User talk:Eshown

Welcome!

Hello, Eshown, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Will (Talk - contribs) 06:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Therese Coincoin[edit]

Thank you for adding more to clarify the history of Coincoin's freeing her children. I knew I couldn't get all the facts, but didn't have the excellent Mills-Mills book to consult.--Parkwells (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I can't say I've read any of your books but I probably should. And feel free to be bold and add the section on professional genealogy credentials to Genealogy; ask if you need any help formatting and such.--Michael White^T·C 11:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Michael--for your message and for your contributions to the Genealogy article. I appreciate your suggestion that I should "feel free" to add the section on credentials. As Leeirons noted on 2 July, the present article is heavily slanted toward hobbyists, with very little treatment of genealogy as a profession or a scholarly discipline (both inside and outside academia). However, because of my identification with one particular board, it would be best if the section was developed by others. It is needed. Presently, the only one place to which anyone can go to learn about all the available (and legitimate) credentials in genealogy is Claire Mire Bettag et al.'s "Certification and Accreditation" chapter of Professional Genealogy and its appendix that reproduces the codes of each group. But, again, my association with that manual would likely prompt questions from some quarters about my objectivity in creating a Wikipedia section on genealogical credentials. --Eshown (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry[edit]

An important policy of Wikipedia concerns sock puppetry – using multiple user IDs to obfuscate one’s edits or avoid scrutiny. Eshown has been making edits of pages related to her under several user names: Eshown, Chezbienvenu, ClioGen, Muse2, and anonymously as 76.18.149.123. Please read the WP policy on this.[1] Sockpuppetry can result in sanctions, including accounts being blocked. Under the assumption of good faith, I won’t report this, but I will monitor the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.140.190 (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To "Anonymous" at 64.252.140.190:

No sockpuppetry is intended. In my three offices I have 5 computers. Each has a different user name and password for security. The user-name Wikipedia recognizes upon any given log-in depends upon which computer I'm using.Eshown (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem a bit confused about several things: First, Carlossuarez46 is the administrator who deleted the Elizabeth Shown Mills article (based on your deletion of its content). 64.252.140.190 is the user who requested that it be restored. They are not the same person. 64.252.140.190 is not an administrator and therefore does not have the ability to restore the page. 64.252.140.190 did request that Carlossuarez46 restore it.

You stated:

"an inordinate amount of my time is spent, unproductively, answering inquiries from bloggers, students, and others wanting basic details...The two [WP] pages... were created to fill that need."

Second, Wikipedia doesn't exist to serve your personal or business needs. If you find that dealing with repeated requests from the public is unproductive, get yourself a web page! Third, Wikipedia recognizes whatever login name you enter, irrespective of what computer you're using. A computer's user name and password used for security purposes are totally irrelevant to the user ID used for Wikipedia. Thus, the extraneous user IDs (Chezbienvenu, Cliogen, Muse2) are totally unnecessary, but I suspect you already knew that. Fourth, 64.252.140.190 didn't accuse you of sockpuppetry, but merely apprised you of the WP policy regarding using several different IDs.

As to what happened to your Wikipedia article, check here:[2]64.252.24.161 (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

I am confused by your message: (a) I haven't accused you of sockpuppetry, the anon (above) did; (b) I didn't say you were notable, the anon did; and (c) I didn't say anyone was miffed. I came across your biography while patrolling short pages, I didn't find anything objectionable in your bio - after you cut the bio down to what you found OK, so that it read in its entirety: "Elizabeth Shown Mills is a genealogist and historical writer." Since that asserts no notability whatsover as there are likely millions of geneologists who write about things past, speedy deletion was in order (see WP:CSD#A7). If you want to write an autobiography, please adhere to WP:BIO, WP:COI, WP:NPV, and make sure that whatever is there asserts notability. Cheers. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I am confused as well. When I discovered the 30 July message left by 64.252.140.190, I clicked User Talk and found one sole item there: a message signed by you that day stating, "I posted your request at WP:BLPN." Given that I had just requested deletion of the page, in response to 64.252.140.190's disapproval, I assumed the 30 July comments were your response to that request. My apologies. Your suggestions are appreciated.Eshown (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alhaji Alieu Ebrima Cham Joof[edit]

Hello Eshown,

Just to say thank you for working on Alhaji Alieu Ebrima Cham Joof. It is a pleasure to have people like you here. Any help is appreciated. Thanks again.

Best Regards

Tamsier (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tamsier. Your profile of Mr. Joof is both enlightening and well-done.Eshown (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]