User talk:RodMil612mpls

Hi RodMil612mpls, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your thread about conflict of interest: Thanks again . . . I was told there are 2,700+ new articles waiting for review when I attempted to submit one. 4 certified Wikipedia editors told me they would charge several thousands of dollars to publish it for me, one quoted $20,000. Another said Wikipedia does NOT publish original research. I've dug through conflict of interest, reliability/verifiable, etc. I am personally involved in the edit because I did the research the corrects history about what happened to the kidnapped child, Charley Ross. So, who can publish the DNA study that corrects the outcome of the Charley Ross disappearance? It's very frustrating but this is the FIRST helpful and constructive dialogue, actual interaction with a person, on the topic. So thank you very much! Is there a way we can connect privately through email? I can submit to you a draft of the edit I'm proposing? RodMil612mpls (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer not to talk through email (for various reasons, privacy being among them). You simply have a COI because you own a website dedicated to research on that person. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• 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. Theroadislong (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again . . . I was told there are 2,700+ new articles waiting for review when I attempted to submit one. 4 certified Wikipedia editors told me they would charge several thousands of dollars to publish it for me, one quoted $20,000. Another said Wikipedia does NOT publish original research. I've dug through conflict of interest, reliability/verifiable, etc. I am personally involved in the edit because I did the research the corrects history about what happened to the kidnapped child, Charley Ross. So, who can publish the DNA study that corrects the outcome of the Charley Ross disappearance? It's very frustrating but this is the FIRST helpful and constructive dialogue, actual interaction with a person, on the topic. So thank you very much! RodMil612mpls (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy. DO NOT pay those people. Those people are just going to scam you. Read

WP:SCAM. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

OK . . . sorry about the cross communication with the Teahouse. I immediately recognized the same from the dozens of "Wikieditor" websites - essentially I discovered nearly all of them are operated by the same website and all scammers. I did not fall for it. I discovered 5 names on Wikipedia as registered editors so I thought I was safe - but for $20,000? No way and these are certified by Wikipedia. So is it OK to post my personal email here and for us to communicate directly on this topic? Would you be willing to do that? RodMil612mpls (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I would prefer not to communicate through email for many reasons, mainly for my privacy. Also, apologies if I sounded angry. I simply wanted to make sure you understood that those people were going to scam you and to not pay them. I recommend contacting the email listed at

WP:SCAM and let them know about the people who were attempting to scam you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll check out these suggestions from the edit page: (edit conflict) @RodMil612mpls: One option is post your suggestions on Talk:Charley Ross with the {{edit request}} template. Another option is to use the Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC). I appreciated your alarm about the scammers - they are masters at it but foreign English accents and untraceable mailing addresses and phone contact was the first clue . . . oh, all of their email correspondence showed multiple different names and domains Pathetic! I understand you concern about email connection but thanks for considering it. RodMil612mpls (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yep. Poor english and untraceable email addresses are always major red flags. Glad you managed to recognize those before falling for the scam. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to communicate further with me, please do so on my talk page, located at User talk:Blaze Wolf. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I was a bit more concerned than usual when you mentioned people asking for you to pay them to get your article on Wikipedia, since you have said that you are in your 70s and older people around your age are major targets for scammers since they tend to more easily fall for said scams (i'm not saying you're dumb though). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion you do not have a conflict of interest. Also, whereas there are in truth thousands of drafts for new articles awaiting reviewers, all you want to is add content to an existing article. Original research is not allowed. Unpublished sources are not allowed. If you can get your research published, then it is no longer original or unpublished, and can be cited as a reference. There is no such category as "registered editors." Don't pay scammers. Good luck. David notMD (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you David . . . I looked for the list of 5 certified (not registered, sorry) Wikipedia editors but deleted as useless. I corresponded with all five of them who acknowledged their status with Wikipedia. They were NOT online scammers but way off the charts for costs. There is also a list of supposed wiki editors that are banned from editing for scamming. This is so frustrating - we did the DNA research that disproved the (supposed) outcome of the Charley Ross kidnapping but can't publish it because it's original research? What a Catch 22 situation . . . Does the report from DNA Findings constitute publication? Amazing . . . the author of Myths and Mysteries of Pennsylvania wants to publish our findings in her second book but her editor said it has to be published first. He finally accepted our website URL as publication - the report is published there. Does that not count for Wikipedia? I hope someone from Editing Talk: Charley Ross with interest and who has edited the page will respond to my plea for help to simply add content to an existing article - well, it does require deleting the inaccurate information. So . . . where do I go from here? Good question but I'll not ask Wikipedia - far to confusing, complex and rules that prevent any reasonably intelligent person to participate. Amazing . . . Rod RodMil612mpls (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that the above comment was tagged as "Possible self promotion in userspace" which I don't understand how that could be determined. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HUH? Where is that place, "userspace?" Who is actually reading this exchange and tagging anyone? Are there people actually sitting around watching for "self promotion?" As I said . . . rules that prevent any reasonably intelligent person from participating. So I'll add this . . . I have been a contributor to Wikipedia.org for years, believing in the "free encyclopedia" concept that I use and have appreciated until I tried to actually participate. Not sure I'll contribute again after this experience. Unbelievable! RodMil612mpls (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah my bad. Tags are automatically applied to your edit when you make one. THey usually don't mean much. It's simply just to tell people what the edit might be. Also, userspace is anything with "User" attached to it. In this case it would be a "false positive". ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Certified Wikipedia editors" is another nonsense term. Anyone who registers for an account (and for that matter, people who chose not to) are editors, who except for 'locked' articles, can edit any article and create new articles. DNA analysis from a laboratory is unpublished content, hence not a reference. Your website is not considered a reliable source, so no, that cannot be a reference to verify content you wish to add to the article in question. "Userspace" is all of Wikipedia: articles, Talk pages of articles, User pages, Talk pages of Users, Teahouse, etc. Adding one's own website as a reference is taken as possibly self-promotion, so reverted, and if persisting, can get an account Warned, and then indefintely blocked. To take that one step further, people who are published in science journals are advised not to use their own articles as references in their area of expertise. Another example: I do not cite the three history books I wrote. Instead, I cite the sources of information I researched for what I wrote. As to articles being watched - yes. People with an interest in an article can put it on their Watch list, so anytime that article is edited by anyone, they get a notice. If your information gets incorporated into the second book written by that author, then that would be considered a reliable source reference that could be used to validate new content in the article in question, the reason being that book publishing companies are expected to maintain standards on truth of content of books (Yes, it gets murky for self-published.) David notMD (talk) 02:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David:   As a Teahouse host and new editor Mentor, I appreciate your time and attention to help me figure this out.  This is complicated for me (also retired) and and you can see I’m way over my head.  I have new respect for Wikipedia’s high standards and for the validity of its content but for me, it’s frustrating I can’t correct one sentence in  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charley_Ross:  “Blair's claim has occasionally been reported as false, as descendants said DNA testing showed he was actually a man named Nelson Miller. However, no official testing results have ever been reported or released.^[11”  And the reference -  *"2 Unsolved Decades Old Missing Children Cases" on YouTube  I am the Miller “descendants” she reports as not releasing the evidence.  I don’t get it.  YouTube is a reliable source of information but my well researched document edited by two published authors is not because it’s published online?  The person who posted this statement took a comment I made in a blog and put it in her YouTube video and then published it here.  But I can’t correct it or provide the evidence?   The DNA evidence that disputes the false claim of Gustave Blair that he is (was) Charley Ross is not publishable on Wikipedia because it’s never been published?  I mentioned in a different thread our research will be published in Myths and Mysteries of Pennsylvania (Kara Hughes - book #2 in her series) next fall.  Her editor required our evidence be published so we created a website to publish it.  The editor accepted our URL as the reference for the DNA results.  I posted on Editing Talk:Charley Ross hoping to find an experience and reliable editor interested in the Charley Ross story to do it for me, but alas, maybe it’s not that easy.   I got one response from someone who has edited the Charley Ross page:  That sounds like original research which we cannot use, the simple fact of publishing something on your own website does not make it useable or reliable? Theroadislong (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC).  So, what’s my next step to delete once sentence in the Charley Ross Aftermath and replace it the new content?  Thanks again David for taking the time to help. (Redacted)[reply]

Just so you know, it appears you forgot to log in. If you log back in and confirm it was an accident, I can remove your IP and request it be oversighted (which in Wikipedia means that it's hidden from public view). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I am no over my head. I actually didn't know I needed to be logged in the reply. I am logged in now . . . I'm not sure the consequence of my IP being exposed. Thanks for doing this for me. You can see there are a couple of experts responding. You are one of them! Thank you so much! RodMil612mpls (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The only consequence of your IP being exposed is that it can reveal your location down to the city you live in as well as a few other things. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a sentence and the Youtube ref from the article, as Youtube is rarely considered a reliable source. Adding content cannot rest on a ref to your blog/website or an unpublished DNA analysis. Wait until after the book is published, then reference it. David notMD (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you David for doing that. I now understand my problem is not adding relevant content, or finding an experienced editor to do it. It's that I don't have a reliable source for the DNA analysis, and 65 endnotes of documentation in my report. Yet the edit using Youtube as the reference has been published for several years without notice. After 12 years of research, we just want to get the truth out there - it corrects history and the declaration of an Arizona jury that Charley Ross was found. He was not. Again, thanks David! RodMil612mpls (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David . . . I saw your edit. The statement "...as descendants said DNA testing showed he was actually a man named Nelson Miller.^{[citation needed]} can remain until the person who made it cites a comment I made on her blog 4+ years ago? I have no objection to the statement remaining because it correctly informs readers Gustave Blair's claim has been challenged with DNA analysis. So could I add content with [citation needed] until the book is published? RodMil612mpls (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a blog shouldn't be cited at all unless it would be a

primary source, in which case it's acceptable for information but not notability. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

