User talk:Breamk

Hello, Breamk, and welcome to Wikipedia! It appears you are a course instructor leading a class project. We encourage you to read our instructions for teachers and lecturers. It is strongly recommended that you add your class to our list of school and university projects. For more help about educational projects using Wikipedia, see our classroom coordination project which was created for the very purpose of assisting course instructors who use Wikipedia for their courses.

Here are some other pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question.

Before your students create an article, make sure you understand what kind of articles are accepted here. Remember: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while many topics are encyclopedic, some things are not. Unencyclopedic articles are subject to deletion.

We highly recommend that you place {{Educational assignment}} on the talk page of any articles you are working on as part of your Wikipedia-related course assignment. This will let other editors know this article is a subject of an educational assignment and should be treated accordingly.

We hope you like it here and encourage you to stay after your assignment is finished! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

We interacted briefly regarding your past class on medical missionaries, and I see now that it was meaningful to your students and that you want to do it again. I am writing to offer some online support. If you like, I could give you training through video conference and I would also be able to solicit some community review for your class's work. I am most often free during EST mornings, but could chat at other times. A chat is not necessary but I would like to make it an option for you. If you ever would like to talk, contact me through Special:EmailUser/Bluerasberry. I want your class to succeed because I support Wikipedia's educational outreach program and because I want health articles on Wikipedia to be developed. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. EST mornings are good for me. Chat is fine. Mondays and Fridays are usually best.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to University of Fort Hare may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Missionary]] activity (under [[James Stewart (missionary and physician)|James Stewart]] led to the creation of a school

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed your name from our Articles for Creation (AfC) participants list. Although your account is not new, you don't yet have the required 500 un-deleted main namespace edits. There was a dialog on that page explaining the requirements. AfC is not for newcomers as it takes some experience with Wikipedia's guidelines to justly evaluate drafts. If you have draft articles you're concerned about, you're always welcome to post a question at our AfC help desk. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much for removing. While I don't have 500 edits I have been an AfC participant before the 500 minimum was there, use three different professional and personal user names, and have teach a university class on Wikipedia article creation and editing so that my last 40 students have over 2000 edits under my supervision. Since those do not accrue to my user name they don't matter to some. Perhaps we have a different perspective on roles and how criteria should be applied. I would welcome you and others who spend time removing AfC participants to spend some time actually clearing the AfC backlog.

Please complete the student training. If you have already gone through it, be sure to click the button at the end to record that you finished it. --Breamk (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, it appears that you tried to create a redirect at Canton Hospital, but didn't do it correctly. The correct redirect syntax is:

#REDIRECT [[target page name]]

Good luck.

Also, if you're trying things out then you should use the Preview button before saving. You can use this to check redirects: if your code is a working redirect then you will see a bent arrow followed by the target page title. Example — Smjg (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Your account is currently configured with an education program flag. This system (the Courses system) is being deprecated. As such, your account will soon be updated to remove these no longer supported flags. For details on the changes, and how to migrate to using the replacement system (the Programs and Events Dashboard) please see Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 18#NOTICE: EducationProgram extension is being deprecated.

Thank you! Sent by: xaosflux 20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Sorry for writing in English. The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

--WMF Surveys (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 26% of Wikimramedia contributors who Wikimedia programs like the Education program, editathons, or image contests. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you are not fluent in English, I apologize again for posting in English. If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone.If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thank you! —WMF Surveys (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 26% of Wikimramedia contributors who Wikimedia programs like the Education program, editathons, or image contests. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed.Take the survey now.

If you are not fluent in English, I apologize for posting in English. If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks! —WMF Surveys (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you are not a native speaker of English, I apologize for writing in English. If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thank you!! --WMF Surveys (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Missionaries in India requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Education missionaries has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Le Deluge (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I notice you have been doing some poor page moves, such as this one, which I have reverted. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Disambiguation and consider using WP:RM to request page moves. StAnselm (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment on page moves. Thanks for all your work in religion and theology. Disambiguation has the benefit of adding specificity. I appreciate your perspective on missionaries. I use the more accurate term 'medical missionaries' in managing page moves. This would be similar to using 'physician'(MD) instead of 'doctor'(PhD, MD, EDD, DD, etc.) or 'Football player'(single sport) instead of 'athlete'(whole list of possible sports). Several missionaries have family members (and name sakes) who go into medical missionary work or vice versa which could cause confusion. I believe it is a poor move to use the more general term(missionary) rather than a specific term(medical missionary). The goal of disambiguation is specificity. Breamk (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

No, the goal of disambiguation is to have just as much specificity as we need to. If we had too missionaries of the same name, then we would need to get more specific (but we would probably disambiguate by year of birth). Also, we don't capitalise disambiguators. StAnselm (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the capitalization issue. Based on your standard, you would change all the sports star disambiguations to "athlete" rather than their specific sport. Like athlete, the term 'missionary' remains ambiguous and the more specific 'medical missionary' is more accurate. Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation regarding "not using what first comes to your mind". Missionary may first come to mind but 'medical missionary' is more accurate and appropriately specific.

No, that doesn't follow. The thing is, I can only find a couple of articles that use "medical missionary" as a disambiguator. StAnselm (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand that it "does not follow" for you based on your perspective. As I read your messages about my edits and my logic about specificity, it is hard to see how you are assuming good faith in my edits. Please consider reviewing Wikipedia community standardsWikipedia:Assume good faith. In identifying my specificity for disambiguation as a "poor move", as well as simply answering "no" when my logic is different from yours, you give the appearance of not following the wikipedia standard. I have given specific examples where increased specificity is helpful and logical steps to get there. You have responded with unsubstantiated opinion. I hope that you will consider the behavioral standards for wikipedia in your communications and in your changing of other editors work. Breamk (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Kent, you may have noticed that I have flagged a number of your students' contributions for notability concerns, as well as moving a couple to draft space.
While you have been using wikipedia with students for a number of years, I am concerned that your students do not seem to have a good grasp of notability requirements (this was a particularly egregious example but many others show no real sourcing outside of the missionary organisation that sent the person).
I'm also unclear why your students are not encouraged to use the WP:AFC process (where they can receive and respond to feedback) rather than moving poorly written and poorly sourced articles into the main space of the encyclopedia (again, this was an obvious example where the student had clearly labeled it as a draft but still put it into main space). Are you approving these moves (as per WP:INSTRUCTORS)?
I understand that these are students doing their best, but once in mainspace, their articles should meet the same standards as all others, and I can only imagine they are discouraged when experienced editors here template or move their work due to these issues.
Can you please clarify your own understanding of (a) the approval process for your students to move articles into the main space and (b) of the notability requirements you are working with for medical missionaries? Thank you Melcous (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your caring concern about quality on wikipedia.

