User talk:John Bernard Brown

August 2019

Hello, I'm AnUnnamedUser. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Anna Nicole Smith, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Use inline citations. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 21:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello John Bernard Brown and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! S0091 (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Anna Nicole Smith. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Serols (talk) 10:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Anna Nicole Smith, you may be blocked from editing. Serols (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Help me!

Hello, I have been trying to make an addition to the Wikipedia page on Anna Nichole Smith page regarding her ancestry. Yes, I noticed taht I did not add references and I apologies for that. I have since added references but the additions still do not apear on the page. Can you please clarify the situation for me. John Bernard Brown.

John Bernard Brown (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must cite reliable sources. For biographies of living persons the standards are strict, citing primary and self-published sources on a biography of a living person isn't allowed. Geneanet and Geni can't be used, instead we must reflect what reliable sources (such as books and newspapers) have said about the subject. If the New York Times or others have written about her ancestry, we can add that in. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Help me!

Please help me with...Anna Nicole Smith page. I am still confused. Firstly, the sources mentioned have been taken from births, deaths and marriage records, so how can they not be acceptable. Secondly, you mention "living people" yet Anna Nicole Smith is dead and any comments added by myself are only to do with her genealogy and are not lies or attacks on anyone. There are many pages on Wikipedia that use dubious sources including Youtube interviews. This smacks of double standards. ¬¬¬¬ John Bernard Brown (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Assuming that the relevant archives are reasonably complete, everybody has birth, death and marriage records going back as many generations as desired. Is that relevant? Usually not. There's no significance of who Smith's great-great-greatgrandfather was. If there really was some significance, we wouldn't have to rely on birth and death records but could make use of reliable secondary sources where someone else has reported on that significance. Also, "ref, family belief. Conversation with Anna Nichole Smith, late 2005"? How are our readers supposed to verify that? If I edited the article and claimed that Smith told me something else in 2006, how could they tell who of us, if anybody, is right? Huon (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Help me!

I believe the entry on the Anna Nicole Smith page is relevant. Many readers would find a genealogy link to Marilyn Monroe to be very informative since Smith regarded Monroe as her idol and often imitated her while not knowing of her own genealogical link to Monroe. To show the genealogical link between them through the Hogan family line is my main point here and to also show her Irish ancestry by detailing the first Irish person in her line to come to the United States. The subject of stars with Irish heritage is a subject that people find interesting due to the large Irish diaspora in the United States. Therefore, I believe that these two points are relevant. Also, there are no better sources than birth, death and marriage records. The sources that I stated are all taken from these official United States Government records and therefore cannot be falsified. As for personal comments, are you then going to remove every personal comment found on Wikipedia because there are indeed many.

Please help me with...

¬¬¬¬ John Bernard Brown (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Help me!

{{help me-inappropriate}}

On the Anna Nicole Smith page, points 2 and 3 are referenced to Ancestry.com. How are you allowing this but refuse my deeper genealogical points which are just as much valid. If Ancestry.com is acceptable as a source, then why not the two genealogical sources I have given.

Please help me with...

¬¬¬¬ John Bernard Brown (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Help me!

{{help me-inappropriate}}

Anna Nicole Smith. On this page, there are no references given for any of the statements made on the first three chapters. Why iss this allowed yet my points with references are not? There are also many many other points not referenced on this page, yet you insist that I give references, which I am only too happy to comply with and have..

Please help me with...

¬¬¬¬ John Bernard Brown (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Huon. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I have removed all references to Ancestry.com per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#User-generated_content and WP:BLPSPS. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Much of this looks like a content dispute and should be discussed on the article's talk page, Talk:Anna Nicole Smith; there everybody interested in the article has a chance to see the discussion and to weigh in. I'll thus start a discussion about the merits of the content there. Regarding your other questions, yes, every personal comment on Wikipedia, cited to "I spoke to someone" or the like, should be removed. If you can point me towards other examples, I might work on cleaning those up, too. Huon (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Help me!

Anna Nicole Smith. I find it hard to believe that suddenly Wikipedia deems Ancestry.com an unreliable source and has taken those references off the page. That was not my intention but only to show that one genealogical source was just as valid as another genealogical source. This now leaves large holes in the page without proper references. The actions of Wikipedia members are confusing and certainly not helpful. It would have been much better if you had put up my original additions with my sources and see if anyone would object. I would be happy with that scenario as I know that no one would find fault with my comments. If they did, and could prove otherwise, I would be happy for their removal.

Please help me with...

¬¬¬¬ John Bernard Brown (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Your question above has not been answered yet. Please wait for someone to answer it. This usually happens within a day or two. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Your genealogical sources were indeed just as valid as ancestry.com - not valid enough to be sources for a Wikipedia article. Thus both your sources and Ancestry.com have been removed. I'd strongly suggest discussing any further additions regarding genealogy on the article's talk page before implementing them. Huon (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Help me!