My advice is to wait until the book is (hopefully) published and then citable rather than add contentious content with "citation needed" as a bookmark. Charley Ross has been dead a long time; improving the article is not time-critical. David notMD (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are articles published on medium.com digital publishing website (https://medium.com/about?autoplay=1) considered "published" by Wikipedia standards? Barack Obama has the number one article published there - https://medium.com/everything-shortform/barack-obama-has-the-number-1-story-on-medium-60c8a734b82e RodMil612mpls (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While that may be a published source, it's not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. See

WP:MEDIUM. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your prompt reply. I see Wikipedia doesn't care much for medium.com, I guess it's a competitor. Their 3-sentence ruling has links to 5 additional pages - so typical of Wikipedia - that it's exhausting trying to figure out. So thank you for making it a one sentence answer. So medium.com is "generally considered" unreliable" and should be "avoided" (not disallowed or banned form use) unless the author is a "subject-matter expert." After 16 years of diligence and hard work, digital searching and visiting county court houses, writing a research report with 65 endnotes with verifiable sources and edited by two published Charley Ross authors and interviews with 4 modern publishers on the Charley Ross story, would I be considered a "subject-matter expert?" Globe Pequot Press book publisher (will cite my research later this year in Myths and Mysteries of Pennsylvania, Second Edition) accepted by URL publication as reliable. Newspaper articles, no matter how small the publication or whether verified as true or not, would be considered "reliable" for publication by Wikipedia standards. A still existing Wikipedia edit on Charley Ross cited a blog and Youtube video and was allowed and remained published for years. It doesn't make sense. I apologize for expressing my frustration that I can't get the truth revealed on Wikipedia's take on Charley Ross and correct information provided by an unreliable source on it's encyclopedia. Rod RodMil612mpls (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're fine. Wikipedia is rather complicated with all of its policies and guidelines. When it says "Unless the author is a subject-matter expert" it's referring to the person who published the post on the blog Medium.com. The reason it's considered generally unreliable isn't because it's a competitor (there isn't really any website that would be a competitor to Wikipedia) but because it's a blog, meaning anyone can post something on there, including false information. Also, Wikipedia isn't made up of the truth. It's made up of info gathered from reliable sources, which usually is the truth. Blogs and Youtube videos as sources should generally be avoided unless they're being used for something that otherwise cannot be proved with a reliable source (in which case it would be considered a

