User talk:Rootbeerlc

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Rootbeerlc/Byron Randall has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Byron Randall, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Byron Randall, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

• The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
• You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the reviewer's talk page
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Pol430 talk to me 18:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Black Scholar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Marshall. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Black Scholar Question (and resources)

Hi @Rootbeerlc! Do you happen to have any connection to the Black Scholar article you’re working on? Also, do you have any connection to the article’s creator, @Chinaski81? For some good resources on writing quality journal articles, you can check out WP:JWG. Have a good day. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Dr Swag Lord. I am unconnected to the article's creator. I am a professor who has researched the journal. Thank you for the WP:JWG. I have implemented some of its recommendations and have removed the bulk of the details. Can you explain to me the areas where further verification would be beneficial? Rootbeerlc (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. You say you’re a a professor who has researched the journal. But do you have any direct connection/affiliation to the journal? Alternatively, do you have any affiliation to the owner of the journal, the Robert Chrisman Foundation? The reason I ask is that Wikipedia has rules when it comes to potential conflicts of interest and I’m trying to ensure you are acquainted with those rules. I can add some notes about how to improve the article on its talk page. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I am affiliated with the Robert Chrisman Foundation; I receive no salary from it. I understand the concern about conflict of interest, but as a professional academic who has published eight books and over 50 scholarly articles, I do know how to present information in a scholarly and neutral way (unlike whoever it was who created the initial Wikipedia entry). I believe that I have removed the subjective language and unsubstantiated claims of that person's original entry. I plead guilty to having added a lot of descriptive details (of particular contributors, editorial board members, recent issue titles and examples), but have removed the majority of these on learning that Wikipedia views them as 'excessive details'. Rootbeerlc (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your statement. I highly encourage you to read over WP:COIE and WP:COI. I can also assume you have a conflict of interest with the Byron Randall Art collection, correct? You have done a decent job so far trimming off the excessive details on the journal. I will make some additional edits to that article soon. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpfulness and willingness to make additional edits to the Black Scholar journal article. I have an involvement with Byron Randall and the Wikipedia article on him and his art. Having read the WP:COI I will address each of the listed categories here:

Citing oneself: I do not cite myself in The Black Scholar entry nor in the Byron Randall entry.

Financial: I am not being paid in money or other rewards to change or edit Wikipedia entries; the Robert Chrisman Foundation receives no financial benefit from an educational Wikipedia entry about the journal The Black Scholar. The same applies to the Byron Randall entry and the existence of the Byron Randall art archive. It should be noted that the Byron Randall entry does not contain a link to any commercial website.

Legal: I am not involved in a court case personally or through affiliation with the Robert Chrisman Foundation

Autobiography: I have not written an article about myself.

Self-promotion: I have not included any material that appears to promote my private or commercial interests. The non-profit Robert Chrisman Foundation, a 501c3, does not have commercial interests. Storing and preserving the Byron Randall art archive is a financial liability not a source of commercial gain.

Promotional article production on behalf of clients: Routledge, the current publisher of The Black Scholar is an academic publishing house, that obtains its revenue primarily from university library subscriptions. The Black Scholar Wikipedia entry does not encourage those academic institutions, nor individuals, to approach Routledge to take out a subscription. The purpose of the Black Scholar Wikipedia article, and that of the Byron Randall article, is educational, to provide readers with information about respectively, an academic journal and a visual artist. As the scholarly and newspaper citations for both entries indicate, the journal is considered to be of historical and contemporary significance. Additionally, Byron Randall as an artist is considered by public museums, directors and curators to be of sufficient historical and contempory significance to merit acquisition of his artworks to permanent collections, as evidenced in the list of museums that hold his art.

Campaigning: The Black Scholar and Byron Randall articles are written in a neutral way, as I perceive it, that serves an educational not promotional or propagandistic function.

Close relationships: I do not deny having a personal relationship with one of the founders of The Black Scholar journal and with the late Byron Randall, and I do not deny that I personally consider the journal and the art to be of social, cultural significance, a perception that is shared by third party academics, publishers, and museums cited in the entries. I would agree with Wikipedia that "Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias". If other editors can give me specific textual examples of bias in these two Wikipedia entries, I would very appreciative and would take guidance on how to rephrase those examples. Rootbeerlc (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your honesty. I will insert the appropriate tags on the articles you edited. I was also tag portions of the articles I believe violate policies. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! By the way, I just added a full Indexing and Abstracting section. Where might I see the tags you refer to here? Also, can you now remove the box at the top of the entry: "This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)

This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. (June 2024)

This article needs additional citations for verification. (June 2024)

A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (June 2024) Rootbeerlc (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, the tags are on the relevant articles/ sections. I also left a comment on the talk page. In my view, those warning templates are still warranted so please don’t remove them.Thank you. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I've now addressed, I think, all of the tag items in both The Black Scholar and Byron Randall articles. Please let me know what you think. Rootbeerlc (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You’re definitely getting there but there’s still work to be done. On further note on the Byron Randall article, some citations are from the “Byron Randall Papers”. Are these papers published anywhere or are they in a private collection? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. The Byron Randall papers are currently held in a private collection. They will be donated to either the Smithsonian or Willamette University special collections, but not for some time.

