Talk:Malabar Farm State Park

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Malabar Farm State Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.hihostels.com/affiliates/hiusa60081.php?country=US&city=a60081&AffiliateID=97060
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051124045723/http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/parks/parks/mohican.htm to http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/parks/parks/mohican.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Discuss the fire content here. Statements such as "The Ohio Inspector General investigated the barn fire after the Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources chose to whitewash any ineptitude and culpability by Park management." appear to be an editor's opinion. Or is this from a published source?   David notMD (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I will add that Malabar Facts posted " I am the source and initiator of the investigations that are quoted." Clearly, this is an undeclared conflict of interest (WP:COI). I recommend that MF describe on own User page the nature of the conflict of interest. I also recommend that MF join the discussion here rather than continuing attempts to directly edit the article. David notMD (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

text: *It seems to me that  might consider tipping a newspaper or tv station and, if were developed into a newspaper or magazine article or some other news content, perhaps such an article could be included in the article... if Malabar Facts disclosed the conflict of interest and/or asked another editor to do it. I would do it myself. Using primary sources, especially when one points at a living person, does not seem like a viable option for the article. I am not opposed to incorporating such information if it can be found in a reliable, independent secondary source--indeed, it might then even be quite appropriate to include it. I just don't see how we can skip from primary source to tertiary source. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: * What might be done to encourage an outside investigation and secondary reporting is really not relevant here. Here we are discussing what should or should not go into the Wikipedia article. If an investigation happens and is reported on by secondary sources, that might well be included here, depending on the sources. If one has already happened and secondary sources about it can be cited, even better. Also, the original fare was apparently in 1994, more than 25 years ago. I rather doubt a TV station or newspaper is going to be interested, although one never knows. But those sourts of publications are mostly focused on more current events. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: A concern: User: Malabar Facts initiated controversial changes to the article and so far has not joined the discussion on the Talk page or on own Talk page. On 17 January a new editor User:Bromfield's Conscience restored what MF has been trying to create. This was the first ever edit by Bromfield's Conscience. Given that, the choice of editor names for both accounts and the critical nature of the Edit summary, I suspect this is the same person as Malabar Facts, trying to avoid being temporarily blocked under the Edit warring rule. David notMD (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppet?