User talk:Threecreeks/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

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

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Peter Stanton, 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 can’t 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
• Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
• 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

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, 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! 220 of ^ßorg 10:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Threecreeks, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Threecreeks! 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 experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Connected accounts?

Hello Threecreeks.

I'm just enquiring if there is any connection between you, Romancingthezone (talk · contribs) and Gilpin b (talk · contribs)?
• I ask this because all 3 accounts have edited the Peter Stanton page, 'Gilpin b' created it, and all 3 accounts have also edited the same 2 other other ecologists' biography pages (BLPs) but little if anything else.
Regards, 220 of ^ßorg 12:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi there,

Thanks for getting in touch and for your query. This user page and the others you have discussed are connected to a Wet Tropics of Queensland environmental and scientific history study group which is progressively expanding upon the pages fitfully as time permits and new relevant historical resources become available. The aim is to ensure the thoroughness and historical veracity of content but of course happy to edit or remove whatever you think warrants such treatment or doesn’t meet Wikipedia guidelines.

Kind Regards Threecreeks (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Threecreeks it just looks a little odd when apparently new editors all edit the same 3 biographical pages like appeared to be happening here. Sometimes it's the person writing about themselves, or their friends tarting up or whitewashing their page. Sometimes it's paid editors, which is not allowed on Wikipedia (WP) if IIRC. If you have any possible conflict of interest, please see WP:COI.
• I started the page Wet Tropics Management Authority (WTMA), and that could use expansion, so please have a look. 220 of ^ßorg 18:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi there,

That’s great and I’d be very happy to do some work on it for for you.

The broader research being undertaken the group is based upon the history of the scientists as well as conservationists whose work significantly contributed to the understanding or conservation of the region in some form. Some figures, such as Aila Keto, Bernie Hyland and Margaret Thorsborne already had reasonably significant listings although their pages had been flagged for future improvement for a number of reasons.

Other important figures on the other hand failed to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines which seems to require some kind of official government honour to have been bestowed to qualify in this context. Very little of this research has made its way onto Wikipedia but the absence of listings for Webb, Stanton and Tracey seemed important to address initially.

It will take time to flesh out some of the biographical details properly from a more rigorous historical perspective as of course good quality reference material in this rather specific area can take a fair bit of time to source, examine and translate.

Thanks again for your help, it does seem the page is better off for the changes that have been made by @North8000

In further response to your query. Is there anything else you would like changed on the Peter Stanton, Len Webb or Geoff Tracey pages to address the issue of neutrality raised by the maintenance template?

Kind Regards Threecreeks (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Threecreeks, you are free to edit almost any page you want, though some may be protected from 'new' users, just edit within the guidelines & rules of WP. Everything you need to know is probably linked to in the 'welcome' template that I put on the top of this page. The WTMA page I just created when I noticed it mentioned on another WP page, but no article. I have no particular interest or expertise in the area of Wet Tropics. Currently it is only sourced to its own website. Third party sources (reliable newspaper reports for example) are needed, if possible. If you know more about the subject, great. :-D

One thing I came across recently is the WTMA 'Cassowary Award', which is not yet mentioned on its page, which is probably the best place for it as the award does not seems not WP:NOTABLE enough on its own.

Re the "maintenance template" the WP:COI template was placed by me in response to the possibility of Stanton themselves, or associates, editing the page. (Maybe I was just in a suspicious mood?) It does happen esp. with politicians IMHO. Many times true, reliably sourced but not particularly nice things about people in their WP biography WP:BLP have been 'whitewashed' by them, employees, colleagues or paid editors. When they get caught, it possibly 'look's' even worse then what was written about them. There are some new editors who think they are notable, when they're not, or don't understand that WP is an encyclopedia, not Facebook or MySpace, and the first thing they do is create a Wikipaedia page, about themselves. :-/

• The major thing I noticed was the WP:LEDE was far too long. I created a "Career" heading and just moved a lot of the lede to that section, here. And interesting to see he's the brother of John Stanton (actor).

