Talk:Hal Prewitt

Article status

August 2025

This article was created in April 2010 and has been edited by hundreds of users. The record shows that only minor changes have been made since 2015. I worked on this article and tracked updates because I had the opportunity to meet and gain direct knowledge of him. And, I was not alone. The guy was very approachable. Signed autographs at races, did interviews, and answered questions. He had an art gallery in Park City and was often there. Reading other editors' work, I can tell they have met him as well. It was challenging to locate historical details to produce a factual and comprehensive biography, which was not original work, and provided a link reference. Did read some of the hundreds of published details and watched many video interviews, but these are not easy to link because they are behind paywalls or not accessible on the Internet. It isn't easy to keep links live due to the constantly changing website records. I wish I had the time to do more work on this person.

One problem with Wikipedia is that many editors think their opinions and edits are superior to those of others.

If you are making changes, please respect this living person's biography, work done by other editors, and refrain from removing content or altering facts. Great Wikipedia articles come from editors who conduct thorough research and incorporate work done by others with whom they disagree. Having direct knowledge of subjects related to a bio, along with access to difficult-to-find historical details on the person, produces a factual and complete biography. It is proper to flag issues, ask questions, and add content. EXCEPT DON'T REMOVE OTHER EDITORS' WORK UNLESS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. Disliking the style, tone, disagreeing with other people's opinions, or finding something "too promotional" does not justify removal. The correct method is to identify, comment on, or request additional citations by using this talk page.

Don't add Maintenance templates claiming this article needs a lot of work, a rewrite, because the content does not express your personal opinions, you find it too promotional, puffery, think it has excessive, irrelevant examples, or intricate details that may only interest a particular audience. Don't claim without evidence that the article was created or edited in return for undisclosed payments. If you believe any of these, post to this talk page so they can be addressed.

The article has facts that are context-based and support the primary subject of the article. Trivia can often improve a bio. The little details can make a big difference, especially when disclosure is not otherwise known. What is puffery, trivia, or noteworthy to you or me is not necessarily the same for other readers. Context is essential. It can make the difference between seeing the relevance and completely missing the connection to the subject. A reader's knowledge and experiences have a significant impact. Removing what some may call puffery or trivia can eliminate important information and obscure connections.

Some editors have distinct styles, tones, values, and word choices. Understandably, they may overemphasize. They may have special knowledge and surely posted their words for a reason. Who are we to second-guess them? We never know what we don't know.

My rule when editing is that if it adds or does no harm, leave it. If it detracts from or is false, then remove it. Before I make changes or cut, I ask myself if somebody else will learn something or find value. Sometimes the change can be a difficult call. When in doubt, I leave it. Perhaps the article has struck you as suffering from puffery and trivia because you did not find value in or like facts written without additional details. Keep in mind that other readers and editors may have different experiences, access to the history, or subject knowledge. -- Deansmith750/Archive %(counter)d | counter = 1 | maxarchivesize = 150K

| archiveheader =

| minthreadstoarchive = 1 | minthreadsleft = 4 }}

Article status

August 2025

This article was created in April 2010 and has been edited by hundreds of users. The record shows that only minor changes have been made since 2015. I worked on this article and tracked updates because I had the opportunity to meet and gain direct knowledge of him. And, I was not alone. The guy was very approachable. Signed autographs at races, did interviews, and answered questions. He had an art gallery in Park City and was often there. Reading other editors' work, I can tell they have met him as well. It was challenging to locate historical details to produce a factual and comprehensive biography, which was not original work, and provided a link reference. Did read some of the hundreds of published details and watched many video interviews, but these are not easy to link because they are behind paywalls or not accessible on the Internet. It isn't easy to keep links live due to the constantly changing website records. I wish I had the time to do more work on this person.

One problem with Wikipedia is that many editors think their opinions and edits are superior to those of others.

If you are making changes, please respect this living person's biography, work done by other editors, and refrain from removing content or altering facts. Great Wikipedia articles come from editors who conduct thorough research and incorporate work done by others with whom they disagree. Having direct knowledge of subjects related to a bio, along with access to difficult-to-find historical details on the person, produces a factual and complete biography. It is proper to flag issues, ask questions, and add content. EXCEPT DON'T REMOVE OTHER EDITORS' WORK UNLESS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. Disliking the style, tone, disagreeing with other people's opinions, or finding something "too promotional" does not justify removal. The correct method is to identify, comment on, or request additional citations by using this talk page.