Dear Wikipedia, I would like to register my disapproval of the way Wikipedia has handled my proposed additions to the Anna Nicole Smith page. For some time now, Wikipedia has accepted Ancestry.com as a source but as soon as I give sources from other genealogical websites, you pull the Ancestry references instead of simply adding mine. The genealogy of a famous person is relevant and very much of interest to the general reader. It is sad that Wikipedia have decided to delete Ancestry.com as well as ignore my additions. Secondly, I thought that readers would be very interested to learn that Anna Nicole Smith and Marilyn Monroe were actually related. This is indeed very relevant and is proven through Ancestry.com, Geni.com and other genealogical sources. How can Wikipedia not deem this as being of interest to readers? I am baffled by this decision considering Smith adored Monroe and regarded her as her idol without ever knowing that they were related. Thirdly, with the United States, in particular, having a large Irish diaspora, surely it is relevant to comment on the earliest known ancestor of an individual arriving in the United States, or is this only of interest if they came with the so-called Pilgrim Fathers. If website sources are not acceptable, then why does Wikipedia still insist on using so many of them on so many Wikipedia pages. I have only attempted to make minor changes to the said page yet have received only negative responses and indeed those responses are ill-thought out considering the hypocritical uses elsewhere of similarly sourced material. It was not my intention for Wikipedia to delete sources taken from Ancestry.com as this is a reliable source and Wikipedia's actions are clearly a kneejerk reaction to my additions. It would have been much simpler to add my comments and sources and then remove them if there were any complaints or new evidence brought forward. If Wikipedia has problems with my references then can Wikipedia please inform me if they have checked out those sources, or have they just dismissed them out of hand. The said sources can be easily proven by checking birth, death and marriage certs. Such cheap actions by Wikipedia will not win it any friends around the world. Please help me with...

¬¬¬¬ John Bernard Brown (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be repeating much of what you said above already; see Talk:Anna Nicole Smith#Genealogy for the part that's relevant to that article. Regarding your other points: If similar sources are used elsewhere, that's a problem that needs fixing. It is not, in itself, a justification to use the sources. See WP:Other stuff exists. And the removal of the content you added can be taken as a complaint; see WP:Bold, revert, discuss. Huon (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Help me!

Following Wikipedia's refusal to accept my short additions, even though I have supplied references, I decided to look again at the Anna Nicole Smith page and I find many statements made with no references at all and some statements which are nothing more than gossip, hearsay or someone's opinion. This makes it even more astounding that my additions cannot be added. If my references are deemed week or not good enough, then I suggest that Wikipedia pulls every page it has and checks every single one of them for accuracy and proper referencing and to take out every comment that suggests a personal opinion.....because there are many.

Please help me with...

¬¬¬¬ John Bernard Brown (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Help me!

Following on from the Anna Nicole Smith withdrawn references to Ancestry.com, I would like to ask why? since they are a reputable company. Why would you do this? Is it simply because I referenced other similar companies? I noticed that Wikipedia replaced the Ancestry references with 'citation needed'. If my additions were not referenced to your satisfaction, why could you not do something similar with my information. I have no problem with Wikipedia putting up my additions with 'citation needed' in brackets.

Please help me with...

¬¬¬¬ John Bernard Brown (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Facebook could be considered to be a "reputable company" as well. That does not matter, as its content is self-published. I have linked to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#User-generated_content and WP:BLPSPS above; this is still a valid explanation. Any further discussion should occur on the article's talk page, as previously advised. Please do not misuse the "help me" template to start an argument. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Help me!

(Sentence removed: WP:BLP applies to every page, even this one ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)) This is history and not trivia. There are many points on the Anna Nicole Smith page that one could deem as being of less importance. I find it strange that Wikipedia, who have always used Ancestry.com as a reference, has now washed their hands of them. Ancestry are a reputable company and birth, death and marriage certs are as valid as any other historical source and for Wikipedia to ignore this is mind-blowing. You need birth certs and marriage certs to get passports and so much more, so the United States Government find them acceptable...but not Wikipedia apparently. Wikipedia is wrong on this matter and wrong to dismiss the public interest in the relationship between these two tragic women as well as their Irish heritage.

Please help me with...

¬¬¬¬ John Bernard Brown (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Help me!

SOURCE: Genealogy Magazine, April 2011. Family Tree of Anna Nicole Smith, p1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Bernard Brown (talk • contribs) 23:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

• @ToBeFree: Hi. You seem to be handling this particular scenario (courtesy ping). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernamekiran (talk • contribs) 01:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I can't find that there is or was a magazine with that name, so I don't think you can use this insufficiently specific citation as a reference. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Help me!

the info can be found on Genealogy.com. I am presuming that they had a magazine prior to the internet. You can contact one of the contributors there for verification.

Please help me with...

¬¬¬¬ John Bernard Brown (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll reply below. Huon (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Help me!

https://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/hogan/3831/

Please help me with...

¬¬¬¬ John Bernard Brown (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, issues relevant to the Anna Nicole Smith article should be discussed on that article's talk page, Talk:Anna Nicole Smith. I have started a section there about this issue. You can edit it via the "Edit" link at the section heading. You can indent your messages by adding colons at the beginning; for example, ::This is somewhat more indented. will produce:

This is somewhat more indented.

Please also remember to sign talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) to make it easier for others to tell who said what. There is no need to start a new section for every single comment, particularly if all you're doing is amending a previous comment of your own. There are by now eleven separate sections on this page that are all entitled "Help me!" and are all about the same topic (and that's after other editors merged a few more sections!); that makes it rather difficult for others to read and follow the discussion. See Help:Talk for a general introduction to using talk pages on Wikipedia.

That said, from what you write here it's rather clear that you have not actually read the source you're trying to cite. That is not a good idea, for reasons that should be obvious. In fact, your citation was so insufficient that even you yourself have misidentified the source. I'll comment on that source on the article's talk page so that others can assess it, too. The forum post on Genealogy.com suffers from the same problem as basically all forums: No editorial oversight. It's not a reliable source. Huon (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)