What work remains to be done, for the Black Scholar and Byron Randall articles? Rootbeerlc (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

So in that case, I don’t think those sources meet our definition of WP:PUBLISHED, so they would have to be removed in the meantime. I would encourage you to be patient in this process. These two articles have had undisclosed COI edits for over a decade (which violates Wikipedia policy). It will take some time before other editors rectify all the issues in those articles. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Which sources have to be removed in the meantime? If it is the Artist's Statement by Byron Randall (1960, for April-May 1960 Salem Bush House exhibit), the statement was published and accompanied the exhibit; the museum (Bush House) was responsible for publishing it, just as Fresno Art Museum was responsible for publishing the Curator's exhibit guide by Jacqueline Pilar, 2004. I could have both these original printed publications scanned and shared to the aticle, if that would help?

I should add that I have not been involved at any time untila few days ago with the Black Scholar Wikipedia entry, and so any COI for that entry is less than a week old. I suspect that the person who created the original Black Scholar entry was some well-meaning PhD student (not one of mine), but I am not certain. I do know for certain that the person who created the original Byron Randall entry was a PhD student of mine.She uploaded material from Randall's resume and from a former website that Randall's children had set up in 2002 (I am not a Randall child). Rootbeerlc (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

If you were to scan those papers and publish them somewhere on the Randall website (or something) that would certainly help.

• Okay, you’re making a lot of conflicting statements here. You say you haven’t been involved at any time untila few days ago with the Black Scholar Wikipedia entry. But, you have been editing that article since August 2012. You started to make more significant edits in 2015 and then again in the beginning of 2024.
• You say, I do know for certain that the person who created the original Byron Randall entry was a PhD student of mine. But you’re the creator of that article. So my questions for you are 1) has/is someone else using your account to edit, and 2) do you have any other accounts that you have edited with?

Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Dr. Swag Lord: I'm thinking this might be innocently explained if Rootbeerlc's account is, perhaps, an account shared or used by multiple people to make edits on a closely related set of topics. Rootbeerlc, can you clarify if that's the case with your account? Chetsford (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe I shared my Wikipedia account with my own PhD student in 2012 when she created the Byron Randall article, at the time that I provided her with the Randall resume, previous website bio composed by Randall's children, and newspaper clippings about Randall. Since she set it up, I have been involved in updating the list of museums that have acquired the art, in uploading high-resolution photographs of the art for the gallery section (I own copyright, having inherited the art, and have given over rights to some of the photos to Wiki Commons). I also have been involved in the Randall entry by adding more references as more publications about Randall came into print along with more digital scans of newspaper archives. I don't know how to account for the use of my account to edit the Black Scholar Wikipedia entry in 2012. I have no recall of engaging with it. I had been alerted to its existence, in 2012, but lacked time and inclination to read through and engage with it (was too busy with other administrative responsibilities involving the Black World Foundation and looking for a better publishing house for the journal). I had a second PhD student of mine at that time, whom I had involved in organizing Black World Foundation documents. I probably asked him to check through the Black Scholar page edit and update it, using my Wikipedia account, as his own knowledge base of the journal and Foundation increased. Rootbeerlc (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the Byron Randall article, criticism that (of the 'Career' section) "This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section"--I have searched museums online and have obtained what I believe constitute independent verifiable sources to confirm that the Byron Randall art listed as held in 39 permanent museum collections is held in those museums: museum URLs for the Byron Randall artworks pages of 31 museums, and the accession numbers for the artwork held in seven other museums that have not digitised their collections. Can I share this material to an editor, or to an administrator, for them to attach the source details to the relevant section and individual museums that are listed in the article? I have also obtained through newspaper.com further newspaper articles that can verify references made to the biography and art descriptions. Can I share these newspaper articles to an editor or administrator for inclusion? Please advise. Rootbeerlc (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Managing a Conflict of Interest

Hello, Rootbeerlc and welcome to Wikipedia!

I wanted to leave a brief explanatory note regarding the application of our Conflict of Interest (COI) policies as there appeared to be some confusion in the exchange above.

Here [1] you said "I am affiliated with the Robert Chrisman Foundation; I receive no salary from it." If you are (for example; I have no idea if this is the case) a member of the board of directors of the aforementioned foundation, and that foundation owns The Black Scholar, you would have a COI. Generally, the director of a corporation -- whether the corporation is for-profit or not -- has a legal relationship with that corporation which would trigger a COI. Moreover, the controlling mind of an organization also has a COI in articles about it, whether or not a pecuniary interest exists.

I note the COI has now been declared on the article in question's Talk page which is great.

Thank you for your attentiveness and happy editing!

