User talk:Emily.ch87
Managing a conflict of interest[edit]
Hello, Emily.ch87. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Byron Case, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the COI guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
- disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
- 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 must 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 WP:PAID).
Editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
You seem to have a COI in Byron Case. Do not revert edits without first discussing in the talk page of the article otherwise I would have to bring the issue to the BLP noticeboard. The Bibliography and Works section can not be added because is sourced only by the works themselves and not by independent reliable sources. If you have any questions please contact me or use the talk page. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- I did discuss the edits in the talk page of the article. I guess I am confused as to how an "independent reliable source" outside the actual work itself (i.e. citing the official website of the publication showing that the article written by the author is indeed in the publication, thus proving the work exists, thus making the citation incredibly reliable) is needed? This is a genuine question, as I am clearly not understanding how this works.--Emily.ch87 (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Emily.ch87. One of the reasons that Diannaa posted some information above in #Managing a conflict of interest was because of concerns expressed to her about you possibly being someow connected to Case by another editor (see Talk:Byron Case#Possible COI editing for some more on that). Another reason was because you account is basically what Wikipedia describes as a single purpose account (SPA): a type of account which entirely focuses on one particular article or one particular genre of articles. There's nothing necessarily wrong with being a SPA in and of itself, but it can sometimes (depending upon the types of edits made) cause others to be concerned about an WP:APPARENTCOI. You created the Case article and pretty much all of your edits seem to be directly to the article So, if you're really connected to Case (personally or professionally) or belong to any group advocating either for or against him, then Wikipedia would hope that you would declare this conflict of interest for the sake of transperancy. This will clarify things for other editors like Crystallizedcarbon and make it much easier for them to help you ensure that the article is in accordance with relevant Wikiepdia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia doesn't expressly prohibit conflict-of-interest editing, but it does highly discourage it because people strongly connected to the subject of an article generally have a hard time editing the article in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, particularly Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; only undisclosed paid contributions are expressly prohibited by Wikipedia and often leads to the concerned account being blocked fairly quickly by an adminsitrator when there are seriously concerns raised about this type of thing. Wikipedia can't force you to declare a conflict-of-interst, but clarifying this one way or another might make it easier for you to collaborate with others on improving the article and make them less likely to suspect that you're editing the article more for Case's benefit than for Wikipedia's benefit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hello Emily, To answer your question, the problem here is not verifiability. The links to the works themselves are obviously enough to determine that they exist. The issue is with notability and due weight. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and even though is not made of paper, not every thing that can be sourced should be included in an article. Before including the subject's works in bibliography section we would need to establish that they are somewhat notable. What we use as an indication of notability is the coverage received by independent reliable sources. Examples of those would be reviews of his works or at least citing them in the reliable sources coverage of the subject. Most are focused on the crime, its details and whether the subject is innocent or guilty, the coverage on his works is more general (it mentions the Myspace blog), and is more specific only on the The Pariah’s Syntax which was finalist for an award. I hope this helps. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Emily.ch87. One of the reasons that Diannaa posted some information above in #Managing a conflict of interest was because of concerns expressed to her about you possibly being someow connected to Case by another editor (see Talk:Byron Case#Possible COI editing for some more on that). Another reason was because you account is basically what Wikipedia describes as a single purpose account (SPA): a type of account which entirely focuses on one particular article or one particular genre of articles. There's nothing necessarily wrong with being a SPA in and of itself, but it can sometimes (depending upon the types of edits made) cause others to be concerned about an WP:APPARENTCOI. You created the Case article and pretty much all of your edits seem to be directly to the article So, if you're really connected to Case (personally or professionally) or belong to any group advocating either for or against him, then Wikipedia would hope that you would declare this conflict of interest for the sake of transperancy. This will clarify things for other editors like Crystallizedcarbon and make it much easier for them to help you ensure that the article is in accordance with relevant Wikiepdia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia doesn't expressly prohibit conflict-of-interest editing, but it does highly discourage it because people strongly connected to the subject of an article generally have a hard time editing the article in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, particularly Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; only undisclosed paid contributions are expressly prohibited by Wikipedia and often leads to the concerned account being blocked fairly quickly by an adminsitrator when there are seriously concerns raised about this type of thing. Wikipedia can't force you to declare a conflict-of-interst, but clarifying this one way or another might make it easier for you to collaborate with others on improving the article and make them less likely to suspect that you're editing the article more for Case's benefit than for Wikipedia's benefit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- I did discuss the edits in the talk page of the article. I guess I am confused as to how an "independent reliable source" outside the actual work itself (i.e. citing the official website of the publication showing that the article written by the author is indeed in the publication, thus proving the work exists, thus making the citation incredibly reliable) is needed? This is a genuine question, as I am clearly not understanding how this works.--Emily.ch87 (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)