1. Please rest assured that the students understand notability and have a positive intent in their interpretation of such. The students work with a professional librarian (>20 years experience) in addition to the academic staff and review notability several times in the development fo their articles. The university library has also hosted and worked with Wikipedia liaisons over the years. I understand that individuals may have different interpretations of notability and may personally have a higher or lower bar. Are they perfect, none of us are. Are they committed to notability, absolutely.

2. Thank you for the link for the instructors page. Our course dashboard already exists. The course students over the years have created articles with more than 12 million hits. They impress me. The students have a WikiEd liaison and engage in training through WikiEd and in the classroom. As per our class collaboration with WikiEd over the past 12 years, articles are moved directly to the mainspace rather than AFC. This change in process was made over 5 years ago recommended by the leadership of WikiEd. I appreciate the decades long partnership. As an aside, I believe the change was made around not using the AfC process due to the timing adn delays with AfC, the presence of support already throughout the process from librarians and WikiEd, and sometimes the lack of constructive feedback in the AfC process.

3. While it is easy for experienced editors to simply move a page or template a page, there is an opportunity to collaborate to improve a page as well. It may take more work, but it makes a better wikipedia. It is also an opportunity to support and mentor new wikipedia editors. It is easier to criticize than to collaborate and contribute. Please consider building a page and not just templating or moving. Consider using the individual wikipedia editor talk pages to communicate with them. While the semester is over, you are welcome to communicate constructively to the students who have become new editors. Unfortunately over the years critical wikipedians have gotten a reputation that is handed down between students of not being very helpful in their feedback. There is at least one that the students call a stalker or bully because they seem to stalk the students' work and just criticize and suggest deletion. I hope this can change and the students can see experienced wikipedians as collaborators rather than critics. It is a challenge sometimes to see the positive intent of the critics.

Hopefully I have brought clarity to the AfC issue, the notability issue, and my awareness of the WikiEd program. Thank you for your concern and investment in time and interest. I hope you will be a positive contributor and not get lumped with the critics in the students eyes. be well Breamk (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It could have been helpful to tag me in this reply so I would be notified about it. I appreciate your responses, but I still have significant concerns, and I have seen that others have raised similar concerns previously (just for one example PamD here). My goal is not to dissaude student editors, and I did seek to engage with a couple of your students on their talk pages, but got no response at all. I moved two articles that I felt were particularly poor examples of readiness for mainspace. And so my question to you as the instructor, and per the advice on that page that clearly says In particular, please require students to obtain your approval before moving content from sandboxes into the main article space., did you approve this move of an article with extremely poor notability, and did you approve the move of Charles Stiebel (Medical Missionary) to mainspace even though it was headed as a draft at the time? Melcous (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Your tone gives the impression that you do not have positive intent in your page moves, deletions, reversions. I have seen that others have raised this concern on your talk pages and edits multiple times. Given that your defense to your actions is often that "others agree" please consider the same rationale for thinking about the perception you give. Are you aware that you give this negative impression? I have seen one editor even ask you to stop having move battles. There are many positive, constructive editors on wikipedia who are able to give helpful and collaborative feedback to new editors; you have not been one of them. Please learn from them and consider constructive and collaborative contributions.

The language in your most recent reply on my talk page comes across as harassment. I have answered already that students work with WikiEd, me as their instructor, and a library professional who works with Wikimedia Foundation. The tone of your request sounds like an inquisition. Please try to demonstrate a positive intent and I will work to re-assume positive intent. Please work to give the impression of collaboration rather than accusation and haranguing.

You have already effectuated the deletion of the Charles Stiebel page so I will not lower myself to engage with you on that page; I have referred the issue to the WikiEd team. Your moving the page twice and then immediately suggesting that it be deleted came across as rooted in malice. Your behavior on attacking that page has given a very negative impression of you and wikipedia editors to several people both inside the university and outside. I have apologized on your behalf.

What is most concerning is the articles you seem to focus your criticism and negative feedback on. Your focus seems to be on minoritized and historically excluded populations and religions. The justification for your reversions seems to come from omniscience. I hope you will consider the perception that your focus and actions give.

Finally, I will not be tagging you and I have even asked WikiEd if it may be safer to remove class tags on the student articles to prevent you searching for them. I have also asked if there is a way to restrict your access to the class dashboard. This is to prevent you from personally focusing your opinions and perceptions on the student editors and taking action against their work. Your focus on following me and the students in my class, and our edits personally, is concerning and gives the perception of cyberstalking. Please stop this behavior. There are many editors who have positively helped to improve the students' articles, we do not need your feedback to improve the articles in addition to the constructive feedback from others. Please allow space for other editors, who want to improve rather than delete, to support this courses' students. Please rest assured that the weaknesses in the student articles will be improved even without your individual input. Wikipedia will not collapse if you let others help with the students' articles. Wikipedia is a very large community of positively contributing editors. I have confidence that the system can work without your policing the students in the class.

