User talk:Intrinsicdignity

Your submission at Articles for creation

Good News Club, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Lugia2453 (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Hokie RNB 19:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like there is more than a potential conflict of interest here. May I ask you to do the following:

Read WP:COI
State on your user page if you do have a conflict of interest.
under "External links" or in the text of the article, post some sources that you consider "tell the other side" fairly and without hype?

This will help everybody decide if there is a real COI and whether you can present an NPOV. Thanks for your help. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I deny HokieRNB's assertion that my submission on the "Good News Club" presents a "conflict of interest." Wikipedia's policy clearly states that "subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while being careful to make sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia." The policy further states that "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." Wikipedia's policy also connects COIs with "advancing outside interests" and "external relationships." None of that is applicable. As an attorney, I have worked on numerous First Amendment religious cases and authored and co-authored a handful articles on religious and legal issues, including "Texas Regulation of Religious Higher Education," in which I advocated in favor of evangelical colleges' right to use the term "seminary" and issue religious degrees with minimal governmental interference.

Most recently, I psuedonymously authored the (http://www.goodnewsclubs.info), a site that includes an in-depth and extensively sourced review of the history, curriculum, theological perspective, and pedagogical approach of the Good News Club as well as extensive factual and legal analysis. In that site, I identify sources either directly or in meta-tags, the contents of which are revealed when one hovers the mouse over the text. In connection with my website, I am a subject matter expert in a relatively narrow field: neither paid, employed, nor related to any external interest. Furthermore, the insights I offer in that website differ remarkably from the philosophy and POV advanced by typical "strict" church-state separation advocates.

Most importantly, the article submitted on the Wikipedia "Good News Club" article, while citing actual published criticism, presents balance and differs from the critical POV I express in (http://www.goodnewsclubs.info). The article includes several citations linked to CEF's website, which clearly present CEF's POV, and a link to CEF's own website in the original "external links." The article, moreover, includes numerous citations to CEF's own publications, which present their own POV. intrinsicdignity 01:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just trying to find out who's who. I've reverted a couple of the deletions. What you need to do is document the sources where the "citation needed" tag is. This doesn't have to be an on-line source, just the title, author, date, newspaper is fine. If you need help formatting the footnotes, just ask.

If I were you,

I would not put in any additional cites to the goodnewsclub website, it could be viewed as not being a reliable source by our definition, or perhaps as quoting yourself - which is not exactly against the rules, but ...
Change your user name from intrinsicdignity, which might be viewed as the name of an organization. User names must be for individuals, not organizations.
Or - IF you've ever legally represented either organization - just withdraw from any articles related to that organization.

Hope this helps. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Smallbones. I documented the sources you requested. In one of the reversions that was deleted, I removed the one existing citation to the goodnewsclubs website, replacing it with citations to CEF materials. Although I note the fact that Wikipedia does not require that citations be exclusively to non-biased sources, I'll leave it to the discretion of you or other editors whether to restore a link to that website in under "external links." I haven't figured out how to change my username, but I would be happy to do so if given some direction. intrinsicdignity 03:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Changing username The easiest solution might be to just create a new username without doing the formal change process. You would then have to link the two user pages, very briefly explain why you got the new account, and then never use this account ever again. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]