User talk:Hu Nhu
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
Hello - need some info about Sutter Butes
[edit]Hi Hu,
My name is Manish Ved and was planning to go to Sutter Butes to shoot some pics. I read that they dont allow entry. I saw your pics and was wondering if you can let me konow how you were able to get access abd how should I proceed please.
Thanks,
Manish Ved Vedmanish (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hello Vedmanish. This is a fascinating area, the Sutter Buttes, and ever since I heard about them, I wanted to visit when travelling to the region. Entry is allowed; however it is restricted to one must take guided hikes. This is the organization that conducts the excursions: https://www.middlemountainhikes.org/. I look forward to seeing your photos on the article, so please notify me when you add them. Kind regards to all. Hu Nhu (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Disclosure of Conflict of Interest
[edit]Could you please disclose the terms of your association with the DNG over and above authoring the article on Edward Van der Porter, a DNG officer staunch supporter of the northern California Drake landing theory? These terms could hinder your neutrality when editing articles on alternate landing theories, or when supporting the editing of his son Michael nowadays president of the DNG, such as on a recent major revisions Revert rollback of the alternate theories article deemed "Fringe". LeCanardQuoi (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- I authored the article on Edward Von der Porten, a published maritime historian whose scholarly work on Francis Drake deserved representation on Wikipedia, as with any notable individual not represented on Wikipedia: I have two of his books, one of which I purchased before his death. I also created articles on Michael E. Stencel, Tracy R. Norris, and Kenneth A. Nava (Nava article was rejected)—all individuals in military leadership roles. Are we to assume conflict of interest there too, simply because the topics involve institutions? Questioning motives without basis isn’t just unhelpful—it skirts close to violating Wikipedia’s principles of civility and assuming good faith. Let’s not forget: content disputes are not license for innuendo.
- I have never received compensation nor instruction from anyone regarding editing any area of Wikipedia nor Wikimedia Commons. My interest in these platforms stems from my deep engagement with history, geography, travel, and underrepresented narratives. I am an independent editor who has also written about Charles Lee Bufford, Native basketry (William and Mary Benson), regional industries (Bissinger Wool Pullery, Texas rice production), and topics of cultural relevance (Japanese Garden of Peace, George Kuwayama). My work is not guided by ideology, but by personal interest, verifiability, reliability, and adherence to Wikipedia policy.
- Regarding New Albion, I played the major role in bringing it to Good Article status—a process that required lengthy and meticulous application of WP:GACR. I continue to watch the article to ensure it maintains those standards and does not suffer a review that reduces its status. Reverting edits that fail on basic grounds of sourcing, neutrality, original research, or coherence is not evidence of bias. It's an obligation to Wikipedia policy. Additionally, I monitor the article Timeline of Francis Drake’s circumnavigation due to tremendous amount of work I did to research and then code the information, and it took me almost a year to do so. (I was inspired to write that article after reading Laurence Bergreen’s, In Search of a Kingdom and the Wall Street Journal review critical of the book’s accuracy.) Since I desire to see these articles retain quality, I will change poor edits. When I see edits to either of these articles that do not meet Wikipedia standards, I follow the editor’s work to see if similar poor edits were made on other articles and then address them. If you examine my contributions, you will see this practice of mine is not limited to articles on which you fixate. I have done much work to alter and improve articles across diverse areas of Wikipedia, and I regularly add photographs to develop articles, using people I know, the area in which I live, and regions to which I travel as subjects.
- With that in mind, I do point out that suggesting bad faith is not in keeping with Wikipedia’s principle of assuming good faith (wp:agf). Collaboration is the heart of this project, and we should be careful not to replace it with suspicion or innuendo. If you have sincere, policy-based concerns about the content, I remain open to a thoughtful and constructive discussion—as I always have been. Alternatively, if you feel it would be more productive, please consider to seek a third opinion (wp:3o) or initiate request for comment (wp:rfc), both of which are appropriate venues for resolving editorial disagreements. Let’s return to core purpose here: improving Wikipedia based on its policies, not speculative narratives. Hu Nhu (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying your stance in regards to the DNG lobby group and admin/editor MikeVdP. The President of the DNG committed a major blunder on this January 2025 rollback going against all guidelines on usage of the special admin privilege. I do recognize your special contributions to Wikipedia, including the "Fringe" article. But I can only explain your silence on his major blunder (as well as on several recent Talk items) through this conflict of interest that should have been disclosed earlier on. Who else would call him back to order, assuming he can hold on to his article admin privilege? Note that there has been many other cases where MikeVdP came in conflict with other article editors. In 2015 (before your time on Wikipedia), top researcher Gary Gitzen most regrettably gave up on Wikipedia as a result of one of these conflicts. Others have followed since. So there is a serious ongoing conflict of interest at stake here that has yet to be solved. I am all for "improving Wikipedia articles based on policies", particularly when there are conflict of interest that have hindered an article for nearly 10 years now, with clearly no end in sight at this point.
LeCanardQuoi (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
- The New Albion article has not been hindered. The articles has had poor edits that included original research, self published material and improper removal of content. It has a high and rare rating of wp:ga. I encouraged you to seek wp:3o or wp:rfc, which you have so far declined. I have also suggested you develop and submit articles that delve into a particular location that is at odds with the site recognized by the powerful endorsements of American federal government and the State of California after their review processes. Write an article about Whale Cove, Strawberry Cove, Comox Bay, or some site that you support. Consequently, I suggest you stop imposing fringe theories on the New Albion and related articles.
- Furthermore, you claim that "armchair historian" is highly derogatory, yet you enjoyed using "armchair Wikipedians" to make yourself look superior while belittling others. Should you have forgotten this, I provide the link so you may see your egregious 3 November 2024 comments on the article's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Albion#Verne_&_Johnson. Provide legitimate academic sources to support relocating New Albion site and stop the dismissive personal language or drop the discussion. Hu Nhu (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
- Putting aside the raised issue of conflict of interest (also raised btw on MikeVdP talk page), please note that the Whale Cove article (and Nehalem Bay to a lesser extent) both provide the highlights of their landing theory case. So no need to add more articles as you are somehow suggesting. In regards to the "Fringe" alternate theories article, several Talk topics have been revived yesterday (from having gone quiet in the absence of any feedback over several months). I have argued there is still a need for an alternative theories article (better titled too), mainly for the purpose of acknowledging that numerous sites were considered over 25+ years ago but only a few have withstood the test of time. As currently framed, the article is most confusing, if not unsettling as a result of being undermined for so long for conflicts of interest reasons I have finally flagged. LeCanardQuoi (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)