I have seen on your user page you have listed many articles created, please focus on building your own articles rather than tearing down others'. You are a productive creator of articles, keep creating.-- Breamk (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

You have found my tone here lacking positive intent, I find yours condescending and lacking in good faith. Of course the problem is that text can never communicate tone. I'm happy to stand behind both my record of article creation (largely on people from "minoritized and historically excluded populations and religions" in fact) as well as editing in the areas of COI and Notability concerns. It is not "cyberstalking" to notice problems in a particular area and then seek to follow up on whether they are being repeated. I'm not trying to police the students in your class, but I do find it highly disappointing that someone who has taken it upon themselves to instruct students in editing here does not have a better understanding of core policies, meaning students may well waste their time creating articles about people who are not notable, and therefore they may well end up with negative interactions with other editors who find such contributions frustrating and even suspicious. Melcous (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, I did not "effectuate" the deletion of the article on Charles Stiebel - I didn't even participate in the AfD. Melcous (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Melcous@Breamk Chipping in here as I've been pinged, above. I do think it's very important that instructors ensure that the subjects on which their students create articles are bomb-proof notable. Don't leave it to the students to decide this: they, by definition, are inexperienced editors. Perhaps this is where the WIkiEd staff could help too.

If a topic isn't notable then the most conscientious A-grade student putting in hours of work on it is still going to find that their article gets deleted, which will be dispiriting and discourage them from ever editing Wikipeia again. If the topic is notable, and the student shows care and a willingness to learn, then I and other editors will sometimes put a lot of time into improving the article, explaining what they're doing wrong, encouraging them to stick around and continue editing. But topic choice is the foundation of a useful student course. Perhaps WikiEd should keep track of which courses produce articles which are deleted for non-notability at AfD, and offer guidance to the instructors involved. PamD 09:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @PamD for the input. I appreciate your thoughts. As mentioned, all of the students work with me, a librarian whose field is Medical Missionaries and who utilizes a special library collection on medical missionary as well as international databases, and the WikiEd support team. In addition, except for a rare exception, all of the missionaries are sourced from published biographic dictionaries/registries (as suggested by notability guidelines for biographies). The librarian works with the students to assure notability and we review it often. I appreciate your perspective that other wikipedia staff and editors can help with this.

Notability is not objectively easy to define.

I do question whether the standard of "bomb-proof" is the right standard. I think the opposite would be better. If we have a goal to decolonize wikipedia's unconscious bias towards one kind of notability, and increase the representation of women and people based in non-European/"Western" countries, then we probably need to be more permissive rather than an assure-protection-from-an-explosive (to stick with the metaphor) assessment. A strict version of notability, as defined by Brits and citizens of England's former colonies, is the definition of unconscious bias in evaluation to me. This is nothing personal about your skill or my skill or anyone's skill or our established standards. Unconscious bias comes from sticking to our collective traditions and privileges about assessing a certain kind of biography on wikipedia.

As an example, one of the articles this year is of a Christian missionary in what was then British India and is now Afghanistan. As we know, fundamentalism and war in areas of modern Afghanistan has led to the destruction of much of the physical record related to religions other than Islam. Perhaps we cannot expect to have multiple, robust, independent sources for important, notable, events that occurred 100 years ago in what is now rural Afghanistan. Perhaps the history of Christian missions in rural eastern Afghanistan have been mostly erased. Should missionaries from what is now Afghanistan be excluded from Wikipedia because their historical record less than India, China, or countries on the African continent? Or can we take what record remains to assess notability?

We have had a refugee from the Rwanda genocide in our class and a Palestinian refugee in past years. Their perspective on notability was very different from mine and our librarian's. The newspapers and textbooks of New York and London were a much less important and independent source of notability than sources from their home countries or communities when thinking about "enduring historical records" or "well-known and significant awards". These community records, however, we might call too close to the source or not independent. Maybe they are too close; and maybe we should not judge everything with a NY/London historicity lens (even if you and I are not in NY or London). Maybe we should not define "well-known" or "significant" when it comes to awards by if they appear in the NYT.

This is not an argument against notability as a standard. It is a reflection on: how strict we must be in defining notability, what personal standards we use and how they can be biased, and what the risks are in using a permissive versus a bomb-proof standard in allowing biographies to appear on wikipedia from people who are long dead. I understand the standard for living people who may be using wikipedia as a tool for commercial promotion. But what are the real risks in biasing notability towards inclusion instead of exclusion?

Over the last 13 years, I have had students contribute literally hundreds of articles on medical missionaries to wikipedia. Some had weak notability, some had bomb-proof notability(smile). Each year, in the past, maybe 1-2 articles (often none) would be templated for notability or suggested for deletion. The students understood that and worked with editors. All of the articles would receive support from fellow editors from around the world, especially for the weaker ones. Occasionally there would be a problem external editor that would seemingly attack for political or social reasons (especially on some specific middle east articles and ones that had to do with communist China). We have a whole class on notability and on political risks for certain missionaries in the past who worked in geographies or with populations of modern political conflict. Students are aware of both the notability expectation and the political risk. We review notability and support improving communicating about notability in at least three class sessions during the semester. We have used the same process this year as we have for the past decade for identifying missionaries who have notability.

Thank you for sharing your perspective on bomb-proofing notability. I appreciate you sharing it. I hope you will consider that there could be a more permissive standard used, especially for dictionary/register based historic missionaries in far flung areas of the world. be well Breamk (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I came here from the "Arthur Colborne Lankester" AFD. To me a "bomb-proof" notability, atleast in the area in which you are currently working on would refer to any subject for which you are able to find two in-depth third-party sources that cover a subject in depth from the time-period (The definition of third-party can be looser than modern-day definitions, but it must not be a self published book). I'm not sure what kind of review the Arthur Colborne Lankester article in question went through, but imo it was definitely inadequate.

Secondly, coming to your point above, I don't doubt that finding sources on 18th/19th century Indian missionaries is hard (heck I had a hard time with John Elliot Drinkwater Bethune and Girish Chandra Bose back in 2020). However, if we can find zero coverage about a specific event or missionary from it's own time period, how are we supposed to differentiate between reality and fiction ?