WP:Primary source). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, I'm confused: "Unless the author is a subject-matter expert" it's referring to the person who published the post on the blog Medium.com." That would be me, the person who published the post. My webmaster, and collaborating editors, suggested publishing on medium.com to meet Wikipedia rules on original research. Seems I'm going in circles. I'm about to give up on Wikipedia and allow it's misinformation to be published, just walk away. Thanks for trying to help! RodMil612mpls (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RodMil612mpls: Ah alright. Didn't know you had published the post on Medium.com. I don't know if you would be considered a subject-matter expert or not so I can't really help you much there. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not published it on medium.com. I was advised to but before I did, I thought I'd first ask the Wiki experts if it will be considered reliable. Another circle! As I said, I'm about done trying to work with Wikipedia on what I and my collaborators honestly thought would be a simple edit. Frankly, I should have just done it and taken my chances, like the improper citation I'm trying to replace. It stood for years. Would that work or would I be forever banned and exiled? RodMil612mpls (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RodMIl612mpls: Depends really. IF the information could be provided by a reliable source then you would most likely be reverted but not "forever banned and exiled" (which would require you to do much more than add an improper citation, and would be unlikely since you've attempted to ask for assistance in adding the info although you've struggled to understand). If it can't be provided by a reliable source then it will most likely stay. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That makes my quest possible and hopeful. Would you be willing to have a look at my edit and give feedback? I have no idea how to enter it with the proper format for embedded links and footnoting. I would struggle with that too. Incidentally, I am making inquiry to a couple of Pennsylvania historical journals but that process typically takes years of review, edits, etc. If you're interested, you could view my research document on my website dedicated to publishing the results, https://charleyross.com/ > 'I am Charley Ross' Research ReportRodMil612mpls (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So Blaze Wolf . . . I take it you're not interested or just got busy?RodMil612mpls (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly busy right now and I'm not really interested in people like Charley Ross, sorry. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. How about people like me? Real, alive people trying their best to use Wikipedia to advance the truth. Sorry for the attitude but I've been in circles with you and others on every talk page for days. I'm exhausted, frustrated and now at the end of my effort. The untruth will prevail about Charley Ross, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. You have helped me learn a great deal, so for that, thank you.RodMil612mpls (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I care about trying to help people like you. I'm just not really interested in learning about other people. My interests are mainly in things that are inanimate (which sounds weird but it's really just because my interests are in video games and cars and sometimes the people involved with them) rather than real, living people. That doesn't mean I don't care about trying to help other people, however usually if that involves me doing my own research I tell them to do the research themself since I don't usually care enough about the topic I'm trying to help them with to look something up for them myself. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I am sure you are very busy and in high demand helping people like me figure out how to edit on Wikipedia. I was not asking you to research Charley Ross. I spent 16 years doing it. I'd just like to replace one sentence with a brief paragraph correcting the posting. If I knew how to embed links to other Wikipedia pages and how to add a footnote at the end, I'd try it myself. I was asking if I sent you my edit, if you would enter it for me. As a novice, just trying to learn which editing tool to use, how to embed links and add a footnote is not easy. Nothing on Wikipedia is easy. So, again, thank you for trying to help me. RodMil612mpls (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm not necessarily just busy with helping people out on Wikipedia, but with some other things I have going on in my real life. To add links to other articles on Wikipedia, just surround the name of the article with 2 square brackets on each side like this: [[Foo]] which produces

Foo. When you say you want to add a footnote to the end, are you talking about references or actual footnotes (referred to as extended footnotes on Wikipedia)? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I want to the replace the misinformation blog footnote with a footnote to the URL where my research document is published. RodMil612mpls (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok so you're referring to a reference. I can't check the link to your research document for technical reasons to see if you have provided links to where you got your information from (your knowledge has to come from somewhere!) which would help in seeing if the information is accurate. If it is then it might be better to use the links that support what you have researched as long as they are accurate and reliable. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here is the footnote I want to use. We (and others) have discussed this at length. It is original research that cannot be located anywhere else - it as a primary source (exception to original research) which allows reference to blogs/websites. It may be reversed but at this point, I'll take that risk. The incorrect information has been there for years and no one objected or reversed it until I brought it to Dave notMD's attention. Here's my footnote : “I am Charley Ross:  Gustave Blair, Nelson Miler and the Crime that Changed a Nation” December, 2021  <https://charleyross.com/i-am-charley-ross-gustave-blair-nelson-miller-and-the-crime-that-changed-a-nation/>)RodMil612mpls (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I forgot which of the editing tools is easiest for this simple edit? RodMil612mpls (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're just wanting to add a reference, visual editor (which might be the default for newcomers, and if not you can still use a version of the source editor that's basically a cross between the source and visual editors) would work best. All you have to do is press the button that says "Cite" and then add the link and it will be formatted properly for you. If it fails to do so then simply just remove the ref you're wanting to replace, add <ref>, insert the link, and then add </ref>. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you said it's

WP:OR I'll like David notMD decide if it would be appropriate to add. Primary sources can usually only be used for uncontroversial things (and I've usually only used them as external links) so I'm unsure if this would be an appropriate place to use a primary source. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You see how frustrating this is? If you look back, we had this discussion and you added "If it can't be provided by a reliable source then it will most likely stay." It seems there are various opinions about COI, WP:OR and primary source information. At this point, I'll just post it and see what happens, or I have I already alerted the "edit police" who will reverse immediately instead of many years later? RodMil612mpls (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're reverted it will most likely just be because someone saw your edit in their watchlist. I'm just uncomfortable adding a reference that is a primary source and technically

WP:OR. People won't know that you were planning on making this edit unless they were watching your talkpage (which I don't think may people are) until you make the edit. When someone reverts your edit, it will be because some was watching that article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Good . . . anyone watching the article should welcome with open arms that what seemed to solve the mystery of the disappearance of Charley Ross was in fact is a lie. It correct history. It's not an opinion or even controversial. It's simple DNA. I'll give it more thought and (a little more) research but will likely take my chance just to correct the misinformation being supported by Wikipedia. Thanks again for more of your time and attention, and expertise. It is appreciated.RodMil612mpls (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RodMil612mpls! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Need Help with first Edit, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both talk) 19:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply ]

Hi RodMil612mpls! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 15:41, Friday, March 25, 2022 (