk about it first on that article talk page. The tab that says "Talk" when you are at that article. We do have a degree of formality here, it is required with so many people. Since it seems you are a writer, trust me, it won't take long to get used to it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Hi. Please read my note to you above carefully. It relates not to the Eaton article. As it indicates, it relates to the High Times article. It points to the fact that you re-added completely uncited material to that article. As Dennis indicated as well, and as I did above, you can't restore uncited material without supplying an inline citation directly supporting it, to a reliable source. Please read wp:v and wp:rs and wp:burden and wp:blp. I had already urged you, more than once in some of these instances, to read these as background, to understand what is acceptable, and how to add material to wikipedia, and how to re-insert material properly. If you read the material, you will find it answers your questions, I believe. If you keep on re-adding the material without sourcing, based on what we call original research (see wp:or), it attracts warnings, as it is not the way to re-add such material. Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• I am leaving the High Times entry alone until such time as a place for "Other Writers" is included with citations. Only then would I add my name with references, citations. It's not all that important to me at his time. I now understand. I will follow Wikipedia rules.Nathaniel Albert Eaton (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

One of the sometimes frustrating things is covered under WP:WAX. Someone tells you "you can't do that", but you can see plenty of other examples of that being done. In reality, it is wrong in all places, but it looks like it is only you getting it enforced. Really, it is that it was just noticed. Lots of things slide by until someone catches it. Its a big old encyclopedia. If someone wrote for High Times, all it needs is a cite from any edition that listed them as a writer, or a link from the main website showing it as such. Nothing major, just a reasonable source. Things that are really contentious (saying someone was arrested, stuff like that) requires the strongest of sources, for obvious reasons. Any way, if you are a writer, we certainly want you around. There are lots of people who edit, fewer still that have done so at a professional level. I haven't read High Times myself (although I did fly out for the High Times Cannabis Cup in Denver this year) but I trust the writing standards are as strict as any major magazine, so you have a lot to offer here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Brown | WikiProject Editor Retention - Thank you. I have an opinion about the removal of all "other writers" in the High Times entry, including such people as Truman Capote. I'm not sure if some sort of note could have been issued before the removal because lots of writers that I know whose work was in the magazine were listed, with links to their Wikipedia pages. There was nothing false there that I could detect and there is plenty of other info on the page that remains without citation. I believe in full and open communication. However, I am leaving the entry alone. I thank you for your kind words. I covered the Cannabis Cup in 1993, wrote the cover story and directed the cover shoot. It was a fun time. I am glad you were able to experience it. I am quite busy now, my main focus in recent days on Wikipedia was to put back info that had been deleted from the Charles Aubrey Eaton entry, rewrite some of it and cite a new source. I believe the entry was edited to make him seem like a modern-day "neocon" politician, when he was much more complex. Just my opinion. I have received tips in the Teahouse to rewrite the entire article, putting his political career front and center rather than his career as a preacher. I also think there is too much about the Rockefellers and Cyrus S. Eaton, and that can be trimmed. (There's is nothing about Charles Aubrey Eaton in the Cyrus S. Eaton piece, and CAE was a main factor in helping get Cyrus's career started.) Anyway, I have professional experience working for book, magazine, and newspaper publishers and web writing and editing experience working for such corporations as AT&T and Merrill Lynch. I hope to do more work here when I have time. All good wishes, Nathaniel Albert Eaton (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to ping me on my talk page any time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Hi. I see that you have a lot of additions to an article to which you have a COI. Is that right?

Also, are you always adding an RS ref? As here? You can't make additions based on personal knowledge. Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, Epeefleche. I have no conflict of interest. I am a professional editor-writer, and I have been a reporter. I have never been discredited for any of my work. All of the information that I have added is well-sourced. The one change that you mentioned was information that was new to me and it is sourced here: All of my changes have been objective and I have displayed no sign of conflict of interest. Yes, I am a descendant of Charles Aubrey Eaton, but that does not alter my sincere wish to see that his Wikipedia entry is factual, informative, objective and well-sourced. - Nathaniel Albert Eaton (talk)

Epeefleche - I have read the Wikipedia rules regarding COI. It is possible that I have an "apparent COI," but it no way would that interfere with the professionalism I employ when editing any Wikipedia entry. I maintain that my additions to the Charles Aubrey Eaton page have been proper and well-sourced. In no way am I benefitting from improving this page. In any case, he died long before I was born, so I have only the published sources to rely on when editing his page. I have made no "additions based on personal knowledge." Nathaniel Albert Eaton (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)