On 15 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Stretch Armstrong (ska band), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that ska-crazed dancers at a Stretch Armstrong concert once became so intense that three people left on stretchers and one in a hospital helicopter? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stretch Armstrong (ska band). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Stretch Armstrong (ska band)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Saw the special collection for Theta Alpha Phi that you added, does the Library have something similar for Alpha Phi Omega?Naraht (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx. It was active from 1949 to 1993. Is there a specific special collection of the school of Recreational Management and Youth Leadership? As a scouting based organization, we had strong ties to RMYL. I haven't found any specific media coverage of the chartering of the chapter at BYU on May 22, 1949.
A lot of mentions of the fraternity, but the OCR wasn't finding things that well. I went into the specific dates prior to and after the chartering. They have an article ahead of time in the 1949-05-19 issue of the DU, but nothing (other than selling a specific magazine) in the 1949-05-26 issue. (The Provo Daily Herald also mentions the chartering ahead of time. That was fun to search as well.) Thanx for your help!Naraht (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's where I found the Provo Daily Herald. I have no idea if that was the only paper in Provo (other than the DU) at that time.Naraht (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
question
I have no idea what was going on at the wir/outreach, please accept apologies, please fix - if it needs fixing, I have been offline for three weeks or more and cannot remember anything about my edit. sorry. JarrahTree03:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In-person meetup for Wikimania 2022, August 12-14?
Rachel, I thought we should try for an in-person meetup in conjunction with Wikimania 2022, so I created Wikipedia:Meetup/Utah/August 2022. I'm envisioning something as simple as a coffee chat or library meetup. Do you think we could pull something off in under two weeks? KarenJoyce (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw your note on the WiR project talk page. I'm a relative new-comer to the project. (One of at least four librarians involved, by my count.) It's a great group of people and I'm sure the project would benefit from your expertise. Maybe I'll see you at one of the Zoom meetings? -- Jaireeodell (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wondered if you'd want to weigh in on this talk about what sources are/aren't reliable/independent for Latter Day Saint movement
Since you've been involved in that project page as well, thought you might be interested in the discussion about how to categorize sources and what makes for independence or reliability. The talk thread is here.
Can you explain how your edits to Joseph Smith don't fall under editing which would be prohibited based on your COI? They are the founder of your employer after all, how could you not have a COI which would prevent you from editing the page? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your push to remove Brodie appears to have been POV pushing, that doesn't appear to have the support of the community. Your editing of the page wasn't endorsed on the talk page you wrote "If I were to work on the page though, I would want oversight by some non-LDS (or at least non-BYU-affiliated) editors" and nobody ever responded to you yet you worked on the page. You are now getting oversight, it appears you don't like it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is still developing on the Wikiproject LDS source guidelines project. I started replacing the citations based on what other users said at the time. The Joseph Smith page has many watchers--don't you think someone would have reverted my edits if they disagreed with them, or responded on the talk page when I asked about it? I believe that Trevdna and Awilley are providing the oversight I requested. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Horse Eye Back, you're getting things backwards. Rachel was not making any push to remove Brodie, she was simply implementing a consensus that had been formed by other editors (FormalDude, P-Makoto, and perhaps Trevdna). I happened to think that consensus was wrong and I've been working to change it at WT:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Sources#No Man Knows My History (Brodie). But Rachel had no part in forming that consensus and she hasn't stood in the way of my efforts to reverse it. ~Awilley (talk)17:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From COI "COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead." So you understand what strongly discouraged means yet you persist in doing the thing that is strongly discouraged? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can point to specific instances where Rachel has made bad (or potentially bad) edits, you need to stop your harassment of her. She has a clearly established track record of excellent edits, and she has clearly stated her potential COI in all cases. Please apply WP:AGF here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like the specific instances I point to in the section below this one which you conveniently haven't commented on? Note that the only person who appears to be engaging in harassment is you... Please stop. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You edited the page of your coworker Gary P. Gillum. Why? Even under your self-acknowledged restriction that your COI extends just to the library you can't be doing this, this person also works for the library. You know editing that page isn't allowed, you've already said that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Horse Eye's Back Editing URLs for accessing collections isn't in *ANYONE*s definition of Conflict of Interest. Your other complaints are only *slightly* more reasonable (but still well under the bar of what I'm concerned about). The only way in which her edits would be inappropriate is if she had an imposed Topic ban on something relating to Mr. Gillum. As a note, I'm not a member of the LDS church and have never been within 300 miles of BYU.Naraht (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