So if you and the other 2 editors are not colleagues/friend/associates of Stanton and the other 2 people (Leonard Webb (academic) & Geoff Tracey Thunderbirds!?, no that's Jeff Tracy!), and have no other conflicts of interest, then I'll remove it.

• You said it was a "Wet Tropics of Queensland environmental and scientific history study group", is this related to a school or other educational body?

Like this, quoting the 'Tracey' page: " ... Peter Stanton ... established TREAT, a community-based rainforest nursery and tree planting organisation ..." ?

See also Wikipedia:Notability (academics) which may help.

Ps. It's the practice on WP to WP:indent your replies by putting one, or more punctuation colon/s : at the start. (I added some to your previous post) each extra one indents your text more.

See? 2 colons

And 3 colons

Regards, 220 of ^ßorg 04:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Looking now at the Geoff Tracey page, its mostly a list of his "Selected works", so it looks a bit, to me, ridiculous.
Leonard Webb (academic) looks a lot more balanced, more text, less "Selected works" 220 of ^ßorg 05:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks that’s all very helpful - and we appreciate your detailed and informative response. I can categorically assure you that there is no individual or collective association or affiliation with the subjects we have been editing pages about on either a personal or professional level. There is also no direct affiliation with any one educational institution in relation to this study group. The associated topics covered are however linked to our respective fields of graduate qualification and abiding personal interests in different ways and relate to an ongoing collaborative research project.

This is all relatively peripheral and slow going when it comes to developing these Wikipedia pages. Good quality referenceable material on these kinds of subjects is hard to source and time consuming to distil and present in a form which is suitable for the platform. None of us are particularly experienced users of Wikipedia and it’s formatting protocols, hence the WP:LEDE you mention being conspicuously long in at least the two posts which we have had time to develop more fully (though I see that North8000 has also recently remedied this shortcoming on another of these pages).

From a historical research perspective however I believe that the posts we have collectively added to Wikipedia so far have been approached impartially and well researched and referenced. I also believe that they have gone at least part of the way to remedying a significant gap in Wikipedia relating to the environmental and scientific history of the area. We also hope to be able to continue working together further developing these as well as other pages on different topics and subjects as the necessary time and good quality biographical reference material becomes available to us in the future.

Thanks very much and of course your ideas about the Wet Tropics page have been noted and will be worked upon by me in the weeks ahead.

Cheers Threecreeks (talk) 07:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

yes each of these figures are strongly linked historically linked and it is the connections between them which is of some historical interest to us particularly the collaborations between scientists in the CSIRO and the QNPWS in relation to the eventual world heritage protection of the area. As far as I can tell these details are well referenced.

Cheers

These pages are being developed progressively and the biographical details on Geoff Tracey, Len Webb and Peter Stanton are being worked on and should be developed and added to in due course. Sourcing quality referenceble material does take time with such figures. Threecreeks (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

sorry I’m still failing with the indents. Threecreeks (talk) 08:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

But yes I understand your point re: the selected works on the Geoff Tracey page, it does look lopsided at present. Happy to edit that back for you if you like. Threecreeks (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

and yes, as far as can be discerned he’s definitely not that Geoff Tracey. Threecreeks (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Jeff Tracy! Threecreeks (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

in any case we’re glad to be guided by you or @north8000: in this regard. If a consensus can be reached about the value, historical veracity and neutrality of the articles and their interrelationships and recommendations can be made about how we can tackle any perceived factual shortcomings or perceived biases then we’re completely open to your suggestions.

