User talk:Lvfreddy

Welcome!

Hello, Lvfreddy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Gordon Hogg, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

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).

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lvfreddy (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC) lvfreddy I am wondering why my written work was taken down? it is completely factual. The information currently on the page has a lot of incorrect information. I am confused. please elaborate.[reply]

It was completely unsourced. Wikipedia articles are based on verifiability. Information should be cited to independent, reliable sources. Articles cannot be based on first-hand information from parties with conflicts of interest. Since you are working with Hogg's campaign, you have a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lvfreddy (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)lvfreddy thank you for your response. I am honestly just a volunteer who offered to update the page. it is not a conflict of interest. The information in the article is simply facts in chronological order - there is nothing other than that. I can and will source all of this information as it is completely true.[reply]

Lvfreddy (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)lvfreddy also, the original text was written by Gordons wife, many of the pages on here are written by people who KNOW about the content, this is not conflict of interest.[reply]

Please re-read WP:COI. The spouse of the subject absolutely has a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further, you said that Hogg had reviewed the text. That means you are working on behalf of Hogg—again, a conflict of interest. Just because you aren't a paid editor doesn't mean you're clear of a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lvfreddy (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)lvfreddy so because I 'know' Gordon through the community, I am a conflict of interest as well? Who is allowed to create pages? and if the only information that is 'valid' is from internet sources, written by someone who doesn't actually know the person, is that credible? I am just really confused why its being taken down. I will source/cite all the info, as it is all completely valid. once done, i hope that it will be left up.[reply]

Not so much internet sources as reliable sources. This means, among other things, coverage in newspapers. Newspapers have editorial staffs that review articles and fact-check them. That's why we strive to have all articles in Wikipedia backed up by reliable sources.

On the flip side, the only thing you have supporting the validity of your edits is you. There are no published sources to verify against. There's no way to vet the claim that you're connected with Hogg. That's why the article was reverted to its prior state: we'll go with what's supported by published sources until there is new information to add that is also backed up by published, reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lvfreddy (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)lvfreddy thank you for taking the time to walk me through all of this. I will take the time to gather all of my sources and have the bio rewritten so that the credibility of the information is visible. Thanks again.[reply]

Because of your conflict of interest, you may be better served to propose shorter, specific changes on the talk page of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Hello, I'm C.Fred. I noticed that you recently removed content from Template:Canadian federal election, 1993/Surrey—White Rock—South Langley without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Just because the Reform party has merged and/or rebranded itself does not mean it does not exist. —C.Fred (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lvfreddy (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC) lvfreddy[reply]

I understand your reasoning, but I don't understand why my edits are not being allowed? i am only writing with facts. It is not promotional, it is facts. I would like to know why Tracey Redies and Val Merideth were inserted into the page recently, they have never been mentioned on this page before. why are these edits allowed and mine are not?

I don't know what you mean by "recently". Meredith has been linked on the template and listed as the election winner since the template was created in 2013. —C.Fred (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of Meredith to the article about Hogg dates back to this edit on 5 November, when the 1993 federal election was added to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lvfreddy (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)lvfreddy I am referencing the info at the start of the bio, not just the template listed.[reply]

A Nanaimo bar for you

	Nanaimo bar
	For all the problems that some of your edits have created, I couldn't help but smile a bit at the edit summary for this one. Were it only that easy to rid our collective memories of Preston Manning… :) Or, let it not be said that all admins are humourless individuals. :) —C.Fred (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]