Finally and lastly, WikiEd's primary objective should be improve Wikipedia's coverage of certain areas, while still being inside the bounds of our current notability policy (which is fairly permissive in my opinion when it comes to historical information) and while teaching students how to use Wikipedia. By allowing students to create dubious articles that test our bounds of the notability, the students are having a bad experience with Wikipedia making them less likely to contribute to the knowledge that we already have. I don't think that is a good outcome, and it might be useful for you to re-review the practises that you are following to check and screen that the subjects for which artocles are being created are indeed notable and ready for inclusion in the English Wikipedia so that the students have a good experience overall. Sohom (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

I am curious about your point about "self-published book". I think our modern definition of self-published books is very different because of the ease with which everyone can publish now. In the past, there was not direct access to printers. Similarly, the "third-party" that selects these books for our class is often a researcher library that decided that a book, even if autobiographical, was worth acquiring and cataloguing in the 18th, 19th, or early 20th century. But I understand why it may be hard to understand the significance of publishing and being placed in an academic library. I also know that I have a bias at our institution because our institution's missionary collection is the library from a significant training seminary that was given to our library a half century ago. In addition, to assure that it is not "fiction", all of these "self" sources are verified in databases from international missionary societies.

In history, we have no way of telling reality from fiction, we mainly look for the most proximate sources as well as collateral sources. I wonder if our beliefs, and confidence, of notability distal to these sources is more or less fiction than the books that are published and collected, and the collateral medical journal articles that are published collateral to the individual.

When thinking about making Wikipedia more inclusive, I am wondering why there is a need to maximize our modern skepticism about notability. We are not discussing self promotion on instagram. We are discussion developing a global encyclopedia.

I suspect I teach my students a more open minded approach to the past rather than proscribing history to my personal about truths. Breamk (talk) Breamk (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Breamk. I'm currently looking at the article Fred Manget, which was written for one of your classes in 2016 by a student called User:Tomere059. Unfortuantely, the student lifted large amounts of text directly from at least one of the sources. 2016 is a long time ago, and I don't expect that you have any way to contact the student, and even if you did there's not really anything to be done. That being said, I was wondering if you had access to some of the sources the cited? I've removed some material copied from an online source, but I don't have access to the book sources and I was wondering if maybe you do? If so, could you take a look? Thank you so much. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your note and for your work to edit wikipedia. I appreciate your reaching out after the eight years. I can see if I can find contact information for the former student.

I am confident the student accessed the source via our library. I can ask the librarian to weigh in because he will be faster than I will be to identify potential ways to get access. Are you interested in one of the cited books more than another? Breamk (talk) Breamk (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Harvey Rosenberg Bauman, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Daniel Leeper Mumpower, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Daniel Leeper Mumpower. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Breamk. I've come across several of your students' work in your WikiEd course through my new page patrolling. Can I ask why you are returning articles that do not demonstrate notability to mainspace after they have been draftified (see Patricia Bennett (medical missionary), draftified by @Acrom12 and returned by you, and Douglas Strangways-Dixon, draftified by me and returned to mainspace by you. These do not demonstrate notability (they are sourced almost exclusively to sources from the Church Missionary Society, which is not independent of these missionaries, and they include unsourced claims (like Bennetts work represents the efforts of nurses and women missionaries post-war in Bangladesh. By providing medical care and support to the local population, her roles additionally highlights the importance of community effort, healthcare provisions, and training of local staff. Her letters document a significant piece of early history and humanity of the recovery of Bangladesh post war on Bennett's biography) and have included invalidly licensed photos (it seems surpassingly implausible that your student took this photo of Patricia Bennett, as he or she claimed). These really seem best developed further in draftspace. I am unfamiliar with the expectations of WikiEd courses (so will ping in @Ian (Wiki Ed) here in case there is some perspective that I am missing) but it seems unhelpful to return content not ready for mainspace to mainspace too early, since once draftified the content cannot be re-draftified and must be sent to an AfD discussion if notability cannot be demonstrated). Thanks and let me know your perspective on this. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971 @Ian (Wiki Ed): we have been here before - see #Student Editors above, two years ago (@Melcous, as creator of that thread), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wingdie Didi Bertrand Farmer, 3 years ago. PamD 14:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes PamD, I'm unclear why this continues unabated - it is frustrating to both the students and to regular wikipedia editors when they are clearly not being given the guidance required. I have moved a a few more articles to draft that are clearly not ready for mainspace.Melcous (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Dclemens1971Thank you for sharing your opinions about notability. I also appreciate your word choice in using the term "patrolling". Your comments and actions do not come across as building a better wikipedia but instead come across as a police action, "patrolling". I believe that is an accurate term. It seems it is also the task of @Melcous to similarly police. I have observed the edits of @Melcous extend beyond policing for article notability and also works to revert and delete other edits to other pages that have clear research documentation.

To answer your specific question. I reviewed the pages that were in draft status, made edits after the semester ended to the point that I believe the article met wikipedia standards, and moved the article to the mainspace. I have discussed this multiple times over years with WikiEdu and Wikipedia editors and they believe that it is appropriate. I understand your disagreement with notability may make this frustrating. I am sorry it is frustrating.

Notability fundamentally is a subjective decision. There is not one simple definition of notability. Through my experience over 20 years teaching about the history of medical missionaries in the university setting, I conclude that the individuals you have named are "notable" according to Wikipedia and academic standards. What is interesting, is that your and others policing of notability seems to primarily(but not exclusively) fall on medical missionaries who are female and people of color, whether this is inadvertent or intentional. As you probably are aware, women and people of color are often not recognized in history. As an example, they were not included as Bishops in the Anglican Church Lambeth Conference until 1998. Does this mean they were not not notable female religious leaders until then? (This is a rhetorical question and does not, therefore, need a response.)

The Wikipedia standard is "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity" I believe female missionaries and people of color are "worthy of notice". I understand by the pattern of policing, there are several wikipedia editors that may disagree. I prefer to err on the side of inclusivity over exclusivity. I believe in the assumption of positive intent. I believe based on my experience that I can also have an opinion about notability that is different. Based on your message and the act of erasure for these women and people of color, I understand you and others may not agree.