Respectfully

Threecreeks (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I've added some indenting as an example for you, makes it a bit easier to follow, I hope. Could just a easily have lined them all up on the left, see WP: Refactoring 220 of ^ßorg 10:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
See the above edit here 220 of ^ßorg 10:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

thanks - ok just testing here Threecreeks (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

and again! Threecreeks (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok I think I get it (just going back to full page width now) Apologies for the dogs breakfast here, I was interrupted a few times whilst writing some of those earlier responses (and it shows) Threecreeks (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

See Help:Show preview. 220 of ^ßorg 11:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions

I'd suggest going to pages that interest you and see if you can improve them.
• Any new pages you create could go via WP:Articles for creation, or created as a WP:Draft. Which will give many other editors the opportunity to comment. There is also the WP:Article wizard to assist. 220 of ^ßorg 11:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, Sure. Just to clarify Is this something that you are asking of me in particular to resolve the issues you have raised with the existing pages being discussed or an additional general prescription? Threecreeks (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

No, not for existing pages, just a general suggestion for any new pages. 220 of ^ßorg 11:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

ok I understand, there are certainly a few on the future list. Is the idea that I am to share these article additions with you once inserted? Threecreeks (talk) 11:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

No, no need for that. 220 of ^ßorg 12:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

sure that’s fine, there’s no lack of potential research content in this field available to be shared, only a lack of time between us to properly collate and reference it for Wikipedia in a rigorous, meaningful and thoughtful way with young children in tow much of the time! Happy to do my best to act upon your suggestions nonetheless!

With respect Threecreeks (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

In addition to indents I also just realised that I can (and should) sign each comment! I also discovered that any mentions of other users such as the one for @north8000: earlier require such signatures to work. This is another test post based upon this new knowledge. Threecreeks (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

but perhaps the signature happens automatically in this context? Threecreeks (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

No, but there is a BOT program that runs around signing unsigned talkpage messages. There should also be a 'signature' button on the editing toolbar. 220 of ^ßorg 08:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

---

@North8000: I have been trying to figure out how to include you in this discussion for comment. Hopefully this attempt is more successful than the previous ones Threecreeks (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

A few thoughts come to mind:

• Wikipedia is very very concerned about the worst form of wp:COI with is undeclared paid editing. And creation of articles on individual persons and commercial entities are the most common action by them, and most commonly they use accounts for just one or few articles. And, when "debates" arise, sometimes such an editor will create multiple (undeclared) accounts so that they can look like more people in those debates, which is a very serious offense in Wikipedia. So situations like this put editors on yellow alert. IMHO the wp:coi guideline is written so broadly that if it is interpreted rigorously every editor has a coi. My own expectation is that when an editor edits an article, their #1 and #2 and #3 and only priority must be to make a good article.

• The biggest question for existence as a separate article is wp:notability. WP:notability is a criteria for such, not for existence of material within an article.

• IMHO I think that these three articles don't have severe policy problems and just need a lot of work and that y'all should all start / continue having some fun doing that work.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@North8000: Thank you for your response. I completely understand all that you say regarding why 220 and other editors would be concerned given the other associated patterns of activity this kind of collaboration could be seen to represent from the outside. I assure you both that the aforementioned scenarios are not the case in this instance. Thanks for the encouragement and we do hope to develop the biographical aspects of these pages significantly as a range of new quality reference material has recently been sourced on all three historical entities. The research process so far has proven to be a rewarding challenge for our group. With respect and appreciation to you both. Threecreeks (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

FYI I have started working on improving some of the other existing pages within the present scope of our research activities and have also added some red links for additional pages which will be added in due course. I will get around to looking at the Wet Tropics page for you over the next week too. Cheers Threecreeks (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@North8000: 220 Based upon our shared dialogue to this point what are your respective recommendations for resolving the maintenance template issue at this stage? Regards Threecreeks (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

COI template removed from Stanton BLP. 220 of ^ßorg 08:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much 220 for the instructive dialogue and the time and work you have put into all of this on a number of levels. It is important work and it is appreciated. Thanks also North8000 for sharing your time and perspective. A lot has been learned from each of you and those lessons will be put into practice. Threecreeks (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)