User talk:Abbycruz44

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Abbycruz44. 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 organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * 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 Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Ollie, all "Conflict of Interest" issues aside, I believe wikipedia to be an excellent source of honest information, for the people and by the people, and Mr. McGee's article of eyewitnessed suicides and procedures taken by workers on the Golden Gate Bridge to deal with jumpers, is heartfelt and very insightful. I'm sorry but i must disagree with you about its relevance to the Bridge. Listen, I no longer work for the Argonaut, and the publicity of this article makes no difference to me or Mr. McGee as he received no money for the article, I just believe it to be a significant piece of the Golden gate Bridge, and if not in the Golden Gate Bridge category it certainly is relevant to the Suicides at the Golden Gate Bridge category. Thank you for your time and please reconsider allowing this article to be a "reference" and if my formatting is in error please suggest a way it can be submitted. Thank You
 * Ping for User:Abbycruz44.  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * MrOllie did not ping you to "my talk page" I pinged him here, in case he wants to reply to your comment above. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Abbycruz44, it appears you are adding references just for the sake of adding them which is not how things work on Wikipedia. Sources should be added to support relevant content as a citation.  You cannot simply pile onto the references section.  They need to support content in the article, whether new content or existing. Otherwise, what you doing is considered disruptive, even if unintentional.  S0091 (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, your conflict of interest is not an "aside". It is a major point here.  You may not have one but either way, you do need to address it. Apologies if this comes across as badgering;  that is not my intent but just making sure all issues are addressed.  S0091 (talk)

I don't consider it badgering, i know you are saying what you think is right. I just had a much different understanding as to what wikipedia really was. I thought it was a place people could go to help others learn the truth. I wanted to reference an article that i believe has absolute relevance to the two stories i attached it to. I have no affiliation to the author and I do not work for the publisher. I just really think those who are wanting to learn truths about the Golden Gate Bridge cannot ask for a better source than Mr. McGee who worked on the Bridge for years. When i try to reference the article I get a barrage of technical infractions I have committed. Not one person has said, perhaps it is good information, how about if I help you add it to the reference list. No, I have nothing but WIKI-POLICE deleting my reference the moment they see it. ENTITLEMENT thwarts learning! Thank youAbbycruz44 (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Conflicts of interest aren't strictly financial - it is natural to be proud of things one has worked on and to want to share those things with others, which seems to be your (and User:Rpmcgee715's) motivation here. But Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information related to various topics, it is a place to write encyclopedia articles. An example I like to use is that a local plumber's phone number is relevant to the article on plumbing, but we don't list that because Wikipedia isn't the phone book: neither is it a list of links or a reading list. I've looked over Mr. McGee's article, and while it was an interesting read, by its nature it was very subjective and did not seem to be the kind of factual reference we would use to build out an encyclopedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * First, thank you for addressing the possible conflict of interest. I do understand where you are coming from, but as weird as this may sound, Wikipedia is not interested in the "truth", as that is a heavy word with many different meanings which is relative to one's experience and position. Wikipedia is simply an encyclopedia that summarizes what reliable sources say about a subject, nothing more.  If you believe the source you have is reliable (meaning has a reputation of fact checking and is independent of the subject) and other's disagree by reverting your changes, the appropriate action to take is to post a message on article's talk page with your proposed content, along with the source, so you can gain consensus for the addition (be sure to click on that blue link and read the material).  These things happen all the time here and this is how the Wikipedia community has agreed to resolve these type of issues  (again, through consensus).  If you decide to move forward with this advice, you may find WP:TP helpful. S0091 (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I don't want to keep wasting your time with all this, but I have one more point I wanted to bring up. By your explanation of what Wikipedia is, I can see how you may consider Mr McGees article "subjective" but I know most of the publications listed in the reference categories of both Golden Gate Bridge and Suicides on the Golden Gate Bridge and I know several of them to be purely subjective...namely "The Bridge" by Eric Steele. My question is, do I have the right, I as part of the wikipedia "community" to erase his reference as I find it 100 percent subjective. His accounts of jumpers was eyewitness accounts just as Mr McGee's were, but his were obtained illegally. Thank you for your time and I am really not trying to be a nuisance, I'm just trying to figure out what Wikipedia really is and if it truly is a forum of information. Thanks again Abbycruz44 (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)