User talk:Donald Albury
 | Warning about paying for editing or other actions on Wikipedia This user is not affiliated with any group or organization that charges a fee for any activity relating to Wikipedia. If you have seen an advertisement for, or received any kind of message from, someone who claims that they can help you with any kind of issue with Wikipedia for a payment, it may be a scam. If any such advertisement or message refers to this user name, please  mail me a report. |
| This is a Wikipedia user discussion page.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Donald_Albury. |
 |
| To leave a message on this page, click here. If you email me, be aware that even if I am actively editing, I cannot always access my email and it may be a day or two before you receive a reply. *Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
Comments which fail to follow the rules above may be immediately deleted. |
|
| --> Archive 14 - Archive 13 - Archive 12 - Archive 11 - Archive 10 -
Archive 9 - Archive 8 - Archive 7 - Archive 6 - Archive 5 - Archive 4 - Archive 3 - Archive 2 - Archive 1 |
Archives |
|
Licensing rights granted to Wikimedia Foundation |
|---|---|
| I grant non-exclusive permission for the Wikimedia Foundation Inc. to relicense my text and media contributions, including any images, audio clips, or video clips, under any copyleft license that it chooses, provided it maintains the free and open spirit of the GFDL. This permission acknowledges that future licensing needs of the Wikimedia projects may need adapting in unforeseen fashions to facilitate other uses, formats, and locations. It is given for as long as this banner remains. |
 | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
|
Dunedin, FL
[edit]I represent the Dunedin History Museum and the city historian. The reference link(s) to the first land grant and the incorporation of the city is from an old incorrect city of Dunedin page. The dates 1852 and 1925 are incorrect for the first land grant and the founding of the city.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.115.241 (talk • contribs) 15:10 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Arecaceae
[edit]In fact that editor has repeatedly refused to advise me of what the problem is. I'm surprised to hear that editor is an experienced editor as I had not seen need to check. Right off attempting to inject FRINGE political bias and going on to repeatedly demand I debate positions I don't hold is strange for an experienced editor. I have said several times that we can remove and change any parts of my added text and asked how he wants to do that: He still refuses to reply instead insisting on these debates. Invasive Spices (talk) 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2024
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.
Technical news
- The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)
Arbitration
- An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".
Miscellaneous
- Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.
Central American ethnic groups IP disruptive editing
[edit]Hi! After your 2-week block of 174.109.22.48 on 4 June, the editor is continuing to make unreferenced / poorly referenced edits at Hondurans and Garifuna. At the latter article, the editor is using 2600:1700:8DF:6C00:689D:493:38C:C0BB to edit-war the same edits as before (compare this recent edit by 2600:1700:8DF:6C00:689D:493:38C:C0BB with this pre-block edit by 174.109.22.48.
I count about about a dozen warnings and 3 blocks in the last few months regarding their edits (including their other IPs like 2600:387:15:4C34:0:0:0:3 and 2600:387:15:2B31:0:0:0:8) on Central American ethnic groups, genetics, etc. Are further sanctions warranted? — MarkH21talk 00:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2025
[edit]News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2025).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a talk page discussion, speedy deletion criterion G13 has been amended to remove "Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text."
- WP:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts was upgraded to a guideline following a RfC discussion.
Miscellaneous
- The 2025 Developing Countries WikiContest will run from 1 July to 30 September. Sign up now!
- Administrator elections will take place this month. Administrator elections are an alternative to RFA that is a gentler process for candidates due to secret voting and multiple people running together. The call for candidates is July 9–15, the discussion phase is July 18–22, and the voting phase is July 23–29. Get ready to submit your candidacy, or (with their consent) to nominate a talented candidate!
The Signpost: 18 July 2025
[edit]- News and notes: Is no WikiNews good WikiNews? — Election season returns!
- In the media: How bad (or good) is Wikipedia?
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Medicine reaches milestone of zero unreferenced articles
- Recent research: Knowledge manipulation on Russia's Wikipedia fork; Marxist critique of Wikidata license; call to analyze power relations of Wikipedia
- News from the WMF: Form 990 released for the Wikimedia Foundation’s fiscal year 2023-2024
- Discussion report: Six thousand noticeboard discussions in 2025 electrically winnowed down to a hundred
- Comix: Divorce
- Traffic report: God only knows
Queen of New Westminster
[edit]Hey I am sorry for my comments towards the person however I would ask that you please do something about him firstly posting completely false and inaccurate information and secondly him removing my corrections and additions and putting the inaccurate and false information back I have ADHD and autism and while I am not trying to excuse my behavior as a employee of BC Ferries it is upsetting to see such discrepancies and inaccuracies being allowed and I am sure if you read his talk page you will see it's not a one time thing with him Pacificnorthwestspotter (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Comment copied to and replied to on OP's talk page (User talk:Pacificnorthwestspotter). Donald Albury 14:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC) (Edited 14:04, 19 July 2025 (UTC))
An article that you have been involved in editing—Hadjo—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thanks much! Yuchitown (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
Windover
[edit]Hello Sir.