Don't add Maintenance templates claiming this article needs a lot of work, a rewrite, because the content does not express your personal opinions, you find it too promotional, puffery, think it has excessive, irrelevant examples, or intricate details that may only interest a particular audience. Don't claim without evidence that the article was created or edited in return for undisclosed payments. If you believe any of these, post to this talk page so they can be addressed.

The article has facts that are context-based and support the primary subject of the article. Trivia can often improve a bio. The little details can make a big difference, especially when disclosure is not otherwise known. What is puffery, trivia, or noteworthy to you or me is not necessarily the same for other readers. Context is essential. It can make the difference between seeing the relevance and completely missing the connection to the subject. A reader's knowledge and experiences have a significant impact. Removing what some may call puffery or trivia can eliminate important information and obscure connections.

Some editors have distinct styles, tones, values, and word choices. Understandably, they may overemphasize. They may have special knowledge and surely posted their words for a reason. Who are we to second-guess them? We never know what we don't know.

My rule when editing is that if it adds or does no harm, leave it. If it detracts from or is false, then remove it. Before I make changes or cut, I ask myself if somebody else will learn something or find value. Sometimes the change can be a difficult call. When in doubt, I leave it. Perhaps the article has struck you as suffering from puffery and trivia because you did not find value in or like facts written without additional details. Keep in mind that other readers and editors may have different experiences, access to the history, or subject knowledge. -- Deansmith750

Hi Dean. With all due respect, from your comments it seems you have misunderstood some things about Wikipedia.

1. Please read Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Nobody has authority over any article, regardless of how much they know about the topic, or if they know the article subject personally. Anyone can edit your work, my work, or anyone else's work, as long as it adheres to Wikipedia policies. That is the essence of how the site works, and how every article is improved
2. "Disliking the style, tone, disagreeing with other people's opinions, or finding something "too promotional" does not justify removal." This is not true. If content is not written in the appropriate style or tone for Wikipedia, it can be removed. Promotional text is not allowed and should be rewritten, or removed altogether.
3. "Don't add Maintenance templates claiming this article needs a lot of work, a rewrite, you find it too promotional, puffery, think it has excessive, irrelevant examples, or intricate details that may only interest a particular audience." Those are all completely appropriate reasons to add maintenance tags. That's literally why those templates were made. They alert editors to the work that needs to be done on the article, and they alert readers to the article's flaws, so they are aware of what they are reading.
4. "My rule when editing is that if it adds or does no harm, leave it." Unfortunately it is hard to take this claim at face value, because this seems to be the only article you have edited in several years, and you are persistently reverting edits designed to improve it.

To address your specific comments made in the edit summary:

• "Not puffery or promotion because words are based on known facts." They may be based on known facts, but everything on Wikipedia should be written in a consistent encyclopedic style, and in from neutral point of view. This is very important to the credibility of the encyclopedia. People don't come here to read puff pieces or promotional articles.
• "Your feelings or opinion of the language written is not allowed because it comes from quotes from independent sources." If it is a quote from a source, it should be in quotation marks. If it is presented as a fact in a Wikipedia article, it should be rewritten in Wikipedia voice, and neutral tone.
• "Please stop adding your issue templates. They are not justified and supported by references." I don't know what you mean here. Maintenance templates do not need to be supported by references. They simply draw attention to the article's main problems, to help readers and editors.
• "You removed known facts relevant to the subject and the bio of the living person." Neither I nor the other recent editors have removed any sourced information, as far as I can see. Recent edits have adjusted the language used in the article to make it more neutral and enyclopedic.

One other thing: please don't blank the talk page (I've added an automatic archiving tool which will do this in the correct way from time to time), and please don't remove the Wikiproject banners. You said you "don't have time for these projects", but they are not for you or about you - they are part of the structure of Wikipedia, and used by others. Again, you do not own this page, or decide on your own what is included or not. Thanks. Jdcooper (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)