Trentprof

Welcome

Hello, Trentprof, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Cordless Larry (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Help directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

December 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Cogewea. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Cogewea. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Please stop continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Cogewea, without resolving the problem that the template refers to. This may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I remove maintenance templates when I fix an issue. I understand the rules; however, there is clearly a dispute at play here.

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:Cogewea, 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 ( or ) 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. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

May 2018

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:Cogewea, 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. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions

I realise that this might not be appreciated at this point, so please feel free to ignore me if you want, but I saw that you had commented that you felt you had not been given advice but rather only warnings, so I thought I would try to offer some of the former.

The COI issue is a tricky one. On the one hand, you are clearly an expert on the topic and Wikipedia should welcome this expertise. On the other, an issue that academics often face when trying to contribute to Wikipedia is that it can be perceived as if they are trying to push one particular interpretation of a topic that they favour in their own work (I use "perceived" deliberately here - I'm not saying that this is what you are doing, but it can come across like this whenever you cite your own work). There is a specific section of the COI policy page that offers advice on this - WP:SELFCITE - and there are a couple of essays that have been written on it too, which you might find helpful: Wikipedia:Relationships with academic editors and (to a lesser extent, given its hard-science focus) Wikipedia:Wikipedia editing for research scientists.

I also noticed that you wrote that "I would have appreciated suggestions to improve this section rather than Larry telling me this has nothing to do with Cogewea as a novel". I just wanted to make a clarification here. I wasn't arguing that the material you are discussing has nothing to do with the book, but rather that the comparison "More examples of such systemic discrimination include..." needs to have already been made in a published source, and I don't see evidence of that, which is why I considered it original research. Perhaps a solution to this is that you could yourself write something making this comparison between the Cogewea case and the resignation of Hal Niedzviecki, and then we can cite that as a source. It wouldn't need to be a journal article - an article for an academic commentary website would probably do the trick, or perhaps even one for a university blog (blogs in general are not considered reliable sources, but if they are written by established experts, they can sometimes be used).

Anyway, like I said, feel free to ignore this advice and sorry if it comes too late, but I hope that you will at least consider it. If you would like any advice from editors not involved in the dispute about the article, then Wikipedia:Teahouse is a friendly place to ask questions. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

This means a great deal, really. I may come back to Wikipedia at some point. My goal was and is to reflect and empower Indigenous knowledge. I cite Indigenous scholars and try to represent Indigenous writers through their own knowledge systems. Your advice is well given and I appreciate it more than you know.

Thank you. Trentprof (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

ad hominem comments

You should really avoid WP:ADHOM comments such as this. [1]. It doesn't strengthen your arguments. You are personnalising the issue and please remember that wikipedia is not a memorial where one has to protect the memory of a person or a group of people. From what I can see there are scholars that do not have the same opinion as you on certain matters concerning the authorship. Their positions should be mentionned if they are backed up by reliable sources. Would you consider the following to be reliable sources? [2] [3] [4] [5]. The question has been posed over the last 100 years and it would be unencyclopedic to not mention this would you not agree? Dom from Paris (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I have not attacked anyone.I said I’ve been stalked and trolled and I have. That’s not an ad hominem attack. To your other claim, I did mention the editing controversy. Check out my contributions. However, Mourning Dove is the author of her own work - that’s been accepted for 20 years. Trent Student is misrepresenting an Indigenous author and privileging a colonial point of view. That’s also not an ad hominem attack but a comment on content.

Can you please provide an example where I memorialized anything or anyone? I mean, that is an attack on my integrity along with your question about whether I profit from this work. Glass houses are tough to live in, but Wikipedians seem to enjoy them.

TrentProf, you may be interested in looking at the places I striked out on the Cogewea talk page. It was wrong of me to imply your financial interests were tied up with Cogewea. I'm very sorry. I shouldn't have attacked your integrity either. Instead, I should have simply suggested that you view the Cogewea page in a different light. The goal of the page, in my opinion, shouldn't be to protect Mourning Dove's authorial status. If controversy exists, and I think it does, it should be noted on the page. I don't think a reader of the page will come away thinking that Mourning Dove is not the author. Instead, I think they would come away thinking that McWhorter's level of contribution is debated. They'd have to read scholarly work--yours!-- to figure out how they felt about it. I would love to have you back on the talk page if you want to reccomend specific wording changes that you feel would reflect the subject better. But we can't erase the knowledge that controversy exists, in my opinion. TrentStudent20 (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Goodbye

I am closing this account by not using it anymore.

You might want to have a look at my comments on the talk page first and give your opinion. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)