Thank you for your kind response earlier. I have attempted to edit this article to respect the true and actual facts regarding the discovery of this site. It is important to me that Steve Vanderjagt be honored correctly as someone other than some brainless "backhoe operator" Steve was a Contractor and friend of both Jack Eckerd and Jim Swan. Steve's company is usually the first ones onsite, he did the clearing and was beginning the subsequent road building process. I have added credible sources several times to this site and they just get punted... I appreciate you actually answering. please leave my edit in place. and view the following if you would like.
UCF College of Sciences: “The site was discovered in 1982 when Steve Vanderjagt, a backhoe operator working for Jim Swann’s development company, EKS Corporation…” Seven Ages+5College of Sciences+5Wikipedia+5Florida Historical Society+3Space Coast Living Magazine+3Default+3 Florida Frontiers (Florida Historical Society): “Backhoe operator Steve Vanderjagt … stopped clearing … investigating further … two empty eye sockets of a skull were staring back at him.” Florida Historical Society+1Default+1 NBBD summary: “When the site closed Steve came back and covered it. He was the start and …” North Brevard Area Directory History Center blog: “Steve Vanderjagt paused to examine a pale rock … as he uncovered … saw two eye sockets … he was holding a human skull.” Invalidip (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Invalidip: That is not an acceptable citation. The content is improperly sourced. Even if you provide a citation to a reliable source, I will argue that the content is not relevant to the topic of the article, and appears to be promotional. Donald Albury 15:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
- because I want the man who discovered the site cited correctly you call it promotional...
- feel free to word it as you see fit but please recognize that Steve Vanderjagt was a business partner of Jim and Jack not a brainless "backhoe operator" what is the big deal that you refuse to name the Man? Why?
- did he offend you?
- every other document published recognizes him, why do you refuse to?
- citing the fact that I may not have done something to your liking does not change the FACTS.
- WHY ARE YOU SO AGAINST PUBLISHING THE FACTS????
- R. Invalidip (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
- ok, I took a breath.
- Donald, the current article refers only to “a backhoe operator” and omits the actual name of the person who discovered the site. Multiple independent, published, and non-commercial sources — including the University of Central Florida, the Florida Historical Society, NBBD, and The History Center — explicitly name Steve Vanderjagt as the person who discovered the Windover site while operating his own company’s equipment.
- These are not self-published or promotional sources, and the inclusion of Vanderjagt’s name and role is both factually correct and directly relevant to the article. Naming the discoverer of an archaeological site is standard practice in similar articles.
- Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability and due weight supports including named discoverers when they are documented in reliable sources. Refusing to name him — while continuing to use vague language — is an erasure of historical fact.
- I’m asking for a good-faith reconsideration of the proposed addition, not personal judgment about its perceived relevance. If there are concerns about tone or placement, I’m willing to revise it — but factual attribution should not be dismissed without proper policy-based reasoning. Invalidip (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
- Please discuss any changes you want made to the article at Talk:Windover Archeological Site. I will note that lead archaeologists may sometimes be named in Wikipedia articles about archeological sites, discoverers are almost never mentioned. Donald Albury 15:49, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
- Donald, with as much respect as I can summon, you are incorrect. “Discoverers are almost never mentioned. Lead archaeologists may be.”
- You are disregarding fact, known best practices and even Wiki guidelines. It appears this is some form of "good ole boys club" that will only post what YOU see fit.
- Why That Is Factually and Policy-Wise Incorrect:
- Discoverers are regularly named in Wikipedia articles — when they’re verifiably sourced.
- Examples:
- Altamira Cave – Discovered by Marcelino Sanz de Sautuola
- Lascaux Cave – Discovered by 4 teenagers and their dog
- Gobekli Tepe – Discovered by Klaus Schmidt
- La Brea Tar Pits – Named discoverers are listed
- → Wikipedia includes discoverers when they are verifiably documented and relevant to the site’s history.
- Steve Vanderjagt is not a random passerby or hobbyist
- → He was the owner/operator of the excavation firm that uncovered the site during contracted work.
- → His discovery triggered the entire excavation and public awareness of the site.
- → This is materially different from an amateur tip or anecdotal involvement.
