CarolineHeldman

January 2013

Hello, CarolineHeldman. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Caroline Heldman, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 02:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, CarolineHeldman, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Darkness Shines (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Hello

Hello Caroline. I have taken my pruning shears to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lisa Wade. You may not like what I did, but take my word for it, I have increased the article's chances of being accepted. Relevant guidelines for notability here are WP:GNG and WP:PROF. If you wish to improve the article, and you care for my advice, adding reviews of Dr. Wade's work is a good idea. GNG and PROF both need secondary sourcing, and that is, as yet, lacking in the draft. Besides, it is perfectly possible for the blog, for instance, to be notable (by our guidelines) without the person writing it to be notable, as odd as that may sound. I have also applied said shears to the article for the blog and to an article called Caroline Heldman, a topic you may or may not be familiar with--and that may also be a bit problematic. Please see our guidelines for conflicts of interest. Anyway, I wanted to drop you a line so you won't be too shocked when you look at those articles. FWIW, I'm an administrator here as well as a (non-notable) professor, and I've edited quite a number of such biographies. That doesn't make me infallible, far from it, but I do have some experience. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

RESPONSE: You might be of the opinion that you are being helpful, but in actuality, you have made my page so laughably inaccurate as to not be useful because you aren't a good judge of reputable links. For example, you removed reference to Occidental College, a top-tier liberal arts campus that has been around for over 100 years, because you deemed it not reputable (!) I have heard from several people who have tried to add content to my page that you have made similar decisions which frankly make little sense. My page has so many inaccuracies in basic ways (e.g., I'm not a gender studies professor, I'm a Political Scientist who has appeared on over 500 news programs in the past five years -- facts you removed, despite links to videos of my television appearances!) that it's a useless source of information. Please stop "helping" in this way as you are clearly unfit to determine whether a source is reputable or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolineHeldman (talk • contribs)

• No, I removed a mention of a teaching award at said college; I didn't say the college or a link to it is not reputable. Such awards are simply not notable by Wikipedia's standards--that they are important at the college and for the person is of course a different thing. If the gender studies note is inaccurate, you can take that up with ABC News: "Caroline Heldman, professor at Occidental College who specializes in gender studies". We can publish what reliable sources say. Videos of TV appearances are primary sources, and Wikipedia articles must rely on secondary sources: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. In addition, such phrasing appears to be promotional, or at least resume-style. I'm sorry you think I am unfit to judge your sources; you are welcome, for instance, to type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone totally uninvolved can help you address this issue. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)