Chetsford (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected that it has been compromised. If your account is globally locked, contact cawikimedia.org for assistance. Otherwise, if you are able to confirm that you are the user who created this account, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section), then add this below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.Chetsford (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Rootbeerlc: per your comment here [2], it appears your account has been operated in violation of our WP:SHAREDACCOUNTs policy. Since there's some confusion as to the extent of past sharing, and because the current operator of this account has provided (here and elsewhere) information that can be used with minimal effort to link this account to a real-life person, I believe blocking the account as compromised is a necessary security measure to prevent impersonation of a real person. Please see the above instructions for potentially restoring access.
  

On a separate note not strictly related to this question, having observed that you now appear (I think, though I'm not precisely certain) to be familiar with our WP:COI requirements, you may also want to take a moment to familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines related to the use of WP:PRIMARY sources, WP:PUBLISHED sources, and WP:OR. The WP:ADVENTURE can be a useful learning tool. Chetsford (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC); edited 04:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I shared my account with two PhD students, beginning in 2012. This was so that one of them could create a Wikipedia article on Byron Randall (they had the technical skills that I lacked, to master the procedure for article creation); it was also to allow the other student to make edits on The Black Scholar article (they were involved as a research assistant in organizing Black World Foundation and Black Scholar materials and had time that I lacked for monitoring the Black Scholar page). I did this in ignorance of the Shared Account policy. I now understand that this was a violation of this Shared Account policy and apologise. I would not share my account again, with anyone.

Both of those students completed their PhDs, one in 2016 (Byron Randall editor), the other in 2017 (the Black Scholar editor) and moved away from work as my research assistant. They are people whose integrity I trust and who would have no inclination to impersonate me or share my account access with any other party; this would furthermore not be in their interests given that I still occasionally provide professional letters of recommendation for them.

I have checked through the edit history of both pages since 2016 and 2017 and recognize the edits since those years as done exclusively by myself. I recognize all of the edits in recent years that I have made to other Wikipedia articles (eg, to Maduro, Black Radical Congress, Audre Lorde). This makes me confident that nobody has been impersonating me and that my account is not compromised. I continue to make new archival discoveries about Byron Randall and The Black Scholar; I am currently developing books devoted to both subjects.

I would like to be able to update the Byron Randall and Black Scholar Wikipedia articles as more scholarly publications, and relevant archival material comes to light, in a timely way; having a blocked account complicates that process (presumably I would need to relay the new information and sources to a Wikipedia administrator with the request that they complete the edits? Would the administrator accept any material that comes from a blocked account?) . Added to this is a concern that I have regarding some of the more subjective and factually inaccurate edits that have been made to The Black Scholar article by many editors (reading through the edit history). Having a blocked account would, I imagine, make it difficult for me to notify Wikipedia of any further problems that I notice in that article page. As a professor, writer, scholar, and editor (I serve on five academic journal editorial boards, regularly review university press submissions), I am able to contribute positively to Wikipedia's development. I am a supporter of Wikipedia because I see it as providing a valuable public educational service. Rootbeerlc (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Passing admin note: while not the direct reason for the block, this editor—or an individual operating the account, given that this is a shared account—has had an undisclosed COI for many years for the aforementioned articles (Black Scholar and Byron Randall). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Question:@Rootbeerlc, before you stated that you haven’t been involved “at any time untila few days ago with the Black Scholar Wikipedia entry”. However, now you’re saying, “I have checked through the edit history of both pages since 2016 and 2017 and recognize the edits since those years as done exclusively by myself”. Could you please clarify the discrepancy?Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

My research assistant for The Black Scholar completed his work in 2017. Since then, there has been a Dec 20 2021 edit by myself ('updated to reflect recent changes in editorial board membership and special issue publications') that I had forgotten I'd made (it followed an email communication from the Editor-in-Chief of the journal informing me of changes they had made). And an edit by myself on Oct 5, 2018, inserting Nicaragua as the destination of a TBS trip. I had forgotten I'd added that country. That is the extent of my editorial input until April 18 this year, I believe. I'd forgotten about April's edit, and those of May 6-9, and May 20, because, as with the 2018 and 2021 these were limited to adding or removing proper names and titles, and stylistic tweaks. The more substantial editing input by myself began May 29, a few days ago. Rootbeerlc (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request is on hold because the reviewer is waiting for a comment by the blocking administrator.

Rootbeerlc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Blocking administrator: Chetsford (talk)

Reviewing administrator: Chetsford gave a well-researced overview of the problems here; Rootbeerlc, below, I offered a way out of the block which Chetsford supports. The ball is in your court now. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Request reason:

my account is no longer shared; is not compromised ; Rootbeerlc (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Administrator use only:

After the blocking administrator has left a comment, do one of the following:

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with any specific rationale. If you do not edit the text after "decline=", a default reason why the request was declined will be inserted.

{{unblock reviewed|1=my account is no longer shared; is not compromised ; Rootbeerlc (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)|decline={{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed|1=my account is no longer shared; is not compromised ; Rootbeerlc (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)|accept=Accept reason here ~~~~}}

I shared my account with two PhD students, beginning in 2012. This was so that one of them could create a Wikipedia article on Byron Randall (they had the technical skills that I lacked, to master the procedure for article creation); it was also to allow the other student to make edits on The Black Scholar article (they were involved as a research assistant in organizing Black World Foundation and Black Scholar materials and had time that I lacked for monitoring the Black Scholar page). I did this in ignorance of the Shared Account policy. I now understand that this was a violation of this Shared Account policy and apologise. I would not share my account again, with anyone.

