Marc R M Gauvin
Hello, Marc R M Gauvin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.
I notice that one of the first articles you edited 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 any other editor to proofread it. To start creating a draft article, just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit that page as you would any other. 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.
The one firm 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. It is also worth noting that Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which specifically link them to one company or corporation. If your username does have such a name, it would be advisable for you to request a change of username.
If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! You can also just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
- Hi Carol,
- Apologies if I am unwittingly doing something I shouldn't. I don't think my entry to the EC Riegel page represents a conflict of interest because it simply asserts s statement of fact and provides all means to verify that fact. I think that the information is valuable and relevant. Let me know what you think I should do.
- Regards,
- Please read WP:reliable sources which is the bigger issue. If you can find some other book or newspaper article or reliable newsletter that makes that connection, fine. But quoting yourself as the expert is a WP:conflict of interest. The only exception might be circumstances like your comment was published in a notable academic article or mainstream media publication, which is not the case. Just read through the policies. Note that some of the references currently in there aren't perfect, and need to be improved. However there is not a conflict of interest issue and some editors would find them acceptable, at least on a temporary basis. I note on article talk page there are a lot more new refs that can be added and I'll do so soon. CarolMooreDC 19:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Carol,
I don't see your point. There is no conflict of interest because I am not misrepresenting anything for my own benefit. What would be a conflict of interest, is if I were to comment on a competitor or another writer where I have a particular interest in representing a particular view to the detriment of another and therefore not supporting the interest of wikipedia. But in the case at hand, I am simply pointing out a common conclusion which cannot be disputed on with regards to BIBO Currency precisely because I am the author and is not disputable on the part of Riegel because it quotes the existing text that I know to be accurate as I have read Riegel's work.
I don't think that simply quoting one's self can constitute a conflict of interest more is required to establish that. As for the credibility of the source the references should be sufficient as they exist and have been made available to the public for some time.
Best regards,
Marc --Marc R M Gauvin (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't sound like you read the policies. Do you need some other editors to confirm it for you? CarolMooreDC 22:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Carol,
Yours is not a valid argument, I have read the policies but obviously do not interpret them as you do. You should not assume you are by default correct in the face of a complete proposition explaining my position. If you are unable to correct my reasoning then you cannot assume that your interpretation is correct. There is no unfair or misleading representations taking place, there is no possible victim be it Wikipedia, Riegel or myself. If there is no victim and what I write cannot in anyway be considered as a misrepresentation, then what concretely are the grounds for your objection. I think that you are simply reacting to the fact that I quote myself but as I said that alone does not constitute a conflict of interest, because if that were the case then there would be a rule to that affect and there is no such rule and if there were it would be very difficult to sustain.
Regards,
Marc
Please see Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#New editor needs WP:COI and WP:RS explanations. You may respond there if you wish. If someone tries to add mention of their own work to articles (as you did here) it is generally frowned upon. Unless you can find a consensus of editors to support your changes, sanctions are possible. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't occur to me to tell Marc. Which just shows after 5 years there is so much to learn. Editing here definitely can be a long term commitment. CarolMooreDC 18:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)