This was especially toxic as it relates to the erasure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wingdie Didi Bertrand Farmer as @PamD comments on above which reinforces a thread started by @Melcous. Ms. Bertrand is an academic, a global health leader, and an individual who received much press before and after her husband's death. She continues to lead a significant initiative for women and girls. But of course, even in the 21st century, there are those who prefer to delete her and define her as "wife" rather than include her with her own page on wikipedia. This is a pattern of behavior around race and sex. It is unfortunately not surprising. I concluded, along with the original author of her page, that she was notable. She was not just a spouse. As PamD says, "we have been here before", Yes we have. There is a long history of excluding wives, not even allowing them to have their own name. And some will choose to continue to perpetuate the status quo about who should be noted in history. Wikipedia even has a program to address this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Introduction. Perhaps instead of deleting articles based on notability the articles could be a part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women when they are individuals who are identified as female. That group may have a stronger focus on improving wikipedia.

There have also been comments about the independence of the magazines published by the Church Missionary Society as not acceptable for notability. The specific wikipedia language is: ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." These CMS magazines were for general circulation, with subscriber and individual copy prices adn sales. They were not advertising, press releases, or autobiographies. They were not owned by the article subjects or controlled by the subjects. They had their own editors. In my opinion, the CMS was a publishing house for the general circulation magazines they used. We have definitely learned over the years that the general press has biases, just like the CMS may focus on a topic area around religion. To me, CMS is as independent as the BBC or the NYT, or any local newspaper or magazine. I understand there will be differences of opinion on this. I choose to conclude, along with librarians, that the CMS publications are sufficiently independent.

For notability, the standard of the publications is that they should be "Reliable" and the coverage should be "Significant". The CMS articles that are sources are part of a reliable set of general circulation publications that were owned by the CMS. The references cited in the wikipedia articles were often written by independent authors and included by a separate independent editor. This meets the standard of a "secondary source" as well. I am sorry that the BBC did not focus on female medical missionaries who led hospitals without British physicians being available in remote Pakistan and modern day Bangladesh in the early to mid 20th century. I do not believe that makes Pat Bennett less notable. It does make her more historically excluded.

@Melcous reports their opinion that the students are "clearly not being giving the guidance required". I understand that Melcous may not be satisfied with the result of the guidance, perhaps because of a desire to perpetuate traditional exclusivity, but Melcous's thoughts are just opinion. There is no first hand knowledge, it seems, for the conclusion that the guidance is not given. In reality, the students are given specific guidance in the classroom and by WikiEdu. There are entire units on this. They also engage with an academic librarian with decades of experience to identify an individual with notability, they are taught about copyright, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and notability. And these young editors are individuals and they make choices. They choose to include or exclude. I understand for their articles they choose to include poeple. I understand that the notability patrol chooses to exclude. I understand that they, students and patrol, can make mistakes, intentionally and accidentally. I can reflect this in the students' grades. I have no recourse on the wikipedia erasure that some editors carryout. For the questions of copyright, if you do not feel that a copyright was genuinely secured, delete the picture, you don't need to cancel the article's subject. You could also try to find a better picture not under copyright and add that to the article and improve it. That would be nice.

While the goal is to assume positive intent, @Melcous has decided to police content within articles on notability opinions. Recently, edits on the Belgian Congo and the Tetela language were reverted because of "No evidence of Notability" (rationale of Melcous). Yet, the guidelines for notability expressly state, "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists. The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles. It also does not apply to the contents of stand-alone lists, unless editors agree to use notability as part of the list selection criteria. Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight, balance, and other content policies. For additional information about list articles, see Notability of lists and List selection criteria.

The notability patrol, specifically @Melcous, is not following the standard of notability. It is difficult to understand that there is a positive intent and that this is standards based when the standards clearly state something different than what the volunteer editor is doing. And some editors seem to hunt down edits performed by me and my students and revert them stating generically "notability" even when it does not apply. How else might they decide to spontaneously find those edits? For me, this policing is excellent material for my class.

My work is to support the students in their learning. My work is to increase the number of wikipedia editors that work to contribute to wikipedia and make it better. My work may not be perfect because I focus on inclusion and teaching rather than exclusion and policing.

Wikipedia is a peer edited encyclopedia. I believe the goal is to improve it. Instead of patrolling and policing and more frequently deleting women and people of color, I suggest:

• Correct editing and formatting errors.
• Adding to articles that are weak. Improve wikipedia
• Searching for additional sources to strengthen notability. Crowd source the work the work. There are editors all over the world. With Patricia Bennett (medical missionary), the librarian and the student author got stuck because any additional sources are in Pakistan/Bengal/Bangladesh and have not been digitized. Instead of working to delete Pat Bennett, or moving her to an obscure drafting corner before deletion, build a system for editors in Pakistan or Bangladesh to improve the article. Let's improve wikipedia, not build walls around it.

Finally, we spend one unit of our class studying editors of wikipedia that do not seem to demonstrate positive intent and instead seem to serve a policing function more than a constructive function. This talk is an essential part of the class that I teach especially as we learn about historical exclusion and the perpetuation of historical normals inadvertently or intentionally. I'd invite you to come speak to the class virtually so future students can learn your perspective and how you identify as a patrol agent, a protector, a person who takes down articles; and how you each select what to delete and take down. I will continue to teach about building up and contributing. Please accept this as an invitation to be a guest in class and speak about your work in patrolling wikipedia.

In the mean time, I might invite our computer scientist students to start a web page on the women and people of color who were deleted or moved to draft status. Since I do not know the personally know the people, our academic work would become a publication that could then be cited on wikipedia. Interesting, it is like that scene in The Princess Bride (film).

