User talk:Crocodyle

Testing.....1, 2.....

Anna Schmidt

Please cite your additions to the Anna Schmidt article or remove the information. Potentially damaging information about her not seeing her father or the custody change definitely needs to be referenced. Where did you see this? --Bookworm857158367 14:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Anna Schmidt's page....

I'm new at this, and was unable to find (maybe i didn't look in the correct places) how to make a citation if one's reference is the actual individual being written about. What i'm trying to say, is that Anna is my reference.....so i am pretty confident that what i say is truth. Is there a way to cite this? Any help would be appreciated....thanks!! crocodyle 18:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how to do this either, but I think Wikipedia does allow the subject of an article to submit a personal statement or make alterations in his or her own article. Take a look at an article called Ryan St. Anne Scott where the subject's personal statement is used as a reference. Anna or her mom could send a statement to Wikipedia giving the facts, as long as they don't include negative information about anyone else -- i.e. her father -- that can't be verified with an independent source. What you've got in there looks fine to me because it's just a statement of fact and isn't saying anything really negative or giving the reason why she hasn't seen her dad. I see you also use the court records themselves as a reference. Unless the judge sealed the records, the court order regarding custody is open record and I would think that would qualify too. If you know the name of the case (Clausen vs. Schmidt or Schmidt vs. Schmidt, maybe?) or the date the judge ordered the custody change, you should be able to cite the court order itself as the reference. I'm not sure if falls under the policy against original research or not. Usually they want people to use a newspaper article or a book or some other published material as a reference. If her local newspaper reported the custody change, you can cite that article -- date, name of newspaper, name of article -- and it would be less likely to be challenged. It would probably be better if Anna herself -- or her mom, since Anna is still a minor -- wrote a statement and sent it to Wikipedia. Let her know she has that option. Just make sure that anything either of you put in that might be negative or controversial can be verified. --Bookworm857158367 19:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Child custody order....

Thanks for your assistance and adding the citation. crocodyle 02:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Living persons noticeboard

If you're her stepfather, I'm sure your statement would count as well or any other corrections you want to make to names, facts, dates, etc. If anyone would know, you would. I was going off the news article I found (and cited at the bottom of the page) called "Baby Jessica updates." "The family" being referred to was apparently Schmidt and Anna. By all means, change that back to just Dan Schmidt, if you want. Someone requested an article on this case last year; I spotted the request, did the research and looked up the articles. The 2003 article was the most recent one I could find. I was attempting to present both sides as fairly as possible. There's a board called "living persons notice board" that should be referenced at the top of the Anna Schmidt discussion page. Go there and pose the question and the administrators who oversee that should be able to tell you how to go about submitting your statement. I know it's possible based on the Ryan St. Anne Scott article I referred you to earlier. --Bookworm857158367 13:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, I submitted a question on the living persons noticeboard about the right way for you to submit a statement. I also changed the "family" reference to just "Dan Schmidt" that you had objected to. --Bookworm857158367 18:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Living persons board

I noticed the message and will watch for an answer. Thanks! crocodyle 18:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ryan St. Anne Scott

It looks to me like the person mentioned above referenced his own statement from what he wrote on his Wikipedia TALK page (see Talk:Ryan St. Anne Scott)...which is not from a source "outside" of Wikipedia, such as "≈ jossi ≈" answers to you on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. crocodyle 04:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

So.....maybe this is enough.....?