Both of those students completed their PhDs, one in 2016 (Byron Randall editor), the other in 2017 (the Black Scholar editor) and moved away from work as my research assistant. They are people whose integrity I trust and who would have no inclination to impersonate me or share my account access with any other party; this would furthermore not be in their interests given that I still occasionally provide professional letters of recommendation for them.

I have checked through the edit history of both pages since 2016 and 2017 and recognize the edits since those years as done exclusively by myself. I recognize all of the edits in recent years that I have made to other Wikipedia articles (eg, to Maduro, Black Radical Congress, Audre Lorde). This makes me confident that nobody has been impersonating me and that my account is not compromised. I continue to make new archival discoveries about Byron Randall and The Black Scholar; I am currently developing books devoted to both subjects.

I would like to be able to update the Byron Randall and Black Scholar Wikipedia articles as more scholarly publications, and relevant archival material comes to light, in a timely way; having a blocked account complicates that process (presumably I would need to relay the new information and sources to a Wikipedia administrator with the request that they complete the edits? Would the administrator accept any material that comes from a blocked account?) . Added to this is a concern that I have regarding some of the more subjective and factually inaccurate edits that have been made to The Black Scholar article by many editors (reading through the edit history). Having a blocked account would, I imagine, make it difficult for me to notify Wikipedia of any further problems that I notice in that article page. As a professor, writer, scholar, and editor (I serve on five academic journal editorial boards, regularly review university press submissions), I am able to contribute positively to Wikipedia's development. I am a supporter of Wikipedia because I see it as providing a valuable public educational service. Rootbeerlc (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to let someone else handle this.

My concerns, beyond past sharing of the account and COI editing, are that you previously said you "have not been involved at any time untila few days ago". Less than one day later you indicated a number of edits you apparently forgot you made relatively recently. The issue I'm afraid of is that this account is all but linked to a real-life person; we know it's been shared by other people in the past; there seems to be a very acute level of confusion and (I guess) forgetfulness as to who is making (more recent) edits and when they're being made. These three points, in concert, give me pause. It seems there is a not unreal possibility that the person this account is all but claiming to be may not actually be the person who controls the account or that multiple people are still editing from it, despite your belief you are in sole control. (Even a password reset at this point might not resolve the issue since we don't know which of the people editing from this account is resetting the password.)

We do not require any account to be linked to a real identity. However, when accounts do link themselves to real-life persons, we have an obligation to take minimal steps to ensure that the person controlling the account is, in fact, the person the account is claiming to be. This is rarely a proactive process but, is rather, reactive and occurs when concerns arise as they have here. It is necessary to protect the identity of people from impersonation. I'm sure you understand.

In any case, I'm certain another Admin will be along shortly and will be able to look at this with a fresh set of eyes. I may have self-inoculated a degree of skepticism that will make any further action by my prejudicial. It would be fairer for someone else to act on this request. Chetsford (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your candor and the rationale you share for your scruples. I do want so clarify that when I said that I "have not been involved at any time until a few days ago', my reference was limited to the Black Scholar page. I have been heavily involved in the Byron Randall page since my research student created it in 2012, and have not denied or forgotten that. I asked her to set up the page because I did not know how to and I was unaware that accounts should not be shared. On the Black Scholar, I did indeed forget the few, and minor, edits I made of 2018, and 2021, and in early May, which consisted of adding, correcting or removing proper names of journal contributors and book titles, correcting the date that the journal was overhauled (it had listed as 2010 when it was 2012; I know, because I initiated the overhaul at the request of the then Editor-in-Chief). In all instances I was reacting to the substantive additions and alterations that a plurality of sloppy and under/ or partially- informed editors since 2015 had been making (my guess is that these are students of the journal's Editor-in-Chief; I see from the edit history that the Editor-in Chief prescribed a few alterations at one point, and I wish that he had been more consistently monitoring and correcting the material posted on this page). Regarding the possibility that someone else has been impersonating me to make those 2018, 2021 and early May 2024 edits, I very much doubt that anyone who isn't me would have sufficient knowledge about the history and production of the journal and Foundation to be making those earlier fact-checking/typo/ proper name and title edits, or sufficient concern (to judge from the Editor-in-Chief's minimalist stance). I am not in agreement with you that my forgetting a numerically small number of typographical edits six and three years ago reflects a very acute level of confusion and forgetfulness, but I agree that it is most definitely a messy situation. Could a resolution be found that involved retiring the Rootbeerlc account and allowing me to create a new account? I forgot to add the tildes to conclude my unblock request and would add them now but cannot see them on this screen. Rootbeerlc (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

While it is understandable that you may have forgotten some edits you made in 2018 and 2021, I find it pretty difficult to believe you didn’t recall the 20+ edits you made to the Black Scholar article from April-May 20th of this year. This edit, specifically, was quite a substantial edit to the article that you made on the 20th. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, I'll let another Admin weigh-in here, however, your most recent comment raises a great number of other concerns with this account that weren't previously apparent. To wi:

• "the Editor-in Chief prescribed a few alterations at one point", "I initiated the overhaul at the request of the then Editor-in-Chief", etc.