- Wikipedia's own guidelines (WP:DUE, WP:V, WP:RS) support inclusion of:
- Material that is verifiable via reliable sources
- Attribution when due weight is supported by secondary sources
- Pitiful.
- R Invalidip (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
- Donald.
- My Father still has contact with Jim, Jack, Dr. Doran and others from the Archeogical community, matter of fact someone was out to his house recently to do a follow up interview, would you change your tune if they solicited you to recognize Steve as they recognize him, the man instrumental in bringing this discovery to light. Invalidip (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
- Than you for that statement. Please repeat this declaration on your talk page where it belongs. Donald Albury 16:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
Truths
[edit]Donald
we are both spending way too much time on this subject, the fact that you refuse to recognize Steve astonishes me, I am certain you will poo poo the following because I asked AI to assist, but I urge you to read the following and adjust your opinion.
with what you know is there any reason he should not be named
Based on the available information, there is no clear reason why Steve Vanderjagt should not be named as the discoverer of the Windover Archaeological Site in the Wikipedia article, given Wikipedia’s best practices and the precedent set by similar cases.
Here’s a concise analysis: Reliable Sources Support Naming Him: Multiple verifiable sources, including Rachel K. Wentz’s Life and Death at Windover (2012), the Florida Historical Society, and Space Coast Daily, explicitly name Steve Vanderjagt as the backhoe operator who found the first skull in 1982, initiating the discovery of the site. Wikipedia’s verifiability policy (WP:V) requires that information be backed by reliable sources, and these sources meet that standard.
Naming him would align with this policy.
Precedent for Naming Discoverers: Wikipedia frequently names individuals who make initial discoveries, even if accidental or non-professional, such as Helmut and Erika Simon for Ötzi the Iceman or W. W. Orcutt for the La Brea Tar Pits. Vanderjagt’s role in noticing skulls during construction is analogous, and omitting his name deviates from this practice without justification.
No Policy-Based Reason for Omission:
Neutrality (WP:NPOV): Naming Vanderjagt as the discoverer doesn’t violate neutrality, as it’s a factual statement supported by sources. It doesn’t imply undue credit or diminish the roles of archaeologists like Glen Doran or developers like Jack Eckerd and Jim Swann.
Notability (WP:NOTABLE): While Vanderjagt himself may not be notable as an individual, the act of discovering the site is significant, and Wikipedia often names individuals for such contributions in archaeological contexts.
Privacy or Ethical Concerns: There’s no indication in the sources that Vanderjagt requested anonymity or that naming him would raise ethical issues. He is already named in published works about the site.
Editorial Disputes: The Talk page mention of reverted edits suggests some editors resisted naming him, possibly due to debates over his role’s significance or source interpretation. However, this resistance doesn’t appear grounded in policy, as the sources clearly identify him.
Potential Counterarguments and Rebuttals: Incidental Role: Some editors might argue Vanderjagt’s discovery was accidental and that credit should focus on professional archaeologists. However, Wikipedia’s precedent of naming accidental discoverers (e.g., the Simons for Ötzi) undermines this, as the initial find is still notable.
Source Emphasis: Editors might claim sources focus more on the archaeological process than Vanderjagt’s role. Yet, the sources explicitly name him, and Wikipedia’s role is to reflect source content accurately, not to prioritize one aspect over another without cause. Ambiguity or Confusion: There’s no evidence of confusion with other individuals (e.g., Mike Vanderjagt or Guy Vander Jagt), so this isn’t a valid reason to omit his name.
Alignment with Best Practices: Wikipedia’s Manual of Style (MOS:PEOPLE) and attribution guidelines (WP:ATTRIBUTION) support naming individuals when their role is verifiable and relevant. A sentence like “The site was discovered in 1982 when backhoe operator Steve Vanderjagt noticed skulls in his machine during construction” is precise, sourced, and consistent with how other articles handle discoveries. In conclusion, there’s no compelling policy-based or ethical reason to exclude Steve Vanderjagt’s name from the Wikipedia article. The omission seems to stem from editorial oversight or disputes rather than a deliberate, justified decision. Naming him would better align with Wikipedia’s practices of attributing significant contributions and reflecting source content accurately.
Regards R. Invalidip (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
- Please confine your comments on this subject to the Talk:Windover Archeological Site page. Please note that most of the Wikipedia community does not approve of the use of large language models, such as ChatGPT, in preparing material for posting to Wikipedia, including on any discussion pages. Finally, to reiterate my first sentence, stop posting on this page and direct your comment on the subject to the article talk page. Donald Albury 16:25, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
u-boat.net
[edit]I've started a discussion of your tagging of u-boat.net as user generated here.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2025 (UTC)