Again, thank you for sharing your perspective Dclemens1971. I respect it. I also appreciate how it brought our Melcous and the pattern of their editing and misapplication of wikipedia standards. I hope you can appreciate that I have a different opinion on notability that is informed by experience adn careful study, and I ahve reviewed the process of moving articles to the mainspace with the teams at WikiEdu especially as part of their celebration of the WikiEdu project. I encourage you to get involved especially with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red and perhaps engage them in a conversation about including women on wikipedia. be well Breamk (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

BreamK, significant coverage in multiple independent sources is essential to demonstrate notability. (So even if one accepts your argument that the Church Missionary Society is independent of its own missionaries, which as someone with extensive personal and familial experience with the operations of missions agencies I can say is not true, the CMS counts as a single source for purposes of establishing notability.) That is a Wikipedia guideline. It's not one that I made up, and it's not one that I or anyone else can waive in the interest of remedying historic wrongs or any other reason. If you disagree with the requirement, take it up at the Village Pump. Meanwhile, describing the work of new page patrolling as a police action and describing (who? me? Melcous? someone else?) as editors of wikipedia that do not seem to demonstrate positive intent is an inappropriate raising of the rhetorical temperature and a failure of WP:AGF. If that's how you talk about the work of the new pages patrol to your students, I find it hard to believe it would be a volunteer-friendly environment to speak to your class. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't have a lot to add and am always happy to have other independent editors review my actions, knowing I am not perfect and that is how wikipedia is supposed to work. I will note that the standard for notability is not an editor's subjective opinion on what makes someoneworthy of notice, noble as that may appear, but the specific criteria of WP:N, which as noted above includes multiple independent sources and has objectively not been met in many, many articles created by the students in this class. I affirm Dclemens1971 that CMS publications are not independent sources for CMS missionaries, and I'm not sure there is any other way to read WP:RS - it would appear to be the same situation as sources written by a person's employer/company. Additionally, and I do hesitate to say this given the tone of the responses, but I have at times wondered whether there is more a specific agenda here. I certainly have not looked at all of the articles created by this class over the years, but of the significant number I have, the goal does not appear to be simply to create articles on medical missionaries who are female and people of color but specifically to create articles on CMS medical missionaries, using CMS publications. That raises additional flags for me at least. Melcous (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the conversation.

On number of sources: This is what the notability page says: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." As I read this guideline, it does not say "essential" or that it is a "requirement" as your reply states. The standards give examples of one source articles. I appreciate that we can differ on how we interpret if someone is notable but it is clear that multiple sources is not a "requirement" as your comment states: "If you disagree with this requirement". I do not see it as a requirement and wikipedia's written standards explicitly state that there are not a fixed number of "required". I believe wikipedia's standards are clear. I believe your imposition of a requirement is not within wikipedia standards and I believe this is in plain english with positive intent. I will repeat what my original response said and suggest: if you want to make a better wikipedia, instead of counting sources and working to exclude an article, build a better article. Search for or crowd source additional references that meet your standards. Why tear down when you can build up? Consider your interpretation of notability and consider your role in positively building wikipedia.

I am sorry that me equating the word patrol to policing caused you to see that as an escalation of the rhetorical temperature. In fact, when I look up the word patrolling, it says it is what the "police", "army", or "guards" do. In your choosing of the word "patrolling", I felt the same escalation that you described feeling. Knowing what the word "patrolling" means, it was very difficult for me to assume positive intent. I asked, "Why would a wikipedia editor use a word that is the act that police, militaries, and guards?" Instead of escalating the temperature and accusing the editor of failing to adhere to policies, I shared the impact that the term could have on someone based on its literally meaning. Using the definition of patrolling, your sentence read that you were carrying out the act of the police, military, or guard. I am sorry if the feedback I offered about the definition of your word choice, patrolling as a police action, upset you. My goal was to inform and feedback. Please help me understand how you interpret "patrolling" as a contribution with positive intent that is different from policing if, by definition, it is policing.

The truth for me is that litigating "positive intent" is actually an escalation of the rhetorical temperature. I would ask you to carefully think about why you see your role as "patrolling" and why you would escalate in your patrolling to prosecuting and accuse a fellow editor of violating positive intent. To me, this is policing behavior (based on definition) and prosecutorial behavior (in making accusations). Please assume positive intent rather than patrol, police, and/or prosecute. Also (see above), please demonstrate positive intent by building up an article rather than tearing it down. You have research skills, you have wikipedia writing experience, use them to improve articles.

To clarify on independence of missionaries and CMS, all voluntary missionaries that work and worked with CMS were not in an employment relationship. CMS employs office staff but mainly serves as a placement agency, a training agency, a communication agency, and an insurance agency for volunteers. Missionaries, then and now, in almost all cases, have to raise their own funds and support their missions. The oversight of their work is provided by local governments or organizations, not by CMS. We don't need to agree or disagree about this; it may be something that you are not aware of. The church's relationship with volunteer missionaries is very different from employed clergy which you may study more. I offer this information to increase awareness and clarification. I hope it helps expand the thinking around this topic. I will repeat what my original response said and I said above: if you don't like the sources, find better ones, don't remove the article. Let's build wikipedia rather than patrol wikipedia.

@Melcous thank you for sharing your concern about CMS missionaries. I suspected that there may be a "specific agenda" in your editing. I am sorry that the work of the CMS "raises additional flags" or in some way may trigger you. I hope you will consider these flags that are raised for you and consider how you might approach editing more neutrally. It is clear that your edits of my work are not random or spontaneous and are not even applying the standards of wikipedia correctly. Please read carefully the guidelines on notability. The number of articles for notability question is addressed, independence is addressed, and the deletion of other article contributions using "notability" is also addressed. Please reflect on your ability to manage your feelings of flags being raised. I can assure you there is no religious or CMS agenda. I do not teach at a religious institution and it is not a religious class. Our students come from a variety of religions, non-religious, and anti-religious cultures. If you want to know more, the content of the class is on wikiedu. Please look it up if that helps address any fears or concerns you have about the class.

In case you don't want to make the effort to look or do the research so that you can inform your conclusions, let me summarize: It is not religious; it is a history of medicine class and works to develop an understanding of the promulgation of western medicine through humanitarian acts. It explores the evolution from imperialism, to colonialism, to humanitarianism. Students also learn how to be wikipedia editors by writing an article on any missionary. They are given training modules on wikipedia standards including notability and copyright. These two are emphasized in person as well as asynchronously. In particular, we also emphasize and teach about finding an article on a medical volunteer from the 19th adn 20th century that is forgotten and erased. Often they are erased because of their gender or identity. We positively contributed to wikipedia by focusing this on women as part of one of the programs on promoting women scientists and health care workers.