The Editor-in-Chief needs their own Wikipedia account. Per our policy on WP:MEATPUPPETRY, they can't be directing or coordinating multiple accounts from the shadows, least of all with the aim of influencing content with which they have a COI. There is enough ambiguity in what you've described that I'm unclear if this account is a meatpuppet of the EIC, however, the narrative history of this account seems to be in great flux generally and evolving by the minute (i.e., there were not edits from this account, then there were edits from this account that were forgot about in April ... then more in May; this account is a unique account, then it was suddenly remembered some people were sharing it; now we're learning there are puppetmaster accounts directing various COI accounts from behind the scenes and this may or may not be one of those, etc.). Chetsford (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, my reference to "the Editor-in-Chief prescribed a few alterations at one point" is a reference to an what I very recently read in the edit history --I had no knowledge that they had prescribed any alterations and was not notified by them at that time that they had made any such prescription; I assumed, when I saw that notice of prescription listed in the edit history, that this was an official requirement notice by Wikipedia, to do with COI issues. I do not know what kind of involvement the Editor-in-Chief has with the Wikipedia article aside from what the edit history has recorded as his prescription. Regarding my "I initiated the overhaul at the request of the then Editor-in-Chief" reference, the Editor-in-Chief Robert Chrisman I there referred to, as requesting the journal's overhaul, died in spring 2013 and was not involved in any capacity with the creation or editing of the Wikipedia article on the journal. Details of his public declaration of the journal's transition into new management and vision can be found in his 2012 Open Letter, published in The Black Scholar. The Wikipedia article erroneously dated the overhaul as beginning in 2010. I changed the date to 2012, when I noticed the error. Rootbeerlc (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I largely agree with @Chetsford‘s analysis. I’m seeing way too many red flags with this account. We have years of dual undisclosed COIs, shared account violations, the supposed inability to remember edits made 2 weeks ago, and off-wiki coordination with the journal’s editor-in-chief. This is all on top of the massive amounts of promotional material found in the Black Scholar article before I put up maintenance tags. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Note to patrolling Admin: summary of issues

I initially issued a block of this account due to concerns it was compromised. Since then, a number of other issues have come to light, a non-exhaustive list of which I summarize here for your convenience.

• The account is all but an WP:SPA on a tightly linked set of topics with which it has a WP:COI, operated for the bulk of its existence without disclosure.
• Over a four-year period, this account was shared by at least three different people [3], in violation of WP:SHAREDACCOUNT.
• After sharing apparently stopped, the account was operated - at least partly - according to off-WP directions issued by a third party [4] in possible violation of WP:MEATPUPPETRY.
• It is difficult, based on the evolving description of events, to entirely AGF that sharing and off-WP coordination has actually ceased as the person currently operating this account has made contradictory statements about their own edit history, including disclaiming the occurrence of fairly substantial edits they made just last month. When presented with diffs of those edits, they state they forgot having made them entirely but now remember having done so. (see [5] and a descriptive corollary presented here by an uninvolved editor [6])
• There is an off-WP indicator of an additional issue which WP:OUTING precludes me from posting here but I can privately provide.

At this point I'm not really certain how to rehabilitate this account, or if it can be rehabilitated. A WP:STANDARD linked to WP:CONDUNBLOCK requiring a password reset is probably insufficient as we don't know who is resetting the password (and there have been several inferences made that this account is associated with an IRL person, leaving open the possibility of impersonation of that person if a different person who has access to this account takes control of it via password reset). Chetsford (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• • Chetsford, I'm a bit baffled--it seems that trouble follows me wherever I go. Only a few days ago I ran into the Black Scholar article and all its problems and tags, and dropped a line on the talk page of User:Randykitty (an admin and an academic who is my go-to specialist on academic journals)--today I come back and find the editor blocked, and a complicated history. I read over the material here and I have a take, if you're interested--I am all for unblocking this editor because we need academics as editors, esp. in underpopulated fields (but for clarity's sake I'll confirm that I agree with your block). However, the Black Scholar article is problematic, though, I have to say, edits like this have improved it. I have not yet looked at the Randall article and I don't want to: I see way too many COI/UPE BLPs.
    Anyway, I propose unblocking the editor with a few conditions. 1. the COI needs to be absolutely clear, and on their user page. 2. the editor needs to state, briefly but unequivocally, that they understand the one editor, one account equivalency. 3. no editing articles with which they have a COI for six months. Randykitty, I'm interested in your opinion as well. Oh, Chetsford, feel free to email me with the additional OUTING problem, if you think that's appropriate. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Drmies - that all sounds completely reasonable to me. I support your proposal. Chetsford (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• • • • And so do I. This editor seems quite redeemable to me. The article on the journal still needs some work. I've been waiting for things to slow down to get out my fine-toothed comb. :-) --Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

