User talk:Zoeykennedy1

February 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Patrick M. Collins. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 21:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bonadea, I significantly updated the page last week and removed a ton of text, including anything that sounded like an advertisement. By doing such a complete overhaul, I thought removing the maintenance tags was warranted. I'm also confused by what constitutes a secondary source: Most of the articles cited in the wiki do take you to external secondary sources, i.e, newspaper articles, etc. Can you please give me an example, using the existing article, of how I could add a valid secondary source? I honestly can find no promotional language in the text now, but if you disagree with that, can you please point to specific language in the existing text? I would really appreciate that. Also, it is not true that no other wiki articles link to it; here's an example of several: Rod_Blagojevich_corruption_charges; David_H._Hoffman; and Pat_Quinn_(politician). And finally, can you please give me a little more guidance as to why would it be a conflict of interest for me to edit this article? I am absolutely committed to being neutral; I simply want to get the facts about Mr. Collins and his accomplishments posted to the page. I have no interest in doing anything other than that. Creating a promotional piece about Mr. Collins is not my intent! His notability is established by his role as a former federal prosecutor in notable cases (notably, the conviction of Governor George Ryan), and in his appointment by a current governor to chair an ethics reform commission in a state with a history of corruption. Those are just the facts. Please let me know what I can do to satisfy your concerns. Thank you in advance! Zoeykennedy1 (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Patrick M. Collins, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please do not remove the templates until after the issues have been addressed. Reliable secondary sources are missing (almost every source in the article is a primary source), notability is not shown (since there are no secondary sources), the article contains a lot of promotional language, and no other Wikipedia article links to it - so all four maintenance tags are still very relevant.

The template is placed on the article in order to help improve it, to alert interested editors to the fact that the article is in need of editing. Removing such tags before the issues have been fixed is detrimental to the encyclopedia as a whole. Please focus on finding reliable sources for the person's notability instead. Thank you! bonadea contributions talk 13:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message on my talk page. Your work to improve the encyclopedia is much appreciated, and the article now appears to be relatively well-sourced, even though the coverage of Collins in secondary sources is a little scanty (most of the mentions are what we'd call "trivial" rather than "significant" - that is, they are brief mentions of Collins in newspaper articles about other subjects) and so notability still appears to be borderline. For more information about notability and significant coverage in secondary sources, please have a look at this policy. I'm not sure what you mean by your statement that the maintenance template make the page look "unprofessional" - on the contrary, those templates are used by editors in their efforts to improve Wikipedia, and many Wikipedia articles have them. Removing maintenance articles in case they should make the subject of the article look bad is not productive.

Finally, I noticed that a person by the name you used on my talk page is employed by the firm Collins works for. If that is you, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should 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.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant 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! --bonadea contributions talk 09:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your new message - it looks as if you hadn't yet seen my above message, which hopefully clarifies matters. I have no knowledge about the person so have no bias for or against him. As for your comment "The site was just created so how can you expect other sites to already link to it." -- the "This article is orphaned" tag doesn't refer to external sites but to other Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia articles that have few links from other relevant articles are less likely to be found, read, and improved. Please see this information. --bonadea contributions talk 13:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

This is your last warning; the next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Patrick M. Collins, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. bonadea contributions talk 05:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

{{adminhelp}} I'm requesting help to deal with an ongoing issue related to my efforts to edit this article about Patrick M. Collins. We both work for the same firm, Perkins Coie, but my intention was to create an unbiased article that is completely fact-based and informative. I realize that my work on this article constitutes a potential conflict, so I'm asking for your help in identifying some practical, doable steps I can take, with the help of the Wiki community, to ensure that the article passes muster with Wiki editors. Thank you so much! Zoeykennedy1 (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, tricky. I take it you have already read WP:COI, or you would not be asking. The main problem is that you are probably more or less the only editor, so there's no one for you to work with (if there were several uninvolved editors, I would suggest making all your edits via the talk page and let the other editors put them in). That you can't do as there are no other main editors. I would suggest one of two possible paths.

Have it userfied. That means it moves to User:Zoeykennedy1/Patrick M. Collins, there you can edit it to your heart's content and have less issues with editors planting tags. Top the page with a {{userspace draft}}. When you think it's good then get some feedback at WP:RFF - when you get it good enough then move it back or request a move at WP:RM.
Edit it where it is, but be more careful with the editing as it's in article space. You can still get feedback at WP:RFF.

Also place a short text on the article talk page explaining your COI, and your intentions. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you go for No.1 you can move it yourself, or ask me or another to do it for you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]