User talk:CanadianBiographies1111

Welcome!

Hello, CanadianBiographies1111, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Personalized message

Hi, I noticed at the talkpage of senior administrator DGG, you mentioned your personal relationship with ‎Laura Safran, which we call a "connected contributor". More formally this puts you in a position of potential conflict of interest, which comes with certain obligations and potential risks in the Wikipedia community. I'll post a boilerplate message below in a moment, but thought I should first leave this more personalized note. - Brianhe (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brianhe, I suppose I am "connected" insofar as having met Ms. Safran at a party and, after learning what she did, mentioning that I have mounted a variety of profiles upon WIKI pertaining to various notables....and then, thereafter, based upon the bio details she disclosed to me, I suppose I urged her to consider the creation of a WIKI listing too. So If that sole connection/advice constitutes a personal relationship, then I guess I must have far more personal relationships in my life than I actually have. That said, if I advise somebody to do something, even if it is a third party, and if that advice proves invalid, then I feel it reflects badly upon me, and it does not make me feel good about myself. Basically, I can count the email interactions I've had with Ms. Safran on one hand, and that is hardly a personal relationship of note. In any case, I appreciate your input, but thought you should consider my clarification. Thanks.

CanadianBiographies1111 (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed an apparent COI to have had real-world, face to face contact and repeated emails with a Wikipedia biography subject, so please do read the guidelines and thanks for being clear with us on this. Brianhe (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brianhe. Yes, thanks, I did so in full disclosure since I feel "guilty" for having prodded Ms. Safran to obtain a WIKI listing, when she actually resisted the entire concept from square one...and she did so, NOT from any animosity toward Wikipedia but rather from concern that such a WIKI listing might lead to a future invasion of her privacy, or potential resentments from those in her professional sphere who do not also have a WIKI listing. So, it actually took some persuasion on my part to indicate that a WIKI listing likely would be more beneficial than harmful, and that, essentially, it would serve primarily to aggregate/consolidate info already out there on the internet, via a Google search. Interestingly, Ms. Safran's only sharp objection to the final WIKI listing is that it revealed her age and, like so many women, she was horrified that clients/associates/etc. might discover her actual age. Brianhe, I will examine the guidelines you instructed me to read, I skimmed the material many moons ago, so it is worth refreshing my fading memory. Thanks, again.

CanadianBiographies1111 (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo CanadianBiographies1111: I saw your note on DGG's page and was worried too. WikiPedia is not like a biographical directory where people choose to be included or not. It's not Ms Safran's decision as to whether or not she has an article, and it's not up to her to disclose information to a potential editor. Any article needs to be written using reliable independent published sources, by editors without WP:COI. So you shouldn't have been "prodding" her to "obtain a WIKI listing", but instead you should have been considering whether she would pass our tests of notability (WP:BIO or WP:GNG) and whether you had access to enough reliable published sources to create a worthwhile article. It's a different approach, but it's how Wikipedia works. Happy Editing. PamD 08:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PamD, thanks for the comment. You should understand that I encountered Ms. Safran at an event where she received an award and that is the basis of my original assumptions of her likely notability. That said, she did NOT provide any material to me of any kind, other than handing me a business card by which I could begin my investigation. Instead, I did all the legwork, primarily through many searches conducted via Google.ca, and there happened to be ample amounts of bio material that indicated notability, as per WIKI criteria. If I had discovered an absence of compelling news articles about her, I would have dropped the matter, from square one, but I did not have any problems locating items that indicated notability within her field. I suppose the term "prodding" is a bit extreme. I feel a WIKI listing can be an invasion of privacy and, in the case of somebody who I felt deserved one, a person with whom I had made personal contact, it seemed only appropriate that she grant permission for the entire endeavor. In the end, she seemed pleased, although as I mentioned on another comment page, she was most unhappy about having her birthdate revealed by another editor, since the WIKI listing happened to be the only source info to reveal her age anywhere on the internet.

CanadianBiographies1111 (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understood your "based upon the bio details she disclosed to me" to imply that she had provided you with some information. But in any case, it's not up to her to "grant permission" for a Wikipedia article. PamD 21:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This whole conversation reveals some odd ideas about what Wikipedia (not WIKI) is and why we work here. This is an encyclopedia of information about all sorts of things, some of which are biographies. People come and work mostly on a volunteer basis to contribute to humanity's free knowledge base. Like PamD said, permission is not required. Canadian B, I suggest strongly that you read five pillars before making embarrassing statements. And consider, too, that people's preferences for privacy are not necessarily gender dependent. - Brianhe (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pam D, the bio details provided me consisted of her name, the name of her law firm, and the title of her legal speciality (aviation law), in which she is a leading and published figure....plus, at the venue of our first meeting, I am now reminded that she handed me a program of the award event I attended, that honored her as one of a select number of the most powerful women in Canada. As such, the biz card and program constituted the bio details disclosed to me that launched my investigation. Brianhe, the concept of female privacy may violate the orthodoxy taught at a gender studies program in college but I have found that most older women do not like to reveal their age and that one aspect of the WIKI bio is the one thing that upset her in a very significant way. Some time ago, she contacted me to intervene and remove the birthdate, but I told her I have no control over the actions of other WIKI editors. To that effect, I finally received correspondence from Ms. Safran in which she indicates that she will NOT cooperate in fighting the removal of her WIKI listing by supplying me extra info, and that is predicated primarily upon her desire to keep her real age hidden from public view. I must say I was a bit surprised since, many moons ago, she told me she was pleased with her WIKI listing.... but she stated there is more than ample bio info on the internet via a Google search indicating her notability within her profession (e.g., Queens Counsel...one of the first female senior execs to serve within an aviation corp in the entire world.....the author of seminal encyclopedic material concerning aviation law in that has stood as the only primary legal reference for many years.....a Chambers Global Tier One attorney in aviation, etc. etc). and none of that bio material reveals her age and, in that one aspect, she is "most relieved" to learn of the WIKI listing removal, since she is very adamant that, from now and in the future, she does not want intimates nor third parties to be aware of that detail. Finally, I should note that I utilize the term, WIKI, merely as a convenient abbreviation and not with any intent to tarnish the name of Wikipedia. OK, thank you very much to all concerned parties, as it seems my role addressing this particular matter is finished, and I best now turn my attentions to other exigent matters within my life. Thanks for the new lessons re WIKI editing methods and good luck to all.

CanadianBiographies1111 (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this has to do with gender studies classes (I never took one but I do treat women like regular ol' human beings) and I wasn't going to reply again. But since she seems to be concerned about it and you don't seem aware that just deleting a Wikipedia article doesn't change the whole Internet's status quo, the info is out there: panjury.com, howold.co, etc. Not to mention an agency website of the UK government indexing Canadian Airlines. And now in Wikipedia mirrors like deletionpedia.org and wikibin.org. It's pretty inevitable for a public figure. - Brianhe (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Brianhe, I did find a Deletionpedia article on Ms. Safran and I guess, as an older fellow, I was not conversant with that kind of thing. I asked a young kid I know who spends most of his life in the cybersphere what his generation thinks about Deletionpedia and he told me that his "peeps" considers it to be "far more cool" (sic) to be listed in Deletionpedia today than on Wikipedia......he told me all the "cool" controversial rebels can be found there, especially in terms of music, while the mainstream types are reserved for WIKI. Well, that's certainly an interesting perspective......and I will send Ms. Safran an email to let her know that, thanks to her deletion from WIKI, an older lady in aviation law just became super "cool" in the eyes of the younger crowd. Very funny!

CanadianBiographies1111 (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia

Hello, CanadianBiographies1111. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. - Brianhe (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]