User talk:Anna laffey

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Anna laffey! I am Trafford09 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions check out Wikipedia:Questions, or feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome!

Trafford09 (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Anna, thank you for contacting me yesterday, after I'd added started off your talk page, here, by adding the Welcome section.

You then asked me some questions relating to an author called Gorman Bechard (GB for short). As I understand it, GB wrote a new WP article about himself, named GormanBechard. This meant he ran foul of Wikipedia (WP)'s rules on Conflict of interest (COI), and these & other guidelines were explained to him by various other WP editors. For certain reasons (I believe including COI and notability), the autobiographical article [[GormanBechard]] was then converted into the user page User:GormanBechard rather than simply deleted. This enabled GB and other editors to have access to the information contained therein.

I appreciate that new editors such as GB and yourself may find WP rules complex, and esp. so in cases of COI. I note that other editors you & GB have already contacted have equally sympathised & have gone to some lengths to explain - to both of you - WP's position.

Since we talked yesterday, I've spent some time (I'm glad I did) reviewing your prior edits and discussions with various editors.

I note that since we talked yesterday, one of the WP editors you & GB have contacted (this admin., here) - who you knew had been in email conversation with GB - has advised you that "I believe Mr. Bechard is comfortable with what needs done, so there's no need to worry further at this point.".

I have to say that GB's position in wanting his own article is clearly - and severely - complicated by COI. Your own position is I feel pretty similar. Your sole edits to WP are related to GB or his work. You stated (up front to me) that you are "a person working (in a non-paid position I might add), for [GB]". Now, we have to assume good faith with all editors, unless or until it is deemed inappropriate. So, we must assume you are who you say you are, and that you are not directly paid by GB. However, he's still your boss, which means you too have COI.

I do still intend to keep my promise, & answer your specific questions on my talk page. However, feel I should question here your comment that you "have been respectful when communicating with admins". Phrases you left such as "I'm not sure where your condescending remarks are coming from but I hope I made your Wikipedia day" - however much frustration you feel and however much it may be understood - seem ill-designed to assist you or your boss in constructive WP article-creation.

Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Trafford09. If I was not who I say I am and knew that by being honest I would have had this much difficulty trying to ask questions and edit a page (a page with which I did with good intentions) I would have gone to great lengths to disguise my identity. As for being respectful, I absolutely have been. Yesterday, once again, Mr. Rrburke was snarky and disrespectful in his dealings with me as he has been through this whole process. I don't treat people that way neither here nor in real life and do not expect to be treated that way in return. I am sorry If you find my reply to him to be less that courteous. And yes, Mr. Bechard recieved an email from Mr.JzG which was extremely helpful and explained things I did not understand. Mr. JzG was thorough in his explanations. I am following his advice and I have moved on from that discussion.

My questions to you were of a more philisophical nature. I was asking them in the grand scheme of things rather than to this particular issue. As I stated, I am brand new to Wikipedia as an editor but have used it in the past to gain information. I now understand the "rules" but I absolutely do not understand the philosophy behind the questions I posed to you. I am sure you are very busy and appreciate the time you took to review my particular edit situation. Please don't feel you need to explain any further although I welcome any and all thoughts on the philosphical aspect.

Thank you and have a good day. Anna laffey (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that response, Anna. I like your wording. I'm pleased to read that your interest in WP may extend beyond GB and articles related to him. I have to say I'm impressed - regardless of the make-up of your motivations - in your persistence and tenacity to achieve your goals. And as an aside, I'm sure your boss must be touched by your loyalty. It's that sort of thoughtful dedication which I believe should make you a great WP editor if you choose to stay with us - if you overcome and put aside these initial problems related to your COI in GB.

I'll answer your questions as best I'm able - it may take me a little while.

In the meantime, can I let you in on a similar experience I too have had? It may amuse you to see my problems & how I overcame them, & reassure you that getting a new article accepted is very hard for anybody on their own. And I didn't have any COI either! For details - if you want to spend the time - please see here. Luckily, I was already a WP-fan, and survived my experience to remain just as much a fan here.

BTW, it's fine to put talk either here or on my talk page. Your talk page is on my wp:watchlist, so it's prob. best we chat here, to keep the discussion thread in one place, and it's helpful for other editors to see the pertinent and amicable discussion here.

Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for directing me to that page Trafford09. I did read through and some of the arguments seem so silly to me. I felt Opbeith's remarks were on the money!

As for editing any further on here, well, I think my time is best spent elsewhere. I've continued to school myself in the policies pertaining to my particular attempts at assisting with an article. While I understand the need to have these systems and policies in place, some of it is counterintuitive to me. Use of language such as "strongly discouraged" does not (to me) mean that something cannot be done it simply means that it may be up for scrutiny. It seems (to me) more would be accomplished by admins/experienced editors trying to improve upon articles, assisting with their content to make them more viable, and instructing newbies, like myself, with specifics in how to correct a mistake. Additionally, it seems that the whole of this forum would be better served by giving "living persons" the benefit of the doubt. Creating or editing an article pertaining to themselves (or by someone who "knows" them via a work environment) does not necessarily need to read as a tool for self-promotion. It is a way to correct and control content that is either false or on the flip-side, factual and verifiable. Again, I only make these statements based on my rather short and personally discouraging experience.

I am grateful for the time and effort you took in welcoming me as well as allowing me to pose my questions and air some of my frustrations. I also appreciate the editor who did take the time to explain, in detail, some of the misunderstandings to Mr.B who passed them along so that I too would be better informed.

I have found Wiki to be much like real life-some people I have connected with, some I have come to respect, and others I have found to have personal issues and agendas for which I don't have the time,nor energy, to fight in this virtual world. Thanks again, Trafford09. You've been awesome.Anna laffey (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Sorry for the inordinate delay. I know I've still not answered your Qns. on my talk page. Will do ('soon' - he said, crossing his fingers), but I wanted to wait until I had time to answer them properly. Thought I'd have had time by now, but no joy just yet!

Glad you found ResPublica talk interesting. Agreed, the arguments seem silly, but you see what lengths you feel you need to go to, at times! Thanks for your remark that Opbeith's remarks were on the money.

I note - and understand - your saying that as for editing any further on here, you think your time is best spent elsewhere. We all lead busy lives & have to juggle priorities. I hope your brief exposure to the 'innards' of WP haven't been totally unpleasant. If you'd edited an article with no COI, you'd have seen a much better side of WP - & indeed the better side of some well-intentioned though stressed editors. Maybe you'll one day spot bad grammar, spelling or ambiguity here, & again be bold & fix it.

I also agree with you that WP is much like some real-life people we've all met. All sorts of characters, some bad but mostly good, some easy to collaborate with, & others a bit more of a challenge.

So, ta for your kind words, and I do hope I'll answer your qns. before your patience expires. Best, Trafford09 (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Trafford09. As you can see, I'm still around. I like to peruse Wiki and will continue to do so. And yes, maybe if I catch some things that make me want to delve back in, I shall. Thing is, in RL I have a great deal of patience...working with a very diverse customer base all day long...but what I have little tolerance for is inconsideration by persons with a false sense of superiority, be it here, there, or anywhere. And, I agree, maybe if the COI as outlined here was not present I would have had a completley different experience. But, as we all know, in life you have but one chance to make that first impression : ) Anna laffey (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]