User talk:Lindsay658

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be auto-archived by .

hi my name is Jerry I came across some medals and other things that belong to E Vigil Neal. A family member of mine past away and gave them to me.

Re: blocking

If a registered user gets blocked (in many cases due to a patently offensive username), and then attempts to edit after being blocked, whatever IP address that user is attempting to edit from gets automatically blocked for 24 hours. This appears on the Special:Ipblocklist as:

[SomeTimestamp] [SomeAdmin] blocked #[SomeBlockNumber] (expires [SomeTimestamp + 24 hours]) (Unblock) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "[SomeBadUser]". The reason given for [SomeBadUser]'s block is: "[SomeGoodReason]")

This is intended to reduce the effect of vandals who vandalize with multiple accounts, whilst still protecting the privacy of their actual IP address. In the future, you can place something on your talk page like this:

{{unblock|my IP address was recently used by [SomeBadUser]}}

That will be get attention more quickly and effectively than e-mail. — Jun. 27, '06 [11:12] <freak|talk>

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:People from Damvillers

A tag has been placed on Category:People from Damvillers indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 03:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Graywalls (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls: Done, Thanks for the advice, and thanks for the tip about the "prompt". Lindsay658 (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lindsay658. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Brook Emery, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Lindsay658. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Lindsay658|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Do you have any personal relationship with the author, their publisher, or the sources cited within? The sources you use, as well as arduous details on family members suggest potential commercial relationship Graywalls (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Graywalls: As a well-credentialled academic, and a wikipedia editor of nearly 20 years standing (and contributor of 57,000+ edits), and one that has either produced or significantly contributed to a number of lengthy, extensive, well-written, and comprehensively referenced articles over that time -- e.g., Jules Liégeois (not yet completed), Ted Terry, Norman Hetherington, Stephen Hetherington, Kenneth G. Ross, Nicolas Rasmussen, Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism, Gerard Krefft, Hypnotic Ego-Strengthening Procedure, 1916 Pioneer Exhibition Game, 1967 VFA Grand Final, List of Victorian Football League players who died on active service, Essentially contested concept, Type I and type II errors, James Braid (surgeon), Thomas Brown (philosopher), etc. -- I can not understand your position, and I can not apprehend what has made you come "out of the blue" and so fiercely threaten and insult me, and attack me and my work in the way you have.

I can not understand why you, without any apparent specific understanding, make the "generic" claim (without any specific foundation) that I am conducting "original research", when I am not, and I can not understand why you are claiming that I have excessively relied upon primary resources, when all that has happened is that, as outlined at WP:NOR, I have been citing "reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented" and can be found by an editor -- and, then, and only then, provided those links in relation to the support of "facts" that are already published elsewhere. There are so many instances that I could mention. Here are some:

(a) The dedication to Emery's (2003) collection Misplaced Heart specifically includes a reference to both "Derek John Edward Emery (1914 - 1975)" and to "Cecil Audrey (Pat) Emery (1921 - 1965)". I have simply provided the links to freely available sources that verify those names and death dates as facts.

(b) The freely available links to references that verify both his father's employment at David Jones and his military service are directly relevant to the content of many of his poems: for instance, "My Father's Eyes" (see Westerly 44:3 (Spring 1999), pp.40-41).

(c) The meagre details (and references) of his (Australian surfing team member) brother that I have supplied are directly relevant to Brook Emery's personal history as a competition and patrolling surf lifesaver, and competition surf swimmer (Surf and swimming are a constant subject of his poems).

I could go on; but I'm sure that you "get my drift"; and, as an aside, in relation my work with "references" in general, I also draw your attention to another of my articles: List of works by Hugh Boyd M'Neile.

I can absolutely assure you that I have no financial relationship of any kind with the author, any of the publishers mentioned, or any of the sources listed; and, I am certain that you will see from the sample of articles above, that independence has always been the case with my Wikipedia work.

I believe that you are entirely wrong in your characterization of the links that I have provided in order to verify certain facts in relation to certain family members, as "arduous details", and, as well for your entirely mistaken claims that I have been engaged in "original research", or excessively used "primary resources", and I demand that you immediately remove your inappropriate "tags" from the head of the article -- and, in the process, at least, pay some respect to the on-going "Under Construction" label.

In the case of Brook Emery, a very important Australian poet, is a simple matter of the creation of an article about yet another significant Australian, such as Gerard Krefft, who had, up to the present been ignored by Wikipedia. Also there is still a certain amount of (well-referenced) material to be to be inserted into the developing in relation to his extensive career as an educator, and, in addition to his emergence as a poet in his mid-40s, and his poetry publications, his work as an official in a number of poets' organizations, his work as a guide, judge, and mentor, etc., and I hope to be able to proceed with the valuable work of completing this article without any more distracting interference. Lindsay658 (talk) 09:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

As an academically well-credentialled individual of 81 years, and as a long-term contributor of more than 57,000 edits over almost 20 years (some of which I have mentioned above), I am appealing for the intervention of some Wikipedia-"higher-up" in relation to the distressingly unwarranted, fierce, and unconscionable conduct of the wiki-user "Graywalls" and his inappropriate vigilante behavior and the entirely false assertions he has so vigorously made in relation to myself, my honesty, and my work (see above). I am writing to request that some Wikipedia-"higher-up" disciplines him in some way for his unfounded attacks; or, at least, counsels him about his entirely inappropriate language, attitude, and disruptive editing. I really hope that you can do something to protect me from this sort of distracting nonsense. Lindsay658 (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay658, thank you for clarifying your position on potential conflict-of-interest. The way in which rather excessive information, such as birth and death years of parents, and the long term editing with 90% of edits being without edit summary hinted potential COI. Graywalls (talk) 06:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admins do not intercede in content disputes. If Graywalls is in error about their claims, all you need to do is say something to the effect of "sorry, you are mistaken, here's why.....(explanation as to why). There is nothing here to "discipline". I do see that you specified you have no "financial" relationship- what is the nature of your relationship? 331dot (talk) 08:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