        This is Rootbeerlc. I appreciate your willingness to unblock me and to undertake further editing on The Black Scholar page. I am not able to log in, at present, presumably because my account is blocked. How may I meet your conditions for unblocking, as listed above? Specifically: 1. What is the phrasing that you would like to be used, to make clear that there is a COI? 2. Do I need to be unblocked before I can articculate this COI on my user page? 3. Where and to whom do I state that I understand the one editor, one account equivalency? 4. Where do I signal my acceptance of the six-month moratorium on editing COI-related pages? 24.56.241.38 (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

        This is Rootbeerlc, again--I just discovered that I can now log in. Rootbeerlc (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

        In the hope that this will dampen any potential concern that an impersonator may have sent the message from '24.56.241.38', which was sent before I discovered I am now able to log in, I am reposting the response here from my logged in position. I'm correcting the typo too. I will meet your conditions when I have received replies to my questions 1,3 and 4. "This is Rootbeerlc. I appreciate your willingness to unblock me and to undertake further editing on The Black Scholar page. I am not able to log in, at present, presumably because my account is blocked. How may I meet your conditions for unblocking, as listed above? Specifically: 1. What is the phrasing that you would like to be used, to make clear that there is a COI? 2. Do I need to be unblocked before I can articulate this COI on my user page? 3. Where and to whom do I state that I understand the one editor, one account equivalency? 4. Where do I signal my acceptance of the six-month moratorium on editing COI-related pages?" 24.56.241.38 (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2024 Rootbeerlc (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

WP's WP:COPYVIO policy and WP:PLAGIARISM guideline

Hi Rootbeerlc:
I'm hoping you can clarify your understanding of our WP:PLAGIARISM and WP:COPYVIO policies and guidelines and whether or not this account is being operated in violation of those policies and guidelines. As per our list of policies with legal implications, "Wikipedia has no tolerance for copyright violations in our encyclopedia". And, regardless, of copyright status we also discourage plagiarism, which is the uncredited use of another person's (or one's own) work. These requirements are necessary not only to protect the WP:WMF but also out of respect for the intellectual labor of writers and researchers, particularly members of the academy whose work has been most susceptible to expropriation on Wikipedia.
A very cursory review appears to indicate instances of large sections of text being lifted by this account and inserted into WP mainspace without attribution and (potentially) without permission of the owner of the works. To avoid making this thread unreadable with diffs, I cite this one relatively significant instance: https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Byron+Randall&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=1 (apparently added to the article on a date after it first appeared here [7]).
There may be a logical explanation for this, or I may simply be misreading what occurred, in which case I hope you can disabuse me of my concern.
Chetsford (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chetsford,

All of the outside institutions that you list have plagiarized from the Wikipedia entry; the embryo of the entry was the website bio and exhibit info written in 2002, by my mother, Randall's daughter, who had been managing Randall's art and papers until dementia prevented her from continuing. My assistant created the Wikipedia entry in 2012 with that website bio, and material from a published obit. I then added annotations and information as and when scholarly publications emerged on Randall, and museums began to add more of his art to their collections. I took over administration of the Byron Randall estate in 2009. In 2013 I began approaching museums and commercial art distributors, to get more of the art (over 4000 artworks) into public view. I pointed them to the Wikipedia entry to give them information about the artist. They then started to use the Wikipedia entry, which I did not mind. The intellectual labor of writers and researchers that you refer to is my own labor, the labor of my mother (herself an acaedmic), and my research assistant. Rootbeerlc (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

"All of the outside institutions that you list have plagiarized from the Wikipedia entry". The copied text existed off-WP as of 18 May 2010 [8]. The Wikipedia entry wasn't created until 27 November 2011 (either by you, or by one of the other people operating this account). Chetsford (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The 18 May 2010 item--which is good to know about (I had not seen it before)--plagiarises of my mother's original bio of Byron Randall, written and posted in 2002, for a website that operated in Scotland, the content of which has mostly been taken down: http://www.spanglefish.com/byronrandall/. She also wrote the SF Gate obit on her father's death, August 1999. Rootbeerlc (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Understood. This seems to confirm that the WP page is, indeed, a copyright violation. Whether it's a violation of your mother or of the art gallery is not for me to decide. For now, I've requested the page be speedily deleted. Chetsford (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand. My mother wrote the 2002 bio. I have plagiarised from my mother? Rootbeerlc (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The source of the 2010 website Byron bio you cite is http://www.lostartsalon.com/byronrandall.html. Lost Art salon did not set up their Byron Randall website page, with that bio, until after they acquired art from me, in 2012, and I shared the Wikipedia entry with them. That 2010 date probably refers to the year this Way Back website began to operate, not the date it posted a lost art salon bio. Rootbeerlc (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

"That 2010 date probably refers to the year this Way Back website began to operate, not the date it posted a lost art salon bio."" Nope. Chetsford (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I do have to say this is starting to feel like harassment. When I began my account with Wikipedia, I did not receive information that indicated you could not incorporate material that a family member had composed, in creating an entry. My mother has not registered a copyright nor asserted one. Neither she nor myself mind other institutions such as lost art salon using the material. Rootbeerlc (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