Anna and her younger sister Chloe both currently live with their mother, Cara, and have not been in contact with their father since March 2006. crocodyle 04:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Change of title to Baby Jessica case

I didn't change the title of the article. Apparently one of the administrators decided the title was inappropriate and didn't want to leave in information without a reference. They feel it infringes on the privacy of someone who isn't a public person to have a biography article using her name on Wikipedia. The case itself is notable. I don't know why the owner of Wikipedia didn't write you back. You probably should bring it up again on that Biography of Living Persons message board if you want to make more changes. --Bookworm857158367 12:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the response I got from one of the administrators on my talk page in response to your comment. You might want to carry on a further conversation with him --Bookworm857158367 12:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• If you want to help that editor, you can cite Guggenheim, who devotes the whole of chapter 3 to the Baby Jessica case, under that very name. Guggenheim goes into depth on the subject of the rights issues involved in the case, including the children's rights issue involved in the ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court that permitted the DeBoers to retain custody whilst the case was before the court of appeal, and should be used to expand the article. The encyclopaedic subject, per sources such as Guggenheim, is the case. It should not be presented as if it were a biographical article documenting the life and works of the child. Moreover independent sources such as Guggenheim are what we look for and use here. A pseudonymous Wikipedia editor, about whom the world can actually know nothing, claiming to have done original research in contravention of our Wikipedia:No original research policy, coming to talk pages arguing that Wikipedia should be taking sides in the case in direct contravention of our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, and coming within a millimetre of making legal threats contrary to our Wikipedia:No legal threats policy, is not a source. Uncle G 12:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Change in name of article

What I think this administrator is saying is that the article should be reworked. I wrote it more like a newspaper feature, trying to look at how it affected the people on both sides, and they're saying it needs to be more like an overview of the case and less like a biography. The only problem the administrator had with the info you added is that there isn't a way to verify it without a book or a newspaper article that can be cited as a source. Your court records are sealed. Hopefully, the Wikipedia owner will let you submit your statement as a source. What if you weren't who you say you are, but someone who was writing lies about Anna? You'd want those things removed right away, right? The new version of the article should address topics like children's rights and parent's rights and how this case changed family law. I don't have the book that he's mentioning that should be used as a reference, but someone out there probably does and can write it from that perspective. Wikipedia's strength and weakness is that it has a lot of editors. It might be preferable to remove a lot of the biographical detail from that article about EVERYONE and start over, which I can do or you can do. What changes should be made or what should be deleted? --Bookworm857158367 14:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: Take a look at what I did with the article. I removed a lot of the biographical detail. Is there anything in there you don't feel is fair or correct? --Bookworm857158367 14:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Crocodyle, please note that editors (here Doc Glasgow and Uncle G) are increasingly strict in enforcing the important WP:BLP policy. I support the changes made by them:

1. The move from Anna Schmidt to Baby Jessica case reflects the fact that the original article was not a biography as suggested by its title.
2. The deletion of unsourced information added by you, which Bookworm had allowed pending verification. Your insistence and behavior have raised doubt about your identity as revealed by you. Nevertheless, as indicated by Bookworm, this deletion does not preclude another outcome depending on the response to your e-mail. Your BLP noticeboard report has not been resolved. You may want to write a note there indicating whether or not you have received a response (Wikipedia is a large place with thousands of voluntary editors and administrators). If you have any questions, feel free to ask here or on my talk page. AvB ÷ talk 18:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes....

I understand what the administrator was trying to say....and i didn't object to changing the article's name....BUT what i did object to was the fact that certain things NOT pertaining to the actual case were left in, while what i put in was supposedly unacceptable because "it had nothing to do with the actual case". Your removal of most of what i felt wasn't any more related to the case than my input.....was the right thing to do....nice work. I can also understand why you have doubts as to who i am, but i did send a copy of our (Cara and I) marriage license in with my letter to info-en@wikipedia.org. I'm not an expert on marriage licenses, but i don't think anyone other than us actually have or can obtain the original copy...although the person at the info-en location now has a copy....so who knows. And that doesn't help you to know who i really am, so it is understandable. When i first stumbled across the article and showed my wife, she wasn't happy....wondering why it had to be put in at all....and why everyone always distorted the facts/truth of what really happened. Most of what she objected to is no longer in the article....and it has been made an article about the case, not an individual....so it's time for me to quit nagging and move on. Thanks for your help and work... crocodyle 01:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)