User talk:BellamyBell

Welcome!

Hi BellamyBell! I would like to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, BellamyBell. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Palm Springs Air Museum, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the conflict of interest guideline. I did disclose that I had been hired to update/enhance the museum's Wikipedia page. It is unclear to me how the changes/additions I made are overly promotional. Everything is factual about the museum's description and exhibitions, and I cited references to support statements. How can I resolve your concerns? Can you enlighten me on what you specifically deem too promotional? The museum is not happy with its current page. Does someone from the museum have to make the changes?

Thank you, BellamyBell BellamyBell (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, for the easy question to answer. Does someone from the museum have to make the changes?

Quite the opposite. The changes should be made by editors with no connection to the museum. —C.Fred (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now, let's look at some of the edits.

Through its exhibitions and programs, Palm Springs Air Museum in Palm Springs, California, educates visitors on the role of air power in preserving American liberties. This introductory sentence does not define what the museum is. That's why the current version is preferable: The Palm Springs Air Museum (PSAM), is a aviation museum in Palm Springs, California focused on World War II aviation. Introductory sentences should always follow the pattern of "subject is" at the start of the sentence.
Palm Springs Air Museum benefits from having volunteers with expertise to restore planes for display and hires certified A&P (airframe and/or powerplant) mechanics to work on planes that will fly. This is one of those sentences that reads like it came straight out of the museum's website. The tone feels promotional. Better might be PSAM hires certified mechanics to work on planes that will fly, but planes that will only be exhibited are restored by volunteers. I'm trying to think how to work in the expertise of the volunteers.

Overall, it didn't look quite as bad on this reread as it did the first time I looked at it. However, the introductory paragraph was so out of the standards of the Manual of Style that it raised immediate red flags, and that's why I jettisoned the whole of the edits. —C.Fred (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation that helps me understand the situation. I will review the Manual of Style and my content and rework those areas you mention and any others that may seem questionable and try again. From your reply to my inquiry, I trust that my disclosure of being hired as an editor is acceptable.

Thanks again. I appreciate your response and reviewing what I submitted.

BellamyBell BellamyBell (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the Manual of Style with great care and rewritten/restructured the content I was posting. I will publish the revision in sections with the hope that you will alert me of any objections/concerns that I can address in lieu of restoring the whole page to its previous version. Thank you. BellamyBell (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose your latest version was better than the one you tried earlier, but it's still too promotional for my taste. The list of things is excessive in the lead, and "Volunteers serve as docents" isn't very encyclopedic either. Plus, I think you removed all the secondary sources from the beginning of the article. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can delete the reference to volunteers serving as docents and replace the two secondary sources. As for "too promotional," please give me an example so that I can address what I am not seeing. BellamyBell (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The very things that I just told you are promotional. It's not just a matter of adjectives. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the list of things and the volunteers sentence, added back the secondary source and reposted with care to be strictly factual. I have pointed out that some of the information in the original content is inaccurate or outdated. But my attempts to improve the page were removed. Please tell me what further can be done. Surely accuracy and up-to-date status is of value to Wikipedia. BellamyBell (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having receive no reply, I have requested help on the dispute resolution noticeboard. I am unable to figure out how to use the notice template. BellamyBell (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I learned the dispute resolution noticeboard was the incorrect process at this point and was directed to the Talk page for the museum. I posted there under a post by C.Fred and trust you receive notice from the user link. BellamyBell (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what C.Fred thinks about my explanation. This contains excessive detail that's not of encyclopedic value, and that whole "503(c) non-profit" thing is also excessive. No one reading an encyclopedic article is going to care about that. Who signed the certificate and what their nicknames were, same. A list of "themed" hangars and the contents of the gift shop, no. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You talked about "secondary sources" in this edit--so why is the last paragraph "verified" by a YouTube link? Drmies (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there were a time marker where the museum's restoration of the plane were mentioned in a speech, then that Defense Now video might be useful as a source. As far as I can tell, we get one shot with a nose marking but no explanation. (I'm not watching a 52 minute video to tease out a factoid.) —C.Fred (talk) 02:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies

I trust that by clicking "reply" and adding a user tag that this reaches both editors objecting to edits of Palm Springs Air Museum's Wikipedia page. I am not a "coder" and am doing my best to work through this system.

In an effort to understand your objections and see what IS allowed on Wikipedia, I spent time viewing other museums' Wikipedia pages. The obvious jumping-off point is Smithsonian Institution. Its page includes a lengthy introduction and report on its founding. There’s a complete section on its capital campaigns and a thorough description of its collections, even stating, “The museum displays treasures such as …” (Is “treasures” not a touch of editorial language versus straight fact?). Then there is a section on administration (I didn't even try to add that aspect for PSAM, but do you consider that "of encyclopedic value?). If you click through to the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum, you will find a description of aircraft renovations, which is something I proposed adding to Palm Springs Air Museum’s Wikipedia page. San Diego Air and Space Museum’s page includes descriptions of what is in its various named galleries, which appeared to be an objection for Palm Springs Air Museum. The Cradle of Aviation Museum in New York gets to claim that it is “one of the more popular Air and Space museums in the United States and has installations that include …” (with a handful of specific items) and that “it is one of the only museums in the United States to cover all aspects of aviation/space history.” New Mexico Museum of Space History gets to list contents of its “main building,” “outlying buildings” and “outdoors.” Evergreen Aviation and Space Museum in Oregon begins with its identification as “an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit” (you claim my reference to nonprofit status is a “preoccupation”) and has a long description of its history and exhibition spaces. Given my spot check of other Wikipedia pages for museums (with an emphasis on aviation), your objections to content I offered seem arbitrary. Rules and standards should be applied uniformly. I also must repeat that I was attempting to correct inaccurate and outdated information, in addition to attempting to be more informative on what people can find at the museum. Is not the accuracy of Wikipedia of paramount importance? BellamyBell (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a coder either; you only pinged me, not C.Fred. You were looking at the article Smithsonian Institution? First of all, it seems likely to me that your museum does not have either the international status or the reputation of the Smithsonian--perhaps that is unfairly so, but it is what it is. I think Lincoln's hat is indeed worth mentioning, though I don't know about "treasure". You point at the "Founding" section--I agree with you that it needs better referencing. But here is the thing--or two things, really. First, there is no doubt, there should be no doubt, that the long history and the international reputation of the Smithsonian make it very likely that all this can be sourced to secondary publications; all it needs is editors of good will, such as yourself perhaps, to provide those. Second, this whole comparison thing--sorry, but it's so jaded, I've heard it so many times. We see it in deletion discussions all the time, and someone wrote up some advice, at WP:OTHERCONTENT. If you are going to take a Wikipedia article as a standard, pick a good one--meaning, a Good Article or a Featured Article.

If you're talking about accuracy--by all means remove or adapt outdated information, but "accuracy" is not a valid reason for including promotional information. Sorry, but if you're going to spend SO MUCH TIME arguing with editors and administrators here, why not spend some of that time finding actual secondary sources? Drmies (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred

@Drmies

I am sorry to see my efforts to understand your objections labeled “arguing.” I have considered with great care your and C.Fred’s messages and read the links to which you have pointed me. I have revised content and researched sources accordingly. My intent is to work with you, and I have been respectful in my communications.

Of course I recognize that the air museum lacks the status and reputation of the Smithsonian, but I believe policies and guidelines should be applied with equality, and the page to which you referred me does state, “Comparative statements should not be dismissed out of hand.”

Per your direction to “by all means remove or adapt outdated information,” I will try posting the introductory paragraphs again with another revision. BellamyBell (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]