331dot -- This is exasperating. The issue relating to either "discipline" or, at least "giving counsel" is relating to the rudeness, arrogance, and outright insulting nature of his entirely mistaken interference with my (hoping) valuable-to-Wikipedia work. Now, it seems, within what you have written, you are accusing me of using weasel words in my response to his rogue-vigilante demand based upon his entirely mistaken view that I am receiving some sort of reward, for precisely the same sort of work I have always done in my 20 years with Wikipedia in the hope of delivering more information to the greater number. I have responded to his demand. I do hope that you will intercede and ask him to change his aggression and his tone (the issue for which I was asking for Admin intervention). I am astonished if Wikipedia has changed so much that the sorts of attacking language and outright threats that he has thrown in my direction can be justified, just because some totally uninformed person can have a fleeting thought that a particular situation of reward-for-work exists. Finally, if it is true that I have both "ECo" and "AP" status, as I have had for some considerable time, why is this USER so dedicated to scrutinizing my work? Once again, quite apart from any sort of "content dispute", please counsel this USER about their aggressive attitude and their entirely inappropriate choice of language. Lindsay658 (talk) 09:17, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "aggressive" to ask civil questions about apparent relationships to a topic- a question that you still haven't answered other than to say it's not a financial relationship. What is the general nature of the relationship? I am surprised that someone with a 57,000 plus edit history is reacting this way to civil, legitimate questions and is not assuming good faith. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

331dot -- In response, I do not "have relationship of any kind with the author, any of the publishers mentioned, or any of the sources listed". Lindsay658 (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've challenged WP:OR tag, but there are concerns throughout the article that presents things in a way that elevate the subject. For example, In addition to his talent for open-water swimming, Emery displayed an early versatile all-round talent for pool swimming, which is not directly supported in the source you provided. I have since removed this claim, but how did this come about? The reference you cited only includes a list of participants and their times, but none of these subject elevating commentaries. The article has a tendency to use tone that emphasizes, aggrandize and elevate the accomplishments of Emery and some of that is not directly supportable in cited sources which is expected under WP:V. Such things are a reasonable cause to suspect COI. Graywalls (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Graywalls: Point taken about "presentation". Thank you for explaining your action. Lindsay658 (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lindsay658:, I asked how such statements came about, which you have not answered. With the pride you expressed about your 57,000+ edits over 20 years, you should know better that verifiability is one of the WP:5P, especially with contentious claims like proclamation of accomplishments and accolades. You were left a standard template used when there's a suspicion of potential COI. The way in which you edit, such as embellishing accomplishments without a direct support by reliable sources is a behavior common among with those who are doing something for friends, family or public relations editing. Not being aware of sourcing requirements is like a driver who has been driving for 20 years being unaware they're supposed stop for a red light. Also, you did not fill out edit summary for 95% of your edits, including some of your more recent edits. Courtesy ping to @331dot:. Graywalls (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Graywalls: Please stop these distracting messages. Point taken. I fully understand the need to avoid COI (and hagiographic descriptions). Yet, it seems, you still don't understand my concerns with your intemperate actions. It seems plainly obvious that all of this completely un-necessary drama could have been avoided if — given your apparent Wikipedia obligation to "assume good faith" — you had, indeed, behaved in a respectful manner and had, indeed, immediately assumed "good faith", and had thereby avoided the provocative and without-any-prior contact w.r.t. clarification intrusive imposition of the "standard templates" into the head of the article, and especially, avoided listing all of the unfounded characteristics ("undisclosed financial stake", "undisclosed paid advocacy", "black hat", etc.) that you mistakenly attributed to me in the unwarranted and offensive preamble to your request made on this entirely separate personal TALK page (above) — a positioning of your activities that very strongly indicates a personal attack on myself, rather than a simple, conventional query about the article's content — by simply asking, on the article's TALK page, the initial, central, simple question that seems to have motivated your activities, bereft of any of the threats and offensive characterizations: "Do you have any personal relationship with the author, their publisher, or the sources cited within?". My answer would simply have been "No"; and, following that, it would have been, I suppose, easy for you to explain (on the article's TALK page) whatever your recommendations might have been for my further work on the article which was, and remains, "Under Construction". Courtesy ping to @331dot:. Lindsay658 (talk) 06:15, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The standardized template message is just that. If there's an edit pattern suggestive of COI/paid advocacy, that template is the standardized and consistent way of sharing those concerns with the editor and it is meant to go on their user talk page. The article's talk page isn't intended for starting such a discussion. While I understand you're upset with the wording, they're not my wording. Graywalls (talk) 07:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like Lindsay658 is saying don't template the regulars and Graywalls is saying they didn't mean anything nefarious by it and wasn't trying to be disrespectful. It's not a personal attack in and of itself to inquire about suspected paid editing or COI. Even the "don't template the regulars" essay describes that recipients should still assume good faith.

User talk pages are the place to converse with a user directly about their actions, that isn't necessarily appropriate for an article talk page, which is to discuss the content of the article or changes to it.

The question was asked, now answered. I think it's time to get back to editing the project. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	for your contribution to Emu War article, which made it to "On this day" in English Wikipedia on 2025-11-02. ApoieRacional (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]