User talk:A dcast

Rachael Harder

Firstly, familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest rules. Rachael Harder gets no special privilege to control the content of her article, or the tone in which it is written — the page does not exist as a platform for her to write about herself in self-promotional terms, or to get her staff to do it for her; it exists as a platform for everybody else except her, her staff, her colleagues or her family and friends to summarize the reliable source coverage she has in media. The article must be written in an encyclopedic tone and presentation, not as a campaign brochure; it must be referenced to reliable source media coverage, not her own self-published website about herself; the infobox must be at the top of the article, not bumped halfway down the page like an afterthought; the body text must contain internal wikilinks to other articles (which you almost completely removed), but may not contain any offsite links to other websites that are not enclosed inside reference tags; sections are formatted with ==Section headers==, not by just placing bolded all-caps headlines in running body text; and on and so forth.

We don't care about things like having been named to her local newspaper's "Top 40 Local People Under 40" listicle, which is clearly PR bumf rather than informative content about anything significant. We don't care about the fact that she was the first woman elected to represent her own riding; if it didn't also make her the first woman in the province or the entire country as a whole, then "first woman in her own riding" is not a notable or encyclopedically significant historic first. We don't care about her own personal youth advisory committee unless and until it makes the news as accomplishing something important. And on and so forth.

Simply put, it's not Rachael Harder's prerogative to decide or dictate the content of her own Wikipedia article. It's not hers to use as a mirror of her campaign website, because it doesn't belong to her. It has to read like an encyclopedia article that was written in a neutral point of view by people independently of her own PR team, not like an advertisement published by her own office.

If there's anything in the article that is incorrect or incomplete, you may request an edit at Talk:Rachael Harder — however, your requests will be refused if you do not show reliable sources to support them (which means media coverage, not her own website), and will be either rewritten or refused if they are clearly promotional rather than encyclopedic in tone and intent. But she does not have the right to control the article's content, sourcing, tone or formatting, regardless of whether she's doing it directly or through her staff. The article belongs to Wikipedia, not to Rachael Harder, and it must follow Wikipedia's rules about content and sourcing and writing tone and formatting, not Rachael Harder's. Bearcat (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

While I thank you for your quick response and for the information you provided us about the COI (something that we hadn’t thought of) and so forth, I don’t appreciate the tone you used to respond. It was not our intent to make it a “mirror of her campaign website” nor to make it seem as if we are following our own rules as you pointed out. Simply to update a page that hadn’t been updated in quite some time.

Thanks again for your response A dcast (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)