User talk:LarryBoy79

Question for administrator (Answered)

A user by the name of "Newtwin" has created an "official entry authorized by Dr. Meselson" of the biography of Matthew Meselson. Later he forwarded me a message stating that "Dr. Meselson requests that you do not make further edits to his page without his consent. You may contact him at Harvard University." I do not object to the content of the page as it currently stands, but I dislike the apparent control over Dr. Meselson biography that Newtwin is claiming for him/her self. Does Wikipedia allow "official authorized" biographies, and should I deffer to Newtwin's control? If Newtwin begins to make capricious edits w/o discussion, should I just revert his edits? How should I deal with Newtwin?

--LarryBoy79 (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an adminstrator, so I left the template up. But I also went to Newtwin's page and left notes about article ownership and conflict of interest. I'm also going to look over the article tomorrow, unless someone gets to it first, and remove some of the self-promotional material that's been added in the past few weeks. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 23:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wtwilson3 is correct - there are no official pages, no one owns a page or has any more control over it than other editors. It seems a blatant conflict of interest editing. In any case, how does one know it's official? - Everyone on Wikipedia is anonymous, and their identity cannot normally be known. Feel free to edit away - as we all know, the bottom of every edit page says By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you two. I just needed some re-assurance I wasn't being overly defensive of my small contribution to the article. I will take a more liberal attitude to future edits in light of what you two have said, although I may have to check a book out of the library before I actually edit anything in the biography. LarryBoy79 (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LarryBoy79, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi LarryBoy79! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Black as source in eugenics article

I said on the eugenics talk page that Edwin Black is fringe but nobody has replied to my point. Could you look at it?RandomScholar30 (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look and will leave a comment as soon as I am able. LarryBoy79 (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution

@LarryBoy79: I don't know what is going on, but look at this recent edit. Not archived. Not properly closed. Simply deleted. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't respond in time to a request for clarification and they closed it. I'll see if I can get them to re-open it LarryBoy79 (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]