User talk:Robertmccord1279

Hello, Robertmccord1279. 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 conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. _signed,Willondon (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Willondon.

Thank you for your input.

I'm writing to ask how we can get appropriate corrections made to the Wikipedia profile of Robert McCord – or, barring that, how I can have the Wikipedia entry simply deleted.

Admittedly, I am a personal colleague of Rob’s, but I think you and your team should consider what appears to be your bias. That bias is that when somebody gets into legal trouble, you amplify that as the ONLY fact worth highlighting.

I tried to update the profile of Rob – with clear recognition of his legal troubles but also with other information. I did this because your current profile is significantly out-of-date and has a significant amount of incorrect information embedded in it.

Your photograph of Rob is 15 years old. You lack data about what Rob has done (including in philanthropy and real estate development and direct services) in the past decade. And that is just to name a few of the many factual errors.

In the update I provided, I served up links to independent 3rd-party sources for each set of facts. There was nothing incorrect or misleading in the profile I provided. Nor did it fail to point out Rob's resignation and subsequent incarceration.

I was genuinely under the impression Wikipedia sought to provide a full, accurate picture (even if it has to be abbreviated), and not just focus on scandals.

If you do want to provide an up-to-date and accurate full picture of Rob, complete with recent actual photos, I would be happy to help.

If an accurate update is of no interest, I would ask that Wikipedia delete/pull down the post. It is exceptionally negative and as someone who works with him, I can assure you it is not a fair depiction of who he is. He has already paid quite the price for what many argued was not actually a violation of campaign law. If we can resolve this, I would be happy to arrange a phone call if prefered.

Your posting fails to provide an accurate update and serves primarily to increase the penalty paid by somebody who already “served his time.”

There were accomplishments before Rob got in trouble. There were accomplishments after.

Again, if I can't have the page updated, I would like to respectfully as that Rob's page is taken down.

I look forward to hearing from you. Robertmccord1279 (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you didn't find the canned advice above useful for you ("avoid editing or creating articles about [...] family, friends, colleagues [...]").

So, if you are to edit with a conflict of interest (you've identified yourself as a personal colleague), you need to declare such by following directions at WP:DISCLOSE. I placed a {{Connected contributor}} template on the article's talk page. The talk page is where you should be posting suggestions for change now. I'm not expert enough to know if there are distinctions to be made between actual compensated editing and just friendly affiliation; you may not have to make any other declaration.
I think getting the article removed would be very difficult. The most common grounds would be that the subject is not notable, and many secondary sources have been supplied to say he is.
Now to the content: This sounds tedious, but when you post to the talk page to suggest changes, you are best to do it in small chunks, preferably grouped by the nature of the change, e.g. simple data correction, removing unsourced content, adding content (sourced, of course), changing the lede to more accurately reflect the article body, challenging sourced content that may be inadequately or unreliably sourced, etc. Otherwise, a reversing editor is more likely to throw the baby out with the bathwater rather than take the time to sort out parts they don't object to.
An easy issue for starters might be: one change I saw is from "76th Treasurer of Pennsylvania" to "45th". Checking the article for ToP, the list seems to indicate that he is the 76th. Why the discrepancy? Where does 45th come from?
An example of phrases that may get an edit reverted are vague, unverifiable statements and/or puffery, such as "instructive life experiences", "high achievers", "top-tier formal education", etc.
Some content such as "currently running 15 real estate development projects", even if verifiable, may be rejected without a reliable secondary source that would suggest the fact is noteworthy.

Having a relationship with the subject doesn't mean you are barred from editing, but it should be done as described above, through the talk page. Having an "up-to-date and accurate full picture" is close to Wikipedia's goals, except for the "full" part. Wikipedia is based on what reliable secondary sources have said about a topic, and doesn't accept personal knowledge, or aim to provide every piece of knowledge about a topic. Not that your bias is wrong or inaccurate, but it may forever hinder you from accepting that the article will never be a full and accurate picture of the man you know. If you're willing to be patient, and accept how the crowd-sourced community arrives at decisions, I'm willing to help with any questions at all. Best. _signed,Willondon (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]