KingoftheWoods

April 2020

Hello, I'm Driverofknowledge. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Driverofknowledge (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Your recent edits to WP:TEAHOUSE could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It was not my intent to give the impression that I would consider legal action. I copied and pasted the Wikipedia's own notification about biographies of living persons "Contentious material about living persons .... must be removed immediately ... especially if potentially libellous." I can see how this may be construed as a threat. I apologize for any misunderstanding caused. KingoftheWoods (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Please can you assist. My wikipedia page is redirected to a Tolkien page. KingoftheWoods (talk) 14:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Clarification of Intent

It was not my intent to give the impression that I would consider legal action. I copied and pasted the Wikipedia's own notification about biographies of living persons "Contentious material about living persons .... must be removed immediately ... especially if potentially libellous." I can see how this may be construed as a threat. I apologize for any misunderstanding caused. KingoftheWoods (talk) 10:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)KingoftheWoods (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. If what editors have done satisfies you, we're likely done. Just to clarify....if you see any problems in the future, leave a message on the article's talk page. The editors that cleaned it up still have it on their watchlists, so they'll see your message. If you are not satisfied, please post a note at WP:BLPN. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi KingoftheWoods! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, False and Defamatory statements that are legally libellous., has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of interest editing

Hello, KingoftheWoods. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page David Day (Canadian writer), you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi KingoftheWoods. I've added the above template based upon what you posted at WP:THQ#Remove "This article has multiple issues" from page and Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1056#False and Defamatory statements that are legally libellous. It's very important that you try and adhere to Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines about conflict of interest editing if you're trying to edit a Wikipedia article written about you. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia. If you're the subject of a Wikipedia article and you feel that there are issues with it that need attention, then there are ways for you to go about seeking assistance from others or bring the matter to the attentions or others.

Articles are not owned by the subjects they're written about and the subjects of article don't have any sort of final editorial control over article content. Articles are written about subjects, not for or on the behalf of subjects and article content is going to be assessed in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not in accordance with the wishes of the subject of the article. So, if you are who you're claiming to be, then you are going to be considered to have a conflict of interest with respect to anything written about you on Wikipedia and it's best to be as transparent about it as you can and give others a chance to help you. Please carefully read through the pages I've linked to above (they're in blue) and try to follow relevant policies and guidelines as closely as you can, and give others a chance to help you. Trying to fix things by directly editing the article yourself may be counter-productive if you're not careful and may cause others to question whether you're doing so more for the benefit of yourself than for the benefit of Wikipedia. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Marchjuly

Thank you. I will read through the articles. Your help is appreciated. However, as I am David Day, I would like to point out that I did not create the David Day Wikipedia Page. It was created over two decades ago by - I assume - Wikipedia. I never had any involvement with this Wiki page until about a month ago when I was astonished to discover someone around 2017 inserted what your own Wiki investigators concluded was a "hit job" attacking my reputation - and your editors removed this offending passage - for which I am grateful. I have since simply corrected a few biographical details and updated my list of publications. If it is a conflict of interest for me to correct the inaccuracies in the biography and works, please advise the best course of action. I would also like to have the warning templates stating 'This article has multiple issues' removed, as they refer to the now expunged 2017 "hit job". Thank you for taking the time to explain. Please advise how I can prove that to you ho I am, and correct the inaccuracies without having a conflict of interest and being transparent.

KingoftheWoods (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi again KingoftheWoods. I've got no reason to believe that you aren't David Day (Canadian writer), but on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog and someone could appear out of the blue at anytime claiming the same thing. So, if you really want to make it clear that you are David Day, then you can declare as much on your user page; once again, however, someone else could do the same. The only type of formal verification there is would be for you to email Wikimedia OTRS and verify your identity. I'm not sure how you actually go about convincing OTRS of such a thing, but OTRS volunteers have special user rights that allows them to deal with confidential information involving things related to Wikipedia; they also sign confidentiality agreements and won't publicly discuss the stuff they are made privy to anywhere on Wikipedia. If you want more specific details about this, you can ask for help at WP:OTRSN. Anyway, once an OTRS volunteer has verified your identity, they will add the template {{Verified account}} to your user page which let others know that you are indeed the David Day that the article is written about. If you want to see an example of this in practice, look at User:Aliekens who has been verified to be Anthony Liekens.