"When I began my account with Wikipedia, I did not receive information that indicated you could not incorporate material that a family member had composed, in creating an entry." I'm sorry to hear no one provided you with that information. By copy of this message please consider yourself so notified. Our relevant policies, which existed in essentially identical form at the time you created this account, are here: WP:COPYVIO, WP:PLAGIARISM. Chetsford (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rootbeerlc, I’m a little confused about this as well. You have previously identified yourself as a professor who has authored dozens of academic works. Are you not familiar with very basics of plagiarism? Under no circumstances can you directly copy other’s work (especially without any type of citation or attribution to the original author.) This applies even if the original author was your mother, father, child, or pet cat. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I did not claim to have written the original source of the bio. Neither did the various establishments that went on, without asking my permission, to republish the Wikipedia version (which I expanded and modified from the original bio by my mother), including Lost Art Salon, multiple museums, and the scholarly book by Ginny Allen and Jody Klevit, Orgeon Painters. Landscape to Modernism, 1859-1959 (Oregon State UP, 2021) that is cited in footnote 6 of the entry. They all plagiarise the Wikipedia bio that I shared with them, and they do not credit Wikipedia nor myself. Nor my mother, but she published it anonymously. Her name does not appear on the SF Gate obit and it does not appear as the author of the bio on the spanglefish website that first published the bio. Would this have been the way, then, to phrase the acknowledgement in Wikipedia?: "this material derives from a biography composed by Randall's daughter, that was published anonymously in SF Gate and spanglefish. It has been expanded and modified". Rootbeerlc (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I did not claim to have written the original source of the bio.—that’s not the issue here. The issue is that someone from your account wrote a Wikipedia article plagiarizing someone else’s work. We have absolutely no control here if other entities also plagiarized such work. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Commercial art sales

On an issue unrelated to the above (which I'm still hoping you can explain), can you clarify this:

"... took over administration of the Byron Randall estate in 2009. In 2013 I began approaching museums and commercial art distributors, to get more of the art (over 4000 artworks) into public view ...I pointed them to the Wikipedia entry to give them information about the artist"

If I'm reading this correctly, you took over the estate in 2009 and, 18 months later, created the Randall entry for the purpose of promoting awareness of an artist whose art you were selling, and the proceeds from which you were (and are even now) the beneficiary? Chetsford (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC); edited 01:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I creatd the Wikipedia entry to educate the public about a little known artist. To date paying for art storage, conservation, transportation, setting up and maintaining a database, and scanning the bulk of his papers, has exceeded $100,000. There have been some sales, for sure, but as there is no established market, the sales are rare, and the prices are very low. Lost Art Salon bought about 95 pieces for $20 each which is how they do business (check out what they then charge the public for the art). I have auctioned around 20 artworks through District Auction and received $50-$75 on average. So, I am not in it for the money, and I am wondering for how much longer I can afford to keep paying for the art storage and conservation. Rootbeerlc (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you've been taken advantage of like that. Having had to dispose of quantities of art owned by relatives myself I completely and absolutely empathize with your situation. However, Wikipedia is not a vehicle to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, including promotions to boost the price of artwork we believe has been undervalued. Whether proceeds from these large volume commercial art sales are being used to pay for warehouse space or being used to pay for a new Bentley (it sounds like, in this case, it's definitely the former), is not a distinction our policies make (nor could they possibly make as we don't audit the financial records of editors). Chetsford (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

What criteria do you use in ascertaining promotion? Certainly, I wanted to educate the public and create broader awareness of his art. My motivation was not commercial. What differentiates education from promotion, for you? I have not linked the article to a website where I sell the art, the information provided in the entry was not overtly or covertly engaged with encouraging people to buy the art, and the art displayed in the gallery is Creative Commons International; a few people have used the art images to sell merchandise I have learned (someone has developed a beer brand with the Golden Gate painting on the can), but I am not among those who have monetised the Wikipedia entry.Are you saying that family connection precludes one from writing an educational entry about that figure? Rootbeerlc (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

"What criteria do you use in ascertaining promotion?" You've said you created a Wikipedia article to help promote the sale of art you owned. I'm not going to continue to parse the details of that, like what simultaneous pedagogical motivations you may or may not have had, the inherent cultural value of the art you were selling, or whether or not you got a fair price for the art. As with all your previous questions, the answers can be found in our policies and guidelines which are absolutely unambiguous on each point upon which you've attempted to raise ambiguity (see: WP:NOTPROMO). I have no authority to amend our policies and guidelines. Based on the above and below exchanges, I would recommend that -- at a minimum -- completing the WP:ADVENTURE be added as a further condition of unblocking. I'll defer to Drmies and Randykitty on that point, however. Chetsford (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you point me to where I say "I created the article to help promote the sale of art I owned"? I would like to see your evidence for that claim. Rootbeerlc (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

