Talk:William Arceneaux

Conflict of Interest
This article was created by, who has stated on her user talk page that she is "Web Woman for Louisiana Public Broadcasting" (later switched to "Web Team"). Subject has been on the board of LPB, and continues on some specialty board there. That is a disclosure of paid editing, albeit not in the proper form by today's rules. Minor further editing has been done by, whose user name and edit history suggests a connection to the same institution, with no disclosure. I have tried to strip out the most problematic stuff, but have not done a thorough cleansing job; the article needs more attention. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Uncertain as to the conflict. I am diligently trying to follow the correct procedures to share facts and information. I have done extensive research and reading to understand the ground rules and strive to uphold the highest of integrity in all that I do. Wikipedia is quite formidable. Your guidance is appreciated. WebLPB has only provided the better photograph so that the copyright could be legally and correctly claimed and transferred. Just now, I had to add Alfred to the book title which had disappeared "Acadian General Alfred Mouton and the Civil War" quick reference: https://www.amazon.com/Acadian-General-Alfred-Mouton-Civil/dp/0940984008 I am part of the web team for Louisiana Public Broadcasting and currently the only woman on the team. I was surprised that Dr. Arceneaux did not have any presence yet on wikipedia. --Jeanne Webre Lamy (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Whether or not editing Wikipedia is part of your job with LPB, you are in the employ of LPB (if I understand the descriptor "web team" correctly) and thus have incentive to serve LPB's goals rather than Wikipedia's goals when editing pages or statements related to LPB, which the subject of this article clearly is. That is a conflict of interest, and should be disclosed when editing. (And, having said that, a little web searching suggests that you may have conflicts beyond just the LPB-related one.)The conflict of interest flag gets put on an article when it appears to contain material where an editor's conflict of interest is likely to have caused inappropriate content, which was the case with this article with such subjective or promotional descriptors as the subject being "accomplished" or that he is "pursuing opportunities in education, culture, careers, and economics for all Louisianians." Even when one is of good intent, the biases that come with a conflict of interest can seep through into the editing. Believe me, I know that it can be frustrating to curb one's editing on matters where one has direct knowledge; among the pages that I keep an eye on here are pages where I have a conflict, and as much as it would please me to just go and "fix" things directly where there is an oversight, I try to raise issues on the talk page rather than directly edit for anything but fairly mechanical corrections, stating my conflict when I do -- and when I do even mechanical corrections (and I'd say adding Alfred to the title qualifies), I state that I have a conflict in the edit summary, so that other editors can take that into account when evaluating my edit. So the quick version of editing with a conflict of interest is 1) be aware when you have a conflict; 2) avoid direct editing when there is any chance that your edit will be perceived as serving the source of your conflict (posting something on the talk page is fine); 3) announce your conflict when doing any related editing, whether directly or in a talk page discussion. There are stronger rules for paid editing, but those basics should get you through concerns of non-paid conflict of interest (or "COI", as you may see it abbreviated.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the further explanation. My personal effort has been to document a career, on the appropriate web channel, without pay or promotion or conflict. The joy of learning and achieving pushes me to explore new skills. My inexperience to the venue has been a major challenge. The article is much more bare bones and straight forward currently. I appreciate your help and guidance. What do I need to do now? Thanking you in advance for your continued help! --Jeanne Webre Lamy (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I corrected the misspelling of "received" (i before e except after c) which one of the editors made. --Jeanne Webre Lamy (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webrlamy (talk • contribs)