Unfortunately for your concern for flags, the CMS kept records of missionaries better than any other country and religious denomination. That is why you may be triggered by the number of articles from CMS missionaries. When students need to find a medical missionary to write about, CMS is the easiest path because of their extensive digitized records. Interestingly, there are articles from class this year that have not even been successfully published and patrolled by the current discussants yet because they are from other religions (Islam) or countries (Korea). They surely will miss notability if we apply the standards you have set that are outside Wikipedia's standards for notability, independence, and documentation. We had several black non-anglican missionaries that were rapidly deleted in past years. We have one black non-christian missionary this year that is being repeatedly challenged. Unfortunately, for your seeming concern, the CMS missionaries have the most data and those articles survive the longest, history repeats itself and I am not even sure if you are aware of yoru contributions to that.

So any bias or agenda you might suspect (as described in your comment) comes from the challenge of historical erasure, not from any agenda in the class. The classes agenda for more than 10 years has been to write more diverse articles and deal with the actually biased notability cudgel that some editors wield on our students. Half my teaching on wikipedia is about deletion behaviors of wikipedia editors. As an aside, I didn't even mention it before, but the authors of the missionaries being discussed in this thread were written by non-white, female, non-christian individuals. So there is really double erasure of women in swinging notability questions about: both the article topic and the article author are erased. But there is no way you can know this. This is why, I teach about your deleting the student's work.

I appreciate your comment about raising additional flags because it can further inform my teaching with evidence to the sensitivities of editors who attack these articles simply because the attacker erroneously sees an agenda around CMS. Thank you for this evidence to support my teaching. These students ask each year as we discuss the threat of deletion by some volunteer editor, "Why are they so quick to exclude if there is positive intent?". My answer is always, I don't know, you're right it is hard to interpret their deletion as positive intent. Why do you think those editors behave that way?" I will incorporate this thread into our discussion next year. I am sorry you see flags where none exist. Please consider how you can be more open minded in your behaviors and how you might build wikipedia articles rather than tearing them down. Please carefully read notability standards. Please take the time to learn about the class, its on the wikiedu page.

In conclusion, @Melcousand @Dclemens1971, please think about how you can improve an article rather than remove an article. Please read carefully the specifics of notability. Please reflect on why you need to patrol and how the word patrol is the act of police, military, and guards. Please reflect on how your patrolling behaviors might reify historical erasure. Please consider building up wikipedia rather than tearing down new articles. @Dclemens1971, the invitation remains open if you change your mind about sharing your perspective with the class. I understand it may feel like a risk to communicate with the actual editors. We have had guests from the UNHCR, the Asian Development Bank, and modern day missionaries. You can join us as a volunteer wikipedia editor. It's just an hour of your time. If you want, you can emphasize your perspective on notability and copyright so they get it in their training, get it from me, and get it from you.

In conclusion, I will continue to teach. I will continue to specifically discuss wikipedia standards. Students will continue to be imperfect in their positive constructive contributions to wikipedia. You can continue to search for the articles of new editors that I touch. And then you have a choice, you can tear the articles down as part of your patrol, or you can positively build them up. Your choice. Your behavior.

And I will continue to defend their work from the erasure where I conclude that the article subject meets the wikipedia standards based on my assumption of positive intent and an understanding of those standards. I will build. Think about it. Breamk (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Just a very quick reply. Instead of looking at a dictionary definition of the word "patrol" and assuming intent linked to police or military, you might want to WP:AGF by reading about how the word is understood and used on wikipedia: WP:PATROLS. That is why Dclemens1971 used that word and why it is appropriate here. Melcous (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Melcous, "patrolling" on wikipedia for new articles is "improve them and provide assistance to edits made by new users unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Note this is a very involved area."

I do not recognize anything related to"improve" or "assistance". So the wikipedia definition of patrolling does not seem to apply. The english language definition is probably more accurate. This is not an assumption. It seems to more accurately describe the behavior.

Thank you for sharing. My invitation remains for you to positively contribute to articles rather than police them. Please reflect on how you can assist and improve.Breamk (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:PATROLS clearly talks about watch[ing] over a class of pages and tak[ing] any appropriate actions and being directly responsible as a first line against vandalism or other potential problems that may happen. That is what I referred you to. Furthermore, "improving" on wikipedia means improving the encyclopedia, not advancing any particular editor's work, so rejecting submissions or reverting edits can absolutely be acts of improvement; and what you call "exclusion" is most often done with positive intent. I again refer you to WP:AGF (which using words like "attack" certainly does not do). You have also now twice condescendingly told me to "reflect" or "think" about my editing, as if I am not already doing so. Stop assuming you have any clue about my motivations. Melcous (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Patricia Bennett (medical missionary), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Bennett (medical missionary) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Kent, can you please explain your comments here that At least two of the wikipedia editors who have suggested Pat Bennett for deletion have disclosed that they have personal experiences and feelings towards the CMS and its missionaries and The suggestion for deletion seems primarily initiated and argued by some(but not all) individuals who have described personal relationships and negative feelings towards the CMS organization? Who are you referring to? If you happen to be referring to myself or to Dclemens1971 then I would ask you to immediately withdraw those comments and apologise. Neither of us have said anything of the sort here and it would be unacceptable to make such baseless and false statements in a deletion discussion (or really anywhere). Melcous (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

"the goal does not appear to be simply to create articles on medical missionaries who are female and people of color but specifically to create articles on CMS medical missionaries, using CMS publications. That raises additional flags for me at least. " According to these words, the author has significant flags raised when an editor creates articles on CMS missionaries. These words demonstrate negative feelings towards CMS and brings into question the independence of the author of the words.

"as someone with extensive personal and familial experience with the operations of missions agencies I can say is not true, the CMS counts as a single source" Indicates the author has personal (and familial) relationships with the topic at hand.

Both these statements describe what is the appearance of a conflict of interest. In conflicts of interest, appearance matters. I believe there is a clear appearance of a conflict of interest base don the authors words. I understand that the involved individuals may have a different conclusion about their own conflicts but the appearance to others is still there. I believe it is important to be transparent about these conflicts. One of the authors has also specifically demonstrated misapplication of notability standards in deleting contributions to wikipedia.