COI exists regardless of what edits are made, that's not how COI works... Either you have one or you don't. Editing the pages of your co-workers is inappropriate, that doesn't matter where you work or what edits you make. Per WP:COI: "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships."Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Horse Eye's Back From the header of the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. (Bolding mine) "The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits." As far as I'm concerned changes to accessing collections is only slightly more controversial than fixing spelling mistakes.Naraht (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV is about using reliable sources proportionately (that it is somehow about neutrality in the general sense is a common misconception, it is not). Something which uses an unreliable source is non-NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Gillum is also the publisher ABOUTSELF doesn't apply. We could only use the "about me" page on a blog if the blog was published by that person. We can use a book published by Gibson for ABOUTSELF about Gibson, but we can't use it for claims about third parties. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gary Gillum himself wrote the portion that I cited, but there wasn't a good way for me to show that in the citation template. To me, it doesn't make sense that we could use something Gillum wrote on a blog, but not something he wrote in a book. If there is consensus that we should not use the source, then we can leave it out. I am happy to scan the chapter in question if that would help you evaluate the source. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can't use something Gillum wrote on someone else's blog. Unless its self published we get into an interesting catch-22 where we can't tell if the information has been accurately relayed without the text having been published in a WP:RS and if its been published in a WP:RS then we don't need to use the unreliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ABOUTSELF states: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." This does have a problem with equating a source with a person, which is inaccurate. A source is not a person, but can be authored by one. Setting that aside, I believe it means that if someone writes something about themselves in a self-published or questionable source (which I believe Gibson's books qualifies as), that you can use it as a source about that person. Maybe we should get a second opinion on the subject? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If its a questionable source how do you know that Gibson is accurately conveying Gillum? This is why we have a strict prohibition on using them for statements about third parties. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't just avoid it its prohibited by our reliable sources policy. Unless the subject is the publisher of the podcast/blog or the podcast/blog is a WP:RS that's a non-starter, we'd need a WP:RS to cover what was said in the interview. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but interviews are not prohibited by our reliable sources policy. They are considered primary sources according to footnote d at WP:OR: "Further examples of primary sources include: ...editorials, op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces, including (depending on context) reviews and interviews...". This discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard (RSNB) discusses interviews for BLP specifically, and if using information from a podcast interview violates privacy rules. It seems like they came to the conclusion that it is okay to use a podcast interview as one would use a primary source. I am not sure if we can make progress on this issue here, so I will see what other editors think on the RSNB. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't friends with Hugh Nibley and I never worked with him. He did work at BYU, and I currently work at BYU, but our time working there did not overlap. Is there a particular edit you are concerned about? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that I should change my editing behavior because I am "using Wikipedia to promote [my] own interests at the expense of neutrality" feel free to bring it up at COIN. I am adhering to the COI policy as best as I know how by declaring my COI on my talk page and alluding to it in my username. My frustration with your accusations of me having a COI is because I find them to have little meaning. Every Wikipedia editor chooses pages to work on because they have certain likes and dislikes. Many editors engage in advocacy editing without being paid to do so. Maybe all my edits have a potential to have a COI--that's why I declare it on my talk page. What really matters to me are the quality of an individual's edits, which is why I would like you to evaluate my edits for neutrality, not whether or not a COI exists. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We had an initiative to create new pages for Mormon women in the hard sciences. Most of them were BYU professors and that did not go over very well with other editors. These days I avoid creating pages for current BYU professors. I believe that since my employer is a library, whose goals overlap with Wikipedia's in sharing free knowledge, that I have the freedom to edit pages with a NPOV as required by Wikipedia's policies. We don't operate in ways to maximize profits, because we don't sell anything. My boss has never told me that I have to change the information I've put on Wikipedia, and I've worked on some pages that are pretty unflattering to the LDS Church. Is there any other information you would like to know? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HEB: You're beginning to sound like a witch hunter here. Are you going to want her to start naming names next? Please back off the thinly-veiled attacks. I've crossed paths with Rachel multiple times over the last 5 or so years, and (with very, very few exceptions) her edits have been very neutral and well done. As far as I can tell, she's simply editing topics that interest her, especially those where she has access to many reliable sources that others may not (since she works at a research library). Unless you can point to specific edits that are problematic, please stop harassing her. WP:AGF applies to everyone, including you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She is paid to edit, she is editing topics that she is paid to have an interest in. This is not editing done by a research librarian in their free time, this is paid editing which appears to advance an agenda. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back: Yes, she is paid to edit, but Wikipedians in residence are allowed to do that. In fact, anyone is allowed to edit when paid as long as they disclose that they are paid and they abide by our policies and guidelines. She has disclosed her COIs and that she is paid according to Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use and WP:DISCLOSE, as has been pointed out to you multiple times. As she has also stated multiple times, she is not told what to work on or what to change. She chooses her topics according to her interests.