From reading the NOTPROMO, I want to ask: does the Randall article provide" Information ...in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery"--I think it does. If it does not, please point me to passages which show bias and puffery. And, passages which reveal advertising-? This too sounds like harassment based on the knowledge that you have of my personal relationship to the artist, rather than a conclusion derived from what I have written in the entry or to you. Rootbeerlc (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

"This too sounds like harassment" I'm sorry you feel that way. The WMF has stated that it takes seriously concerns about editor harassment and endeavors to make Wikimedia projects "positive, safe and healthy environments for anyone who joins" [9]. Concerns about potential harassment should be promptly brought to the attention of WP:ANI or WP:XRV. If local processes fail to resolve your concerns, you can also contact the Foundation's Trust & Safety Team. Chetsford (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Rootbeerlc, there’s an entire section in that article listing out every collection where Randall’s art is located. That certainly looks like advertising his art to me (please see also WP:NOTCATALOG). The lead of that article also has 8 lines of quotes from Randall stating how amazing his art is. That seems a tad bit self-serving. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

You're correct and I apologize. To clarify, you: (a) created the article (apparently by process of unattributed copy/pasting of another person's writing), (b) indicated you then used the article you created to help promote the sale of art you own [10]. While I'm not sure that makes a difference to the underlying issue, I'm happy to present that clarification if you like. Chetsford (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Byron Randall

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Byron Randall requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://web.archive.org/web/20100518120136/http://www.lostartsalon.com/byronrandall.html and https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Byron+Randall&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=1. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Chetsford (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I will contact Lost Art Salon to request that they confirm that they got their bio from me. Would such a confirmation be satisfactory? It would add salt to the wound if, after paying me $20 per painting and amassing a heafty profit from their sales, they are credited with owning copyright over something that they did not write. Rootbeerlc (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

"I will contact Lost Art Salon to request that they confirm that they got their bio from me. Would such a confirmation be satisfactory?" You just said, in the above thread, that you copied it -- without attribution -- from something your mother wrote. So ... no? Chetsford (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I've emailed Lost Art Salon anyway, to ask them to explain their source for the website dated 2010. I'm quite curious. As regards my mother providing the original biographical source:

In my capacity as Gale Helen Chrisman's Power of Attorney, I grant permission to Wikipedia to reuse Gale Helen Chrisman's bio of her late father Byron Theodore Randall.

My mother has advanced dementia and because she cannot handle her affairs, that responsibility falls to me as her Durable Power of Attorney. I was granted Durable Power of Attorney in 2008, in Scotland, and in 2012, in the USA.

I doubt that that will be acceptable to you, and doubt that anything I do or write is acceptable at this point, because you appear to wish to distort what I say and do to impugn my integrity, motivation, and legitimacy in ways that I am finding difficult to fathom. I had thought that Wikipedia would value an entry on a lesser-known artist. I am not going to struggle further to persuade you of the merits of an entry. The public has access to information about Randall through other avenues, such as the websites of public institutions that have plagiarised the Wikipedia entry in their listings and curatorial guides, several podcasts on the artist, and a forthcoming book on him. Rootbeerlc (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

"I doubt that that will be acceptable to you, and doubt that anything I do or write is acceptable at this point, because you appear to wish to distort what I say and do to impugn my integrity, motivation, and legitimacy in ways that I am finding difficult to fathom. " Rootbeerlc - everyone here are volunteers, you're not talking to the customer service department. I'm at a loss to understand your condescension toward someone merely seeking to protect the integrity and propriety of what you purport to be either you or your mother's writing by applying the same policies to you that we apply to everyone with respect to unauthorized copying. We have no idea who the person behind this account is and I'm saddened you would heap such belittling scorn and accusatory derision on someone for not immediately stepping aside and waiving the responsible application of policies that are in place to protect your IP rights simply because you find it inconvenient to your art reselling business.

"In my capacity as Gale Helen Chrisman's Power of Attorney, I grant permission to Wikipedia to reuse Gale Helen Chrisman's bio of her late father Byron Theodore Randall." That's not how any of this works. You need to either follow the procedures at WP:DONATETEXT or submit a request via WP:VRT (and, again, this presupposes that the gallery in question indeed expropriated a different person's unpublished manuscript of which you claim to be the owner). I know you know that since you did the same thing for the images associated with the article in question (e.g. [11]). I'm sorry if that's inconvenient but this is designed to protect our nonprofit encyclopedia from the devastating liability to which it could be exposed if it dealt with copyrighted material in the casual way you're demanding. That's in everyone's best interests. Don't you agree? I'm sure you do. Chetsford (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

User: Diannaa, would you please have a look at this? Thank you so much, Drmies (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the bulk of the issues in the article are rectifiable. I'm going to take a crack at remedying this today since the subject is undoubtedly WP:N and losing the article, regardless of the history of its creation, is not a net positive. Chetsford (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies, Rootbeerlc: it doesn't matter who wrote the text. If it was published somewhere else before it was added to Wikipedia, a VRT ticket is required, even if the person who wrote the source document is the person who adds it to Wikipedia or thinks they have permission for whatever reason. — Diannaa (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)