I continue to invite positive contributions to wikipedia.Breamk (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

You completely misread my comment and imported your misreading into WP:ASPERSIONS in an AfD discussion, which is unacceptable behavior. I have no personal experience with or negative feelings toward the CMS (indeed, I generally view it positively and have used its materials as sources in bios I've written). What I said was that I have extensive personal and familial experience with the operations of missions agencies (emphasis added). I said nothing about the CMS, and I said nothing about my view of missionaries. I simply said that my personal experience informs my view that no missions agency can be an independent source for material on any of the missionaries it sponsors. That does not preclude us using such material in Wikipedia, but only in places where non-independent sources are permitted. @Melcous is right that an apology is owed. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I think there is a different understanding about what the appearance of a conflict of interest is. That is ok.

I also specifically disagree with your word "nothing" about CMS. The full sentence that I took the statement from starts and concludes with "Church Missionary Society" and "CMS" in the same sentence. I don't think this is nothing. But we can disagree on the measure of "nothing".

I am happy to acknowledge that your statement only addresses the "extensive personal and familial experience" half of my statement. My language listed two different characteristics. It is not specific to which editors and which characteristics that give the appearance of a conflict of interest. hopefully we can agree that the "extensive personal and familial" can be interpreted as a potential conflict.

I hear you in your concern about aspersions. In reading the thread, I can read alot of statements about how I do or do not teach my class in addition to my editing and my students editing as potentially casting aspersions. But I don't throw that around as an accusatory statement. I avoided it. Given that this discussion appears year after year, from two specific editors, with similar statements abotu my classroom work without experience in my classroom, there does seem to be a repeated pattern of these statements towards me. Please consider reading this thread with a different perspective and consider what other conclusions you might draw abotu aspersions. Also, please consider reading the Aspersions discussion. In particular see this there:

"Avoid claiming that someone is casting aspersions just because they have a different opinion, have exaggerated a situation, or have overreacted to an everyday event (e.g., if they call your edit "vandalism")."

I believe we have a different opinion on when notability should be used to delete articles and parts of articles. I believe we have a difference of opinion on whether deleting articles is a way to build wikipedia up or tear it down. I believe we have a difference of opinion on the appearance of conflicts of interest. And now we have a different perspective on who might be casting aspersions and when they are actually being cast. And, that is ok, it is a difference of opinion. We can learn from that and work to build wikipedia up.

If you feel it is beyond a difference of opinion and instead you think I am exaggerating or overreacting to your comments, criticisms, and deletions, still, "avoid claiming that someone is casting aspersions".

I would encourage all of us to focus on making articles better rather than tearing them down. It builds a more inclusive space. An inclusive space for new editors, young editors, editors of color. An inclusive space where more articles can be included about notable women, or people who were leaders in historical volunteer positions rather than corporate, government, or political positions, or abotu people in places that were more remote, in history that were not recognized by the traditional systems of power and control. I choose to build. Join me in building. Breamk (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Breamk And my words you have quoted above, the goal does not appear to be simply to create articles on medical missionaries who are female and people of color but specifically to create articles on CMS medical missionaries, using CMS publications. That raises additional flags for me at least do indeed demonstrate that I had concerns (WP:COI specifically) about this particular editing, but do not in any way suggest that I myself have "flags" about CMS or its missionaries themselves, or about anyone else who creates an article about them. My statements did not disclose a conflict of interest, they questioned whether there was any conflict of interest in you/your students editing given the apparent single focus. (As a side note, it is so common at WP:COIN for editors asked about a possible conflict of interest to accuse the person raising the question of COI to themselves have a COI that some experienced editors consider it something of a "tell"). You then used your blatant misreading of my words to state I have either disclosed personal feelings and experiences or described personal relationships and negative feelings, which is completely false. You also suggested these untruths were motivating me to propose/suggest deletion of an article when I did not initiate the AfD nor at that time had I even commented on it. You have imported your own assumptions in a way that is completely against good faith and has focused on the contributor rather than the content. Again, I await your withdrawal of those comments and your apology or I will consider reporting your behavior. Melcous (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your perspective again. I respectfully dissent. Given that there is no new information being introduced I would ask that you find another place or another person to direct your energies towards. i look forward to building a better wikipedia. Breamk (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

You "respectfully dissent" that you told untruths about me as arguments in a deletion discussion that I had at that point not even engaged in? Wow. Melcous (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Melcous (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Your baseless aspersions against Melcous and Dclemens1971, as quoted by those editors here, fly in the face of our policies and guidelines WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Speaking in such a way to volunteers who attempt to explain Wikipedia's principles to you is disgraceful. I have therefore blocked you from editing for 48 hours. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 15:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC).

Am I correct?Doug Weller talk 18:52, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Doug Weller, thanks for your question.

I am fine with the policies. I am sorry if I gave that impression that I was not. I absolutely support civility, no personal attacks, and assuming good faith. I agree that there should be notability in articles. I do not believe there should be conflicts of interest or even the appearance of conflicts of interest.

I remain, however, highly concerned about the application of the policies.

I am happy to touch base and discuss in another forum. I do not feel safe typing my perspective in this forum. Breamk (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

For reasons of transparency I prefer to keep the discussion here. So long as you do not make unsubstantiated allegations about other users and assume that they're acting with good intent, there's no reason you should feel unsafe posting here. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Doug Weller. It sounds like we might see things differently on the recent discourse, especially around safety. I understand your statement that there is no reason to feel unsafe. The lived experience for myself and some of the students in my class does not engender the same conclusion. To be transparent as you mentioned, I was reached by email by some other editors and we have a call scheduled. I look forward to chatting with them. Thanks for reaching out though. Have a good day. Breamk (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I don’t understand what you mean by unsafe. Could you be more specific? Doug Weller talk 20:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Greetings. I noticed your recent interactions at AN/I. “Unsafe” could be taken a number of ways, and like Doug Weller I would appreciate an enhanced statement, if you please. Thanks! Jusdafax (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)