With regards to editing the article, please try not to think of it as "your article", but rather as "an article written about you". So, if you have any concerns about the article or want to change some things in it, you should try and follow the advice given in WP:COIADVICE and WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement. In general, you should avoid directly editing the article yourself and instead seek assistance by posting edit requests on the article's talk page. This will give others a chance to assess any changes you feel should be made and see if they would be in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It also will show others that you are really here for Wikipedia and not here for yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Marchjuly – Thank you for your thoughtful reply. As you have explained, it seems to me that whether or not you believe I am David Day matters very little here. What we both want is an accurate wiki entry about the aforesaid David Day.

OK toward that end, please note my answers to the following request for a citation on: His eight non-fiction books on natural history and environmental activism include The Doomsday Book of Animals, which became the basis for the 1990s Discovery Channel series Lost Animals of the 20th Century.[citation needed]

Re: the request for a citation for the Discovery channel series Lost Animals of the 20th Century, please cite the wiki entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Animals_of_the_20th_Century

Also, please view: www.youtube.com David Day Lost Animals of the 20h Century – a site with 12 documentaries from the TV series – each doc clearly credits David Day as series script writer.

And finally Lost Animals of the 20th Century already has a citation in your David Day wiki article 1. Biography at ABC Book World

Television, radio, film and theatre

Lost Animals - 100 part television series (1995/1996) originally created for Britain's CHANNEL FOUR and Japan's NHK TELEVISION NETWORKS. Produced by CLARK TV, London, and WALK PRODUCTIONS, Tokyo. SERIES OF 100 SHORT TV FILMS - one hundred individual stories of animal species that have become extinct in the 20th century. All scripts by David Day. Series is based on David Day's DOOMSDAY BOOK OF ANIMALS. 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 - 'LOST ANIMALS' SERIES - in translated formats have been broadcast in twenty languages and networks worldwide: Australia, Italy, Germany, Spain, Holland, France, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, USA, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Iceland, Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, India, Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt, Pakistan, South Korea, China, Hungary, Indonesia.

As for other citations related to David Day’s wiki biography, I should think Wikipedia should add the Penguin Random House short but succinct biography that might be useful in adding some useful information to the rather spare Wiki biographical article.

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/authors/2142156/david-day

DAVID DAY has published 40 books of poetry, ecology, history, fantasy, mythology and fiction. He has been published in magazines and newspapers worldwide. He has also been a magazine editor, a columnist for the Daily Mail and Punch, a scriptwriter for television, a playwright for theatre, and a dramaturge for the Royal Birmingham Ballet. His books have won numerous literary awards and been selected as “Books of the Year” by Time magazine, New Scientist, Parents magazine and The Observer. David Day’s books–for both adults and children–have sold over 4 million copies and have been translated into twenty languages.

If any added biographical information might be wanting, please look at the already noted #1 citation:

1. Biography at ABC Book World in its final statements, citing the University Libraries’ 2015 biographical press release:

On this occasion, the UVic Libraries are proud to honour David Day (BA 1976 - Creative Writing) as its 2015 Distinguished Alumni Award recipient.

David Day is the author of more than 40 books of poetry, ecology, history, mythology, fantasy, and children's literature. Internationally, he is best known for his literary criticism on J. R. R. Tolkien and his works. His books have won numerous literary awards and have been selected as "Books of the Year" by Time Magazine, New Scientist, Parents Magazine and the Observer. His books have sold over 4 million copies and have been translated into 20 languages.

Day, born and raised in Victoria, was a UVic Creative Writing graduate under the mentorship of Robin Skelton. His first book, 'The Cowichan' (based on his logging camp journals) was published in 1975. In 1976 he worked for the Toronto publisher, McClelland and Stewart, and two years later moved to London, England where he published 'A Tolkien Bestiary', the first of his six international best-sellers on the works of J.R.R. Tolkien.

Day's landmark book on animal extinction, the 'Doomsday Book of Animals' with an introduction by the Duke of Edinburgh, was selected in 1981 as a 'Book of the Year' by Time Magazine. This was followed by 'Whale War' 1987, 'Eco-Wars' 1988, and 'Noah's Choice' 1990. Day has also been an environmental columnist for Britain's Daily Mail, Evening Standard, Mail on Sunday, Sunday Times and Punch Magazine.

In the 1994, he wrote the 'Lost Animals' British, a Japanese TV series of one hundred, five-minute documentaries on extinct species. It was narrated by Greta Scacchi and translated into 20 languages (currently on YouTube.) His 'Whale War' was also the basis of a British ITV documentary.

In 1994 and 1995, his 'Tolkien's Ring' and 'Quest for King Arthur' appeared: two of the five books with academy award-winning artist, Alan Lee. And in 2000, Day was dramaturg for the Royal Birmingham Ballet's millennium productions of 'Arthur I' and 'Arthur II'.

Day has also written nine illustrated children's books, while his children's novel, 'The Emperor's Panda', was runner-up for both the Governor General's Award and the National Library Award.

Day's CBC award-winning poems have been praised by the Canadian poets Earle Birney, Al Purdy and Margaret Atwood; while the late British poet laureate Ted Hughes wrote: "Day's poems are flight monologues - whirling kaleidoscopic surges through the weathers and times of his life.";

Most recently, he has published 'Nevermore: A Book of Hours' in 2012 and 'A Tolkien Dictionary' in 2013. His study of the life and works of Lewis Carroll, 'Decoding Wonderland', will appear in October 2015 to mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland'. So once again, thank you Marchjuly, I will now go to the “Learn how and when to remove the template messages” site and see if I can remove the Multiple Issues template – one of which is the need for additional citations. KingoftheWoods (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

You should make any edit requests at Talk:David Day (Canadian writer). Making them here is not really a good idea since most likely any editors interested in the subject matter who might be watching the article are not going to know about this account and monitoring your user talk page. It's also best to keep any discussions related to article content on the article's talk page for archiving and future reference purpose. You can use Template:Request edit in making your request; this template will add the article to a category for articles with pending edit requests. There are editors who try to help answer such requests and they move through the category as they go about answering them. They are not going to be looking for your request here.

You should also try to keep your request as simple and easy to digest as possible. Long walls of text requesting multiple things be done at once (i.e. a re-write of an entire article or section) often are hard to sort through and understand; so, they might be passed over by pressed for time or because they can only be partially answered. All editors are WP:VOLUNTEERs and those who review and try to answer these request may chose to focus on those they can answer.

Some other stuff. If you're going to request that something be changed or added to an article, the WP:BURDEN is upon you to provide at least some information (a link is preferable) about the reliable source you're citing in support of the change. Reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes are defined in a certain way and are important for verification purposes. If you simply request "Change A to B" without citing anything that supports the change and can be verified, then you request is likely going to be declined no matter how true you know it to be. Moreover, those reviewing your requests aren't really going to go searching the Internet looking for sources to verify the things you want changed. So, it's better for you to provide such information from the start; for example, "Change A to B (or Add A to the the article) based upon this reliable source". Of course, if you can properly format the source you're citing in support, then that's one less thing that the person responding to your request needs to do, but citing the source is what matters.

You should also be careful of things like WP:NPOV, particularly things like WP:WTW, since any claim you try and make in Wikipedia's voice (e.g. "legendary" , "landmark", "award-winning") need to be supported by citations to WP:SECONDARY sources and need to considered to not be WP:UNDUE. Unsupported claims (positive or negative) about the subjects of articles, particularly when the subject is a living person, are going to be highly-scrutinized and considered promotional or original research unless strongly supported by citations to very good reliable sources. Often the way a subject of an article is written about in things like press releases, etc. is fine for a such things, but is considered not really acceptable for Wikipedia's purposes. Press releases, etc. are for the most part written in a manner that promotes the subject in a way beneficial to the subject which is not really what Wikipedia is looking for. In other words, what's fine for you and Penguin books is not necessarily what's fine for a Wikipedia article written about you. You should also be careful about trying to name check others into content you want to add so as to make it seem of increased significance. The fact that a TV series is based upon something you wrote might be something worth mentioning, but specific details about the series itself probably belong in a Wikipedia article about the series (if one exists) that in an article about you and might be seen as more of an attempt to increase the relevance of something through association than through its own merits. Any major/significant awards or honors you or your works might have received certainly seems like something worth mentioning (if supported by citations to reliable sources), but who wrote the forward to one of your books or who narrated a TV series you helped create probably no so much.

You should also be careful about adding links to YouTube or any other types of video sites as explained in WP:YOUTUBE, WP:ELNEVER and WP:COPYLINK. Such sites can under some circumstances be cited as a reliable source as explained in WP:RS/P#YouTube, but often the content uploaded to them is either user-generated or actually someone else's work that was uploaded without their permission. Wikipedia tries to avoid linking to such sites whenever there are reasonable concerns as to whether the links are to copyright violations. So, unless it's an official channel of the copyright holder in question or the copyright holder is the person who uploaded the content, it's best to avoid linking to them. Reliable sources don't need to be available online; they only need to be published and accessible so that someone can possibly verify them. So, if you want to cite a movie, TV show, book, etc. that's not online, you can possibly do so as explained in WP:SAYWHERE. Being available online does make things easier to verify, but it's not a requirement. If you do cite something that is not available online, however, you should try and provide as much information about the source as possible as explained in WP:CITEHOW.

Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable source for any purpose as explained in WP:WPNOTRS. Anyone can edit an article and there's no real editorial control that takes place prior to someone adding content to articles; moreover, what's added by one person can be just as easily removed by someone else. So trying to support content in one Wikipedia article by citing another Wikipedia article is never going to be allowed. You should also be careful of WP:CIRCULAR because sometimes you'll find content on other websites that is basically just taken from Wikipedia. You need to find reliable sources (ideally WP:INDEPENDENT and SECONDARY) that support whatever content your trying to add. A WP:PRIMARY source can sometimes be used, and sometimes content published by the subjects of articles themselves can be used per WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLPSELFPUB, but there are limitations as to how and they are almost never considered sufficient in and of themselves for anything that might be considered contentious.

You should look at WP:NOTEVERYTHING; just because some bit of information can be verified by a citation to a reliable source doesn't automatically make it worthy of adding to an article. Since this can be a bit subjective, often the only way to resolve any disagreements about such things is through WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION; in other words, if a consensus is established in favor of inclusion, it will be added; if not, it won't.

All of this is probably a lot to digest, so I apologize if I've only made things more confusing. One thing to remember about Wikipedia is that while it may want "accurate" entries about it's subject's in a sense, what it really wants is articles which summarize/reflect what is written about their subjects in reliable sources that are written in a neutral way and that can be verified through citations to these reliable source. Sometimes that might not be the same as "accuracy", at least as the term is defined by some who might be motivated by things like these.

Finally, perhaps a good first edit request to make would be one that requests that the "Multiple issues" template be removed from the article; you shouldn't really be removing the template yourself because of your COI, but instead let it be removed by someone else. This would be a fairly simple edit request to make and might make be a good way to get your feet wet so to speak. Just explain why you want the templates removed and clearly as possible. Try not to include to much extraneous detail because that might make things unclear. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi KingoftheWoods! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Remove "This article has multiple issues" from page, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Going forward on an article about you

I am goingh to create a draft Draft:David Day (Canadian writer), starting with content from the article before it was redirected. Then I will attempt to refine it and add sources and co0ntent to make it clearly demo9nstrate notability, ifg that is possible. I cannot guarantee a positive outcome.

To avoid any question of Conflict of interest, i will ask you to comment on the draft page Draft talk:David Day (Canadian writer), but not edit the draft itself at all.

What I will ask you to do is search for sources, particularly off-line and older sources. When you find one, post info about the source to the draft talk page. Please include as much bibliographic info about each source as possible. If the source is available online, please include a link. If not, please scan and email me the relevant page or two.

Sources should all be reliably published, that is in a book published by a major publisher or respected indie publisher (not self-pub), national or major regional newspaper or magazine, scholarly journal, or the like. Please do NOT include local coverage, conference programs blogs, fan sites, wikis, online fora, one-person web sites, or anything similar. Please do not include anything written by you. Do not include sites selling your work.

Do include reviews of your work, provided they are by professional reviewers, and published in reliable sources.

Do not bother with anything that does not include at least two or three paragraphs about you or about your work.

Do include negative reviews or negative c0omment if reliably published, so we cannot be accused of cherry-picking only positive sources, or of spamming.

Once I have been able to assemble the sources into what I think is a valid article, I will move it back over the redirect, if and only if I think it is a valid article that clearly establishes notability, and is not promotional. Please do let me know if anything in the draft seems inaccurate to you.

I will place a conflict-of-interst declaration on you user page.

One thing I need you to understand: this will not be your page or article, it will be Wikipedia's article about you. You will not have any veto or control over its content, in fact you will have less right to edit it than a random person who has never heard of you. If there are negative reviews of your work published in reliable sources, they may well be included and you will not be able to have them deleted. If there are negative facts about you that have been publicly reported in reliable sources, hey may well be included and you will not be able to have them deleted. If you come to dislike the article, you may request that it be deleted, but there is no guarantee that such a request will be complied with -- you have no right to have it deleted at your choice. No "right to be forgotten" applies. And once it is posted to the main article space, the article may be copied or excerpted by anyone anywhere, and it will be nearly impossible to stop even the ones that fail to comply with the license terms. In short, having a Wikipedia article about you is not an unmixed blessing, so if you don't want me to go forward, say so NOW.

I will try to be available on a regular basis, but I am an unpaid volunteer, and I also have other issues on Wikipedia to address. There are no deadlines here.