As for whether she's trying to "advance an agenda", please point to specific edits where you can show this. Please point to any edits at all where she has made a bad edit. I think you'll find it difficult to do so. Her edits have been under scrutiny for years now, and whenever there's been a problem (which is extremely rare), she has taken the feedback and made adjustments accordingly. She's a model editor with a very long track record of excellent edits. You have been asked multiple times to provide specific edits to support your claims, and you have yet to offer even one. Until and unless you can do so, any further harassment of Rachel will be seen as violating the harassment policy and will be dealt with accordingly. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've already done that, none of the edits to Gary P. Gillum are appropriate (the page shouldn't even exist). You're an involved editor, you can't be issuing warnings with your admin hat on. Just to check do you have a COI you need to disclose? Any personal or professional connections to the Church of Latter Day Saints? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the page should exist (and Rachel didn't create it) is being discussed right now. General consensus in that discussion is overwhelming (inclduing my opinion) that it shouldn't, at least in its current form. The edits she made on that page were all about source improvement. And stop acting like McCarthy. There's not a COI witch under every rock. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to a direct question asked of an admin you do actually always get what you want in life, an answer. Admins who don't answer direct good faith questions don't remain admins very long. Just to clarify you didn't issue me a formal warning right? An involved admin couldn't have done that, right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You already counted the Gillum deletion, doesn't that mean three by your count? And yes, I was counting my talk page... You joined an ongoing discussion there as an editor rather than issuing a clean warning as an admin. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The particulars of which article it's in are irrelevant." it bothers me that an admin just said that, that's not how WP:BLP works. The requirement that the source itself be of quality is the very core of BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The items that the source was used for were uncontroversial. Rachel simply added that interview as a source for that particular information. All of that will become moot in a few days anyway, as it's very unlikely the article will be kept. Even I voted to delete it. That interview is unlikely to be used for anything else. That discussion, however, seemed to be hinging on whether an interview could be used as a source at all. You said they couldn't be, and pretty much everyone else disagreed with you. My comment there was that interviews were allowed to be used as sources. I made no comment on whether the specific book in question was reliable or not. I've never seen or read that book, so I can't make a judgment on that.
Regardless of all that, you need to stop hounding Rachel about all her edits, especially when you don't (most of the time, from what I can see) provide any specific concerns. Vague "I think you might have a COI on this topic" are not helpful, especially when she's got such a long and proven track record of good, solid editing. Stop harassing her. Period. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, that's not true, since Brigham Young University (her actual employer) is a separate legal entity. Yes, it is entirely owned by the Church, but there is a distinction. Also, generally speaking, the Church doesn't directly involve itself in the day-to-day running of BYU. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If its entirely owned and controlled by the church then the COI is real. The Church does involve itself directly in the day-to-day running of BYU, if they didn't then BYU would be an accepting place for LGBTQ students but it isn't because the Church exercised direct control to stop that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BYU has had policies and guidelines given to it by the Church, for sure, including (likely) policies and guidelines regarding LGBTQ stuff. However, the day-to-day operation of the university, including paying any employees, is entirely up to the university staff. As has been pointed out to you, the university (and therefore its controlling entity) doesn't tell her what to work on, and writing about historical information in another country has a very tenuous COI, if any. Additionally, it's likely that the BYU library has a lot of documents and other records not easily accessible to anyone without physical access to the university library, and that's exactly what Wikipedians in residence are for: to be able to look up that information and use it to improve articles. So, if you have a specific instance in her editing of this article where you think any bias she may have is showing, please provide those links. Otherwise, stop the witch hunt. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've never attended BYU, so I have no personal experience on which to drawn. However, any organization like that will have policies and guidelines given to it by any controlling entity. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"However, the day-to-day operation of the university, including paying any employees, is entirely up to the university staff." please support this statement with a source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary P. Gillum until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hi Ms. Helps, I've removed the external links throughout the article on Nephi Anderson. We don't do that on Wikipedia; if you have external links they can go in the designated section per WP:EL but otherwise, links in an article's main body must be Wikipedia links that keep users on this site. Elizium23 (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be alright if I reverted your edit on Nephi Anderson per the Book Links section of the Wikiproject Bibliographies guideline? I realize that it contradicts the general guideline to not have external links in the body of the page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nibley reference at Zenock
I hope you are having a wonderful wikibreak. When you get back, I was wondering if you could help me hunt down and verify the Nibley source cited (currently #8) in Zenock. Another editor had a question about the 4th paragraph. I tried to respond, but also found that the paragraph is very poorly written - I think I know how I'd like to rewrite it but I'd like to verify the statements attributed to Nibley. My initial, quick attempts to find an online copy of it have not been successful. I'll keep searching but thought I'd reach out to you given your resources. In the mean time, Merry Christmas! --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