I am, as it happens a long-term Tolkien fan. I bought the first edition of the Silmarillion. I own all the Christopher Tolkien's Histories of ME in HB, and most of Shippey, and Splintered light, and various other critical works on JRRT. I am not, however, a published critic.

If you want me to go ahead with this, please reply and ping me. Thank you. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello DES

Thank you. I very much appreciate that you offered to do this and help me navigate this unfamiliar world.

However, the fact that the page created by someone unknown to me in 2003 and was subsequently redirected to a Tolkien page makes me think something is amiss here. I have written and published 35 other books, published in magazines & newspapers (Punch, Sunday Times and Daily Mail), completed a tv series (Lost Animals of the Twentieth Century) as well being a well-established children's book author and poet,

I am in my mid seventies now and I just don't have the energy to prove I am notable. The body of work must speak for itself.

I have one last question, is there any way that you can delete the link from my name to the Tolkien article on Wikipedia? Why redirect to a Tolkien site that does not mention me?

It is nice to hear you are a long-term Tolkien fan, I am proud to say (long before the internet) my Tolkien Bestiary was the first ever illustrated reference book on Tolkien published just 2 years after the Silmarillion appeared. Tolkien is an author who I have written about with the utmost respect - and I believe I have produced some of the most beautiful and popular illustrated books about his world.

So thanks for your help. I am sorry to have taken your time today to end up here.

Kind regards, David

2607:FEA8:7E0:9F0:6188:3B8:3D11:6430 (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the redirect was put in place because that was the only place in an existing article that does mention you, albeit very briefly. Specifically, it says The works of Tolkien have served as the inspiration to many painters, musicians, film-makers, writers, and game designers, to such an extent that Tolkien is sometimes seen as the "father" of the high fantasy genre. The profusion of interest has led writers such as Robert Foster and David Day to produce non-academic guides to Tolkien's works. Mot much of a mention, but it is something.

Wikipedia has a problem with authors (and also with academics and journalists). These kinds of people all produce writings as their main professional activity, but often other people don't write much about them. Even when people write about their work, there is often little written about the author (or academic). This makes it hared to create Wikipedia articles about such people, because our articles need to be based not on what people write about themselves, or what they do, but what others have written about them. This means our coverage of 3rd rank sports figures is generally better than of top-rank historians, say. That can be a problem. I am one of those that tries to counter this problem a bit. But as an admin here, have promised to abide by, and indeed enforce, Wikipedia policy. It can be a tough balancing acvt to follow. But I do my best. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel: I've been observing the conversation on the Help desk, and it seems nice to see a person that is active and try to do something rather than those who just screaming policies to a newcomer. If you need third party opinion, proofreading, etc, on the article, just ping me on the talk page. I'd be more than happy to help. About 2607:FEA8:7E0:9F0:6188:3B8:3D11:6430. David, I know you're thinking that it is quite tough here, and it seems that the community doesn't approve what you did. Stay calm, and just wait. We'd hope that DESiegel would finish the article properly. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 14:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeromi Mikhael. I have started the new article at the draft linked above already. I am notoriously a poor typist, and proofing would always be welcome. Mr Day (I won';t say "David" for fear of confusion), I understand your position. It would be easier if you felt willing and able to provide what sources you know of, particularly older ones that are not online. If you know of any such and would be willing to just send me a scan along with info about where they were published, I would be grateful. But you don't have to do anything you don't choose to do. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@DESiegel:

Thank you very much. I appreciate your efforts tremendously. I am sourcing the documents to scan now. It may be tomorrow before I get them to you. Will that be okay?

KingoftheWoods (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Jeromi Mikhael

Thank you. I am sourcing them now. I will be in touch as soon as I have them ready to scan.

David

KingoftheWoods (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. As I said above, there is no deadline. Tomorrow will be fine, or even longer, don't feel rushed. I ahve sent you an email so that you will have mine to send attachments to. I have started with those items i have web links for. Take a look at Draft:David Day (Canadian writer) if you want to see my progress. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi KingoftheWoods! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Wikipedia Page for David Day, Canadian Writer is redirected, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Help me!

Please help me with... My personal information is wrong. I can verify with sources if necessary. Also, a number of my books are inaccurate and there are a large number missing (I have ISBNs) and also there are two books belonging to another David Day on there.

Thank you for your attention.

David Day KingoftheWoods (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Please make an edit request(click for instructions) on the article talk page, detailing changes you feel are needed, preferably sourced to independent reliable sources (for new